"Consensual sex" is just sex.

[redqueen]

To say "consensual sex" implies that there is such a thing as "non consensual sex", which there isn’t. That’s rape. That is what it needs to be called. There is only sex or rape. Do not teach people that rape is just another type of sex. They are two very separate events. You wouldn’t say "breathing swimming" and "non breathing swimming", you say swimming and drowning.

http://socialnetworkhell.tumblr.com/post/88183086565/consensual-sex-is-just-sex-to-say-that-implies

[TexasProgresive]

1. Yup!

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. If someone is under age...they cannot consent...THAT is what it is referring to...

Even if they "consented" to sex...they cannot legally.

[redqueen]

4. Thats rape. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

12. Statutory rape has the potential to be both.

[Squinch]

13. Rape and sex are mutually exclusive. A minor CANNOT give consent, so it's non-consensual thus rape.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. A minor can give consent. What is legal and what is ethical are not the same...

For instance, a couple may have one person prosecuted, and I have seen this, for being above age, while the other is underage. That legally constitutes rape. But it can still ethically constitute consensual sex.

Age of consent laws are not as black and white as other laws which define sexual assault. For instance, the act of forcing oneself upon another sexually is rape because that very clearly defines that the victim never gave any form of consent and may even have resisted.

With statutory rape, both parties had the potential to give some form of consent. The law simply does not recognize the consent of the minor. But that is an issue of cognitive capacity. Which cannot always be generalized from age alone.

Whereas we would all argue that a 10 year old could not give consent. What about a 15 year old? At that point, whether or not that person could give consent must be measured by a psychological profile. And what if they find that the person was capable of comprehending the consequences of consent? According to the law, that person was the victim of statutory rape. But by any other measure, it was consensual sex.

[Squinch]

15. Again, a minor CANNOT give consent.

Whether someone thinks the minor should be able to give consent or not is not material. A minor CANNOT give consent. Therefore it is rape.

A 15 year old CANNOT give consent. It is not measured by a psychological profile, it is measured by the legal age of consent. There is no psychological profile that determines ability to consent to sex, and a man having sex with a minor does not get to justify his actions by saying, "she's older than her years."

Our legal system has decided that a 15 year old is NOT capable of comprehending the consequences of consent. So it is NOT consensual sex.

A. Minor. Cannot. Give. Consent.

Therefore it is rape.

[Gravitycollapse]

17. What your argument amounts to is the eschewing of reality...

Because it contradicts legal doctrine. That is unwise.

If the only measure for what constitutes sex is that it is at its very moment legally defined and endorsed under the law, then ethical considerations and ultimately reality itself become subordinate to law.

If you can conceive of a situation where two persons can possess the cognitive ability to knowingly consent to sex, yet at least one of them is under the legal age for consent, then you have traveled into a territory where law defines an ethical act as illegal. And that is what I'm talking about.

You can couch this inside of the idea that a "man" is taking advantage of a child, but what I am speaking about is not that. I am talking about the problem of reconciling contradictions between law and ethics.

You don't magically gain the ability to consent on the day you reach the age of consent. It isn't an on and off switch. You learn and grow to a point where it could be said you understand action and consequence. That could happen before or after you reach the legal age of consent. And, according to law, you cannot consent to sex even though you possess the mental faculties to do so.

Does that make sense? In that regard, you can have consensual sex that still legally constitutes statutory rape. That is what I mean.

[Squinch]

19. How does what I am saying differ from saying "statutory rape is rape" which you agree with below?

It is the same thing.

Statutory rape is sex with a minor. And if we are talking about the difference between law and ethics, I have no problem with saying that a man having sex with a 15 year old is not ethical in addition to being illegal.

I'm not couching anything. I am stating that if a man takes advantage of a child - and a 15 year old is a child - no matter how much she looks like she's 25, and no matter how aware she seems, it is still rape. And it isn't ethical.

A minor cannot consent.

Therefore, statutory rape is rape. Which you agree with.

[Gravitycollapse]

20. A 15 year old is of the legal age to consent in some states.

Other states have it set as low as 14. So your argument is predicated on the specific state in reference.

If for instance, we are talking about a state where the legal age of consent is 14 or 15, then you have to recognize that that 15 year old can consent.

Are you okay with admitting that? If you are, then are you not admitting that the reasoning behind setting the legal age of consent seems to be somewhat arbitrary. Because that 15 year old could travel to another state and suddenly he or she could not consent.

What is the point of an age of consent law?

