Woman charged with raping boy, 14

[KittenKoder]

For the record, I'd like to share with you what my 13-year-old said when I mentioned this conversation to him and suggested that he was able to make his own decisions about having sex. I quote:

"That is completely mouse-brained. The law is right, and it should be illegal for a grown-up to have sex with me. And anyone who thinks it shouldn't be is some kind of sicko."

I always love impassioned activists fighting for people to have rights those people don't want.

So if an adult woman approaches your son he will tell her he's not interested, right? Smart lad. Now, what if he said he was interested and had consensual sex with the adult woman? Should she be charged with a criminal offence? If so, then why shouldn't your son be charged with aiding and abetting?

If she's a good mom the law won't have to step in, the son would be punished by her.

 

[Diuretic]

If she's a good mom the law won't have to step in, the son would be punished by her.

Oh I have no doubt she's a good mother. I must admit to being a bit leery of couching the questions in a manner which appears to be personal. Of course that's not my intention. But since Cecilie gave a concrete example I had to stay with it.

My question is to anyone who holds that position. And again I make no apology for adopting a different perspective because in the example case the sexual advance is made by an adult woman, not an adult man. If the young male agrees to have sex with an adult woman then, if she is going to be charge with a criminal offence involving consensual sex, why shouldn't he be charged with aiding and abetting her offence. If he refused her there would have been no sex act, therefore no criminal act? Because he agreed then a criminal act took place. Why should he escape culpability?

 

[KittenKoder]

If she's a good mom the law won't have to step in, the son would be punished by her.

Oh I have no doubt she's a good mother. I must admit to being a bit leery of couching the questions in a manner which appears to be personal. Of course that's not my intention. But since Cecilie gave a concrete example I had to stay with it.

My question is to anyone who holds that position. And again I make no apology for adopting a different perspective because in the example case the sexual advance is made by an adult woman, not an adult man. If the young male agrees to have sex with an adult woman then, if she is going to be charge with a criminal offence involving consensual sex, why shouldn't he be charged with aiding and abetting her offence. If he refused her there would have been no sex act, therefore no criminal act? Because he agreed then a criminal act took place. Why should he escape culpability?

Aaah ... this is why the laws are and need to be in place in the beginning. Though the laws are not perfect and left too much open to "witch hunts" before DNA testing was usable, the children in question are incapable of understanding the difference. Their hormones are raging, and for males it is even easier to take advantage of these hormones than for girls (which is why fewer cases of statutory rape of boys ever make it to court), because of the hormones they are less likely to think the situation through. So yes, boys and girls are different, but boys are actually more vulnerable and learn even less from their mistakes in this matter.

 

[Diuretic]

Aaah ... this is why the laws are and need to be in place in the beginning. Though the laws are not perfect and left too much open to "witch hunts" before DNA testing was usable, the children in question are incapable of understanding the difference. Their hormones are raging, and for males it is even easier to take advantage of these hormones than for girls (which is why fewer cases of statutory rape of boys ever make it to court), because of the hormones they are less likely to think the situation through. So yes, boys and girls are different, but boys are actually more vulnerable and learn even less from their mistakes in this matter.

Do I think it's acceptable for an adult woman of a certain age to seduce a 14 year old boy? Hmmmm - dunno, I think of myself at 14 and I have to say I would have probably agreed if I thought she was a bit of alright.

Do I think a woman should be faced with prison for it? No. I don't think it should be criminalised.

I do think that an adult male going after a 14 year old female should be criminalised and the mongrel should be looking at what you would call county time.

Am I being hypocritical?

No. I'm simply able to discriminate between the effects on the "victim". I did the "victim" thing because I don't see the lad as a real victim but the girl, yes, she is a victim indeed.

 

[KittenKoder]

Aaah ... this is why the laws are and need to be in place in the beginning. Though the laws are not perfect and left too much open to "witch hunts" before DNA testing was usable, the children in question are incapable of understanding the difference. Their hormones are raging, and for males it is even easier to take advantage of these hormones than for girls (which is why fewer cases of statutory rape of boys ever make it to court), because of the hormones they are less likely to think the situation through. So yes, boys and girls are different, but boys are actually more vulnerable and learn even less from their mistakes in this matter.