[Squinch]

21. Barring Romeo and Juliet exceptions, no there are no states where 14 or 15 are the ages of consent.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_sexual_consent_in_the_United_States

Each US state has its own age of consent. State laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18.
The most common age is 16.[2]

age of consent 16 (30): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia

age of consent 17 (9): Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Wyoming

age of consent 18 (11): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin,1

[redqueen]

22. I think he's thinking of other countries.

I would love to meet the people who think middle school age kids are mentally and emotionally ready for sex.

[Squinch]

23. I'd prefer to stay far away from them.

[Gravitycollapse]

24. You did not answer my question. What is the point of having an age of consent?

Is it to enforce a false sense of protection? Or is it to protect those who genuinely lack the ability to give informed consent?

If it is the former, then your argument makes perfect sense. If it is the latter, you have to recognize the age of consent laws have the potential to prosecute a serious offense on behalf of a victim which knowingly consented to sex.

Age of consent laws codify an act as a serious criminal offense without regard to intent. I will not contest the incredible potential for manipulation by an 18 year old with a 15 year old. But is that manipulation so much different than if the younger person was 16? Why is one criminalized while the other is merely looked down upon?

Age of consent laws make sense when the minor does not exist along the upper limit. But as we approach the legal age of consent, we enter a territory which may actually be counter productive. And that is why each case demands unique evaluation.

And that is why I stand by my original statement that statutory rape has the potential to be both consensual sex and rape. At least under specific circumstance. That kind of contradiction in law is potentially very dangerous.

[Squinch]

25. It is not a false sense of protection. It is a protection.

We have two choices. We can either say, "Not before 16" or we can say to the 30 year old who wants to shag the 15 year old, "We're not setting a date here because, hey, maybe she's a really mature 15, so let's just play it by ear." Or worse, we can say that to your 18 year old. Seriously? You think that's the preferable option? And then, well, 15 isn't much different from 14 or 13, sooooo....

No, each case should not demand unique evaluation. Each case demanding a unique evaluation is tantamount to saying, "It's OK guys. You are thinking you might like to have sex with that 15 year old? Go right ahead and we'll work out the details later."

So we have a line in the sand. It's a protection. It isn't a false protection. It's a protection.

15 is 15. An older man does not need to be having sex with a 15 year old. And what does that mean, "when the minor exists along the upper limit?" How much of an upper limit do you think you are going to find among 15 year olds? How is that different from the creeps saying, "Well, she was really mature?"

Age of consent laws do regard intent. They regard the intent by an older person to be having sex with a 15 year old child. That intent is criminal, and it should be.

And I'll stand by my original statement. Rape and sex are mutually exclusive, and statutory rape is rape.

[Gravitycollapse]

51. The creepy assholes who talk about how "she acted older than her age..."

Are making a circus of reality. They latch onto a possible truth and use it to their own ends. What the creepy asshole is saying is in many ways very truthful about a lot of young people. But that truth has nothing to do with why they're saying it and it doesn't have anything to do with the victim. They take a truth and project it onto their own transgression in order to justify it.

What is the truth buried under the bullshit? That there is an immense level of variability among the intellectual and emotional faculties of teenagers and young adults. And as we sit upon a threshold for what constitutes informed consent, many of these persons have the ability to cross over or fall short.

Age of consent laws assume intent rather than try to define it based on evidence. Which is the exact opposite of trying to determine intent. They assume that an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is such an egregious ethical violation that it should be criminal. It does not say anything about the minds of the two persons. It aligns intent with age and in the process intent is subsumed under age.

The reason why age of consent laws are generally correct is that the alignment of maturity with age is also generally correct. But that can be said of all sorts of generalizations that, in the end, are wrong a disturbing amount of the time.

I am also suspicious that the very system which produces predatory men is also responsible for the enacting of laws regarding age of consent as a way of allowing hegemonic masculinity to continue to regulate the sexuality of teenagers under the guise of law. Rather than defining consent around intellectual or emotional capacity, they align consent with age. And does that not reflect the very kind of ideology which preoccupies the mind of sexual predators? That what defines sexual availability is age.

What I'm speaking to is a contradiction which grows stronger as the person approaches the age of consent that then inverts itself entirely once one surpasses the age of consent to the point where there is a general social obsession with deeply sexualizing 18 year olds. What we see is a need to regulate sexual purity. That is why the history behind statutory rape revolves around a fear of sexual corruption and carnality and sin and NOT around whether the young person in question is capable of understanding action and consequence or even whether he or she was injured in the process.

We see this in the culmination of a legal "tipping point" that is like a clock counting down to an age which, when time runs out, allows society to throw young adults to the wolves. That is the inversion. And what I think it demonstrates is that we as a society probably didn't care about the safety of the 15 year old. We cared about maintaining an image of safety.

When I say that statutory rape can be both consensual sex and rape, I am not saying that sex and rape are the same. They are not. The two are mutually exclusive concepts. But that proves my point that a law which has the potential to make these mutually exclusive concepts appear the same is an institution we need to question.

[JTFrog]

58. "statutory rape has the potential to be both consensual sex and rape."

Rape is Rape.

What the fuck is wrong with people?

This is why I can't stand DU anymore. This shit is just absurd. And look where you are posting this crap. Unfuckingbelievable.

[redqueen]

60. It's unreal, isn't it?

Goddess forbid anyone focus on clearly separating sex and rape.

Someone has to show up and do the Devil's Advocate routine (insert wanking smiley).

[Gravitycollapse]

68. Please read my other posts in here.

Instead of asking "what the fuck is wrong" with me. If you want to know what I'm talking about, read what I write.

[MADem]

54. Two minors have sex. Who's the rapist? They both engaged in what would legally be

perceived as non-consensual sex.

I didn't get specific about genders, there, either, so mix that up as you'd like.

The term exists because it has utility in certain situations. Unless you want to discuss two minors "raping" one another.

[BainsBane]

55. Neither would be considered guilty of statuatory rape in most states

There is a requirement for a certain age gap, and typically the offending person needs to be over 18. Gender is not the issue in any legal sense but that an adult preys upon a minor is. There are some high-profile cases were women have done just that.

Age of consent doesn't have anything to do with whether a minor can have sex with someone in their own peer group/age range, but when they can legally consent to sex with an adult.

[redqueen]

61. It's interesting how often this is brought up in threads about rape.

You'd think there were as many young men being jailed for rape unfairly as there are girls and young women being raped.

I see this kind of shit for exactly what it is.

[MADem]

64. What if they are both males? Both females?

My issue is the "lay down the law" attitude towards language.

The language, I think, is there for a reason. Intent counts. Two young men, or two young women--who's the rapist? It's a fair question.

[BainsBane]

66. The adult is the rapist. The person who breaks the law is the rapist

Sexual orientation has nothing to do it. The concept is a basic one: It is illegal for an adult to rape a child or a minor teen under the age of consent. Period. Jerry Sandusky is not a leading man in a romance novel. He is a sexual predator. The same holds true for the Catholic priests who molested teens or the female school teachers who rape their students.

[MADem]

74. No adults. That was my point. No priests, no perverts.

Two kids. Gender not important. No R and J laws (they aren't extant in every state).

Here's the only point I'm making. There are some "crimes" that are victimless. If they are underage, these two youngsters, they aren't having "consensual sex." They have no ability to GIVE consent. Legally.

But it's not rape, either.

My point is only this--some terms have utility, even if they might not be immediately apparent.

[BainsBane]

76. If they are both kids, there is no crime

You need to look at the laws. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm

[MADem]

79. That doesn't stop the state from bringing charges. See post 78. nt

[MADem]

63. Romeo and Juliet is not the law in all fifty states. Further, children below the age of consent

can and do prey on (and sometimes murder) adults. I've seen many cases where the offending person was under eighteen.

Famous case in MA right now:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/11/21/philip-chism-accused-raping-murdering-danvers-high-teacher-colleen-ritzer/jGdMVl1PumhF39uZ7lrbIN/story.html

Another example: http://nypost.com/2014/01/23/15-year-old-held-in-rape-bid/

Are these attackers, below the age of consent, unable to legally be responsible for their actions?

The first example tried to kill a woman while he was in lockup--they've got him in a high security "undisclosed location" because he's a murdering machine, apparently.

[BainsBane]

65. Your articles aren't don't deal with Romeo and Juliet cases

The first case is about a 14 year old who raped an adult, not teens who have sex. Your tabloid piece is about a 15 yr old who raped an adult. Neither have to do with statutory rape.
.

[redqueen]

69. And this is why ignore this obvious red herring every time.

It is disingenuous whataboutery.

Bringing that shit up in a thread about rape (which happens how many rimes every day?) is ... what it is.

[MADem]

78. You started this thread, and I thought it was about the definition of "consensual sex"

but hey, if you don't really want to talk about that issue, then fine.

I'll leave you with a link that illustrates precisely the sort of case I am talking about--this was a sexual relationship between two underaged teens, one slightly younger than the other, the younger the "aggressor/initiator"--but there was no coercion (though the state averred there was, initially).