Do I think it's acceptable for an adult woman of a certain age to seduce a 14 year old boy? Hmmmm - dunno, I think of myself at 14 and I have to say I would have probably agreed if I thought she was a bit of alright.

Do I think a woman should be faced with prison for it? No. I don't think it should be criminalised.

I do think that an adult male going after a 14 year old female should be criminalised and the mongrel should be looking at what you would call county time.

Am I being hypocritical?

No. I'm simply able to discriminate between the effects on the "victim". I did the "victim" thing because I don't see the lad as a real victim but the girl, yes, she is a victim indeed.

Since you are still thinking with only your hormones you should be considered 14 year old yourself. The effects on the victim ... that's just a lame excuse for being a hypocrite. Why? Because you don't seem to know the effects as much as you think you do, if you think the effects are different. Explain, exactly what effects you think occur to either male of female pre-adults?

 

[Diuretic]

Since you are still thinking with only your hormones you should be considered 14 year old yourself. The effects on the victim ... that's just a lame excuse for being a hypocrite. Why? Because you don't seem to know the effects as much as you think you do, if you think the effects are different. Explain, exactly what effects you think occur to either male of female pre-adults?

It's not hypocrisy at all, I'm not suggesting one thing and doing another. I'm simply being consistent. All along in this thread I've argued that we're talking about two different things. So you can't even attack me for inconsistency, let alone hypocrisy. Is it hypocritical to point to the different nature of sexuality and the sexual experience for females and males? No, it's a demonstration of my ability to discriminate between the nature of a sexual situation where a woman is the instigator with a young male and how it differs from the sexual situation where a man is the instigator with a young female.

Elsewhere on the forums (could be in this thread, I don't remember) the hypocrisy inherent in two views of sexuality have been pointed out. Where a man has a lot of sexual conquests he's a stud, a woman does the same and she's a slut. That attitude is widespread and its rooted in a particular view of sexuality - an intensely hypocritical view of sexuality. If a man is having a lot of sexual conquests who is he having them with? Women? No, not "women", "sluts". Of course he won't deign to get serious with any of them, they're just there for his use. He'll find a "nice girl" to marry and of course we know "nice girls" don't have a lot of sex, they want to keep themselves for their husband. What a crock.

From that comes my understanding of the condemnation of the woman who goes after a young lad. She's breaking a taboo. But what if a young lad approaches her and he is flattered and consents to sex with him? Should she face prison because she accepted the overtures of a lad who is feeling the beginnings of his own sexuality and (probably without artfulness) makes an overture to an adult woman? Should she be charged? Should he be charged with aiding and abetting? Society gets in a tizz. Women are supposed to wait to be seduced, they're not supposed to be out there doing the seducing. That's what's causing the distress here. She is usurping the male prerogative. And in a patriarchal society that is a crime and she could go to prison for it.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Would you be so quick to say no if your son were given Herpes or a child by one of these sick bitches? Aids?

Knowingly giving anybody Aids without them having knowledge of the risks is what should be the crime there. Informed consent would require that if you know you have an STD you tell any partner beforehand.

That being said, I don't think one would need to be a naive teenaged boy to get seduced by the teacher in the example. Most men, legal adult or not, would follow the old Nike slogan there.

the double standard is rediculous. You think a 14 year old boy is thinking about AIDS and HERPES and PREGNANCY when looking to stick his dick into something? Certainly not like an actual adult would. I guess this is what happens when the porky's generation gets old enough to vote.

Um, I didn't say it was the 14-year-olds responsibility to ask, I said it was the carrier's responsibility to tell any partner prior to intercourse. In the world you seem to believe in, people turn 18 and stop being reckless.

There are exceptions to every rule, but precedents should not be set based on exceptions.

Policy should allow for exceptions whenever possible, though.