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/462/462mass204.html

My only point is when you get into juvenile hall these things aren't quite so cut and dried.

[MADem]

75. No, those articles were illustrating my OTHER point, that children who are too young

to give consent can be, and sometimes are, the aggressors.

[redqueen]

16. Statutory rape is rape.

WTF are you doing?

[Gravitycollapse]

18. Statutory rape is rape, you are correct.

[seabeyond]

3. Bravo. Exactly. And of course I agree. Rape. Use the word. Nt

[redqueen]

6. Disagree strongly. I've been beat up, and I've been raped, and there is a world of difference.

I also find your definition incredibly simplistic. It doesn't just happen 'to your vagina'.

[Laffy Kat]

7. Sorry, Redqueen.

Didn't mean to offend or sound insensitive. I've never been raped. My apologies.

[redqueen]

8. No need to apologize...

There may be women who have, but who agree with you on this point. In fact I'm sure there are.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. It is a learning process. That was one of the simplest, humblest apologies I have seen on DU

Laffy Kat

[seabeyond]

10. i thought so also, when i read the post hours ago. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. yes and for some odd reason apologies has been on my mind today - evidently

I don't give good enough ones. Go figure.

[RiffRandell]

26. You mean for this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024117420#post134

You deserve it.

that you can continue to laugh at simple old jokes and enjoy being petted by these men.

sort of like their old pet dog, reminds me.

the picture I have of you in my mind when I see you posting.

a good old hunting dog. loyal. pet. pet. good doggie. here let me throw you another morsel ...

lord. You crack me up.

haha. Hilarious. truly LMAO over her.

You NEVER apologized TO ME. I was going to let it go, but since you and your mentor keep bringing it up, fuck it.

I want you exposed for the nasty person you two are. Keep it up!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. Are you seriously still wearing that raggedy old dress?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. Lol

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. You mad?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. You sound unhinged.

[BainsBane]

38. Rather than flipping out because of what you think

someone may be thinking, get over it; pass by. Try minding your own business for a change. You don't have a right to control people's thoughts, so quit trying. Your tantrums are a colossal bore. It's unfortunate you spend your days inventing excuses to attack other women, but that is your problem entirely. Deal with it, and leave this group out of your shit. No one here is interested.

[boston bean]

39. You know how many times I've forgiven people and they've never offered and apology.

I'm like, come on, we're grown ups here...

Many times, I've just decided it's not that important, or I deal in a way that keeps me safe. I don't keep on demanding apologies and hold it over everyone elses head because I didn't get one.

This shit has got to stop!

[BainsBane]

41. Some people live for conflict

Can't do anything about it but ignore them.

[RiffRandell]

42. I was willing to move on, but it keeps being brought up.

I'm willing to let it go; I've said it numerous times, but THEY won't.

You are better than them bb. I hope someday you realize that.

[boston bean]

44. Just move on, is my advice.

And I am not better than anyone else in this group. I like most everyone who posts here, and I respect them. Do I agree with every god damned thing, no. But I'm in more agreement than not. This groups serves a purpose. A purpose that I support. A place for likeminded feminists to discuss issues. As long as I'm host, that isn't changing.

This other bullshit, is just that, bullshit. So, if you are willing to move on, please do so. No one makes your fingers type anything on the keyboard, you do that all yourself. Just as I do.

I have had so much said about me, untrue allegations, how much sex I have questioned, whether I'm a prude, that I'm here to divide the always undivided DU, that I make DU suck, that I'm a troll. That I must have been sexually damaged to hold the opinions I do. It goes on and on and on. I ignore most of the shit.

[BainsBane]

46. Whereas I was told off

For not forgiving someone immediately after being insulted. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

[boston bean]

47. An apology is always nice. It's up to the wronged person to accept it or not or

when they decide to accept. Sometimes it is not something forgiven with just words. Sometimes action helps as well. As a matter of fact, I will take the actions of someone over a verbal apology any day.

Some of this stuff makes me feel like I'm back in the third grade, for real!

[BainsBane]

48. It was clear that in my case

the purpose of the apology was to use as a club against me, as ammunition for more attacks. If anyone actually cared that I had been insulted, they would not have immediately doubled-and tripled-down on the insult.

[boston bean]

49. I agree. I find it to be very distasteful to try and force someone into

accepting an apology. That is between the person and the aggrieved, not some third party trying to score points.

[RiffRandell]

40. Are you saying