Canadian consent laws do consider grey areas in the matter of age vs consent, that are much more realistic. As I said, the age of consent in Canada is 14, with some room to consider things such as close age difference. I think Canadian laws are probably more suited to your argument and would argue that courts more often than not make decisions based on individual rather than a one law fits all basis. In doing this, your concerns about exceptions are addressed.

I'd agree the Canadian system when I looked it up years ago was better than America's system. Sounds like it's changed and I'll have to look up why. It addressed many of my concerns, but I wouldn't say all.

My, don't YOU have a negative attitude toward relationships.

My current one is great, but it’s true that I’ve had bad ones and I won’t be telling my kids to play the field.

Look at your own post. "If a predatory person is involved". That "if" was my point, Einstein. A high-school senior having sex with someone four years younger is very likely to be a predatory person, which is why the relationship is very likely to be a predatory one. Duh.

You don’t seem to be trying to understand what I’ve said. In order for age to be the standard to establish guilt, you would have to be able to say that it’s ALWAYS and INHERENTLY predatory for a senior to mate with a freshman. Your words were “very likely.” “Very likely” is not good enough to put somebody in prison and label them a sex offender. We need “beyond a reasonable doubt” and age alone should not constitute that.

And it has a lot to do with age. As I said, a four-year gap when you're an adolescent is a much bigger deal than when you're older,

Socially yes. But some 14-year-olds are as mature as the average 18-year-old.

because they are still growing and developing as people, and those years produce a marked difference in where each person is in that process. "Somebody" didn't "just decide to make an arbitrary standard". I realize this is incredibly hard for people like you to understand, but society didn't just pull the rules we live by out of its collective ass for the express purpose of pissing you off and ruining your fun. It developed them based on this funny little quirk we like to call "learning from history".

lol, our laws are seldom based upon learning from history, as our drug laws show. If you’re saying they established the age of consent based upon studies or some catastrophe I’d like to see the evidence for that. And as I said, this isn’t about my fun it’s about the government not destroying people who don’t deserve/need to be destroyed.

First of all, saying, "This used to be the norm" is, in fact, appealing to tradition. Go look up the word "tradition". Second, who says that's obvious? The fact that the necessities of a harsh, primitive world forced children to take on adult roles doesn't mean they were ready for it, that they did a particularly good job of it, or that it was a good thing. In fact, society clearly thought it was a bad thing, because one of the universally-accepted marks of civilization is that those who achieve it stop treating their children that way.

Appealing to tradition is a fallacy I’m familiar with because social conservatives use it often. Appeal to tradition is citing something as good only because it is traditional, or something as inferior because it is not traditional. My argument was that many societies functioned quite well when adulthood started at a time you consider childhood. Human sexuality hasn’t changed in any way that would render that moot. You may insist that things were changed because early sexuality was harming people all those years, but you may want to back that up in order for somebody who disagrees with you to accept it. I happen to think that things were changed, very recently, because people think college is required for all careers. Before that, getting married earlier than 18 was much more common.

Actually, it takes someone who clearly knows nothing about the topic, either teenagers or the law, to blithely suggest what you're suggesting, which is why I'm asking. It's always the people who've never had kids who get diarrhea of the mouth about the proper way to raise them. And I guess now I have my answer. "It doesn't take an expert" always means "I don't know jack shit".

Ad hominem is a fallacy. Try to remember that. But if you really get off on insulting people then don't let me spoil your fun. On political forums, it’s only the argument and evidence that counts. I consider the burden of proof low because I don’t like it when the government hurts people who didn’t hurt another. You have not explained to me why my alternative system would not work:

Informed consent can be based upon assessing if the alleged victim had the capacity to consent at the time of the sexual encounter. Here consent would be having a level of sophistication that allows them to understand the risks of what they're doing on a basic level. For example, if the victim didn't know where babies come from or that sex can give them STDs, they can't consent regardless of age, even if they're 30. If they were so intoxicated that they didn't know what was going on, obviously that's not consent either. But this would be a consideration if and only if the victim insists the encounter was consentual. However, probable cause can still be based upon age, since an older person doing a teen would USUALLY be exploitative.

For the record, I'd like to share with you what my 13-year-old said when I mentioned this conversation to him and suggested that he was able to make his own decisions about having sex. I quote:

"That is completely mouse-brained. The law is right, and it should be illegal for a grown-up to have sex with me. And anyone who thinks it shouldn't be is some kind of sicko."

I'm supposed to assume that your 13-year-old is exactly like or superior to every other 13-year-old?

 

[KittenKoder]

Since you are still thinking with only your hormones you should be considered 14 year old yourself. The effects on the victim ... that's just a lame excuse for being a hypocrite. Why? Because you don't seem to know the effects as much as you think you do, if you think the effects are different. Explain, exactly what effects you think occur to either male of female pre-adults?

Elsewhere on the forums (could be in this thread, I don't remember) the hypocrisy inherent in two views of sexuality have been pointed out. Where a man has a lot of sexual conquests he's a stud, a woman does the same and she's a slut. That attitude is widespread and its rooted in a particular view of sexuality - an intensely hypocritical view of sexuality. If a man is having a lot of sexual conquests who is he having them with? Women? No, not "women", "sluts". Of course he won't deign to get serious with any of them, they're just there for his use. He'll find a "nice girl" to marry and of course we know "nice girls" don't have a lot of sex, they want to keep themselves for their husband. What a crock.

From that comes my understanding of the condemnation of the woman who goes after a young lad. She's breaking a taboo. But what if a young lad approaches her and he is flattered and consents to sex with him? Should she face prison because she accepted the overtures of a lad who is feeling the beginnings of his own sexuality and (probably without artfulness) makes an overture to an adult woman? Should she be charged? Should he be charged with aiding and abetting? Society gets in a tizz. Women are supposed to wait to be seduced, they're not supposed to be out there doing the seducing. That's what's causing the distress here. She is usurping the male prerogative. And in a patriarchal society that is a crime and she could go to prison for it.

Okay ... the first part I concede, though next time don't sound like Pubicus. Bigot would have been the better word, you are correct that it wasn't hypocrisy and I apologize for the mistake.

However, all you have shown is still societies reaction and no effects on the actual child. This is what I was getting at, as well as showing that your views on women are backwards. Particularly this: Women are supposed to wait to be seduced. That is a throwback from a time when men "owned" women, and is minimalizing the role of women in courtship, taking all their choice away from them. Seduction should never be part of the relationship, at least at the beginning, for this creates the shallow relationships we so commonly see (like in Hollywood or on Springer). That flaw aside, the effects on the child are still the same regardless of gender, though the reaction of society varies because most of society does not consider what happens to the victim, only what they want the effects to be.

 

[Diuretic]

Okay ... the first part I concede, though next time don't sound like Pubicus. Bigot would have been the better word, you are correct that it wasn't hypocrisy and I apologize for the mistake.

However, all you have shown is still societies reaction and no effects on the actual child. This is what I was getting at, as well as showing that your views on women are backwards. Particularly this: Women are supposed to wait to be seduced. That is a throwback from a time when men "owned" women, and is minimalizing the role of women in courtship, taking all their choice away from them. Seduction should never be part of the relationship, at least at the beginning, for this creates the shallow relationships we so commonly see (like in Hollywood or on Springer). That flaw aside, the effects on the child are still the same regardless of gender, though the reaction of society varies because most of society does not consider what happens to the victim, only what they want the effects to be.

You're gracious but I didn't take the "hypocrisy" assertion as personal, it's a fair enough attack on a point that I think some of us don't properly understand. If I'm hypocritical then it should be pointed out.

Bigot. I'll put my hand up for being bigoted but I'd prefer not to explain why, it's just that I know in a particular way I am in fact a bigot and I have to deal with it. I'll never post a comment in the area of my bigotry though so hopefully I'll never be found out. It will be my dirty secret. I will give a clue though, it's not about sexuality.


My views on women might be backward, I don't know, but I don't have a problem with women doing the seducing, I was trying to represent the, can I say, “mainstream” attitudes. This is difficult because I'm thinking as I write but I'll try to lay it all out.

Let's get one thing straight though. Sexuality and sexual relations are determined by societal norms and the norm I'm looking at is the Anglo-Saxon western liberal democracy norm where certain stereotypes about sexual behaviour are assumed (assumed in the face of reality but that's another issue).

The “norm” sees the male as being the instigator of the sexual relationship. He goes after the female. They do the dance. She submits (I use that word deliberately but in a non-legal sense, in a legal sense she “consents&#8221 to his advances. All is right with the world.

Contrast this to the situation where a woman decides she is horny and goes out to get laid. What's the societal reaction? Before I get the 'excrement' (poor old Hugh Jackman, he should have said 'shit' and got it over with) kicked out of me let me say, yes, I get it, women are perfectly able to make the decision to go out and get laid. The societal reaction is, “slut”. Of course it's stupid, but there it is as a societal norm and in this discussion we're front and centre discussing societal norms so I won't be drawn into side discussions.

When an adult woman goes after an under-age male the societal norms are inflamed. See above. She is doing the seducing. That's a breach of the norms and the tribal elders get cranky. How dare she? It doesn't matter that the lad getting laid is consenting and as I pointed out may have even sought her out. She must be punished. But why is being punished? Is she damaging the lad? Is she hell. She is being punished for transgressing the sexual norms.

Contrast this with the prohibition on adult males seducing under-age girls. Go on, contrast it.

The adult male uses his experience to overcome her reluctance. Get it? The lad is eager, the lass is reluctant. She is reluctant, why? He is eager, why? She is reluctant and he is eager because the sexuality of males and females is different and the social context of male and female sexuality is different. Therefore they can't be treated the same and while criminalising the male to female under-age seduction is a social good, the criminalising of the female to under-age male is not a social good, it does harm to all concerned.

 

[KittenKoder]

We will have to concede that our experiences in this matter vary too much at this point to continue the debate. However, I don't use bigot as an insult really (though it's fun when people I don't like take it as such), I use it for it's meaning of placing an unbalanced importance on facts.

The flaw I so see which makes your stance bigoted is this one simple point, that you are assuming it doesn't damage boys, but it always damages girls.

 

[Diuretic]

Believe it or not I'm not taking anything personally, I know it's not intended, I'm just exploring the issues.

And I'm not saying I'm right, look I can be a stubborn bastard but what frustrates me is when I don't get my own views well and truly hammered. I feel uneasy when my own ideas aren't tested and found either valid or wanting. What happens then is that I start to doubt my own position. Stupid eh? It's because I reckon if I don't get tested and give a good defence then I'm going to be condemned to walking around with my head up my arse thinking I know what I'm on about. I'm not yet ready to be a Republican!
Sorry wingnuts, bit of irreverent humour there

Even as I was typing that last post I had this feeing in the back of my mind that I was going down the wrong track.

Can it damage boys? Let me say that I understand a parent's outrage. But at what point should the parent cease to have control over their son's sexuality? If he is responding to obvious overtures by an older woman and enters the relationship out of naievete but not complete ignorance, should she go to prison? I mean if he understands his own sexual impulses and sees a willing partner who can satisfy those desires, what's the problem?'

I don't know, I'm asking because I'm looking for a counter-position to my current thinking. This isn't mental tennis on my part, I'm not looking for an ace.

 

[KittenKoder]

Diuretic, nothing personal here either. Just intellectual debate without all the technical terms. One thing many people do neglect often is personal experience, which can and should sway our positions on anything, so not knocking your views, just pointing out the reasoning you may not have considered.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm looking at it as dispassionately as I can and also from a public policy point of view and that might make me seem to be a bit too rigid. But that goes with that position I suppose.

If I'm being hypocritical or intellectually dishonest in saying an adult male who seduces an under-age girl should be punished more harshly than an adult woman who seduces an under-age boy then I have to wear it because that's my position. If I keep thinking about this thought I will eventually start down the path of how far the state should intrude into consensual sexual relations and then I'll be stoned and given pariah status as happens to Agna on a regular basis so I might leave it there. While Agna has the protection of the brashness of youth I'm afraid I don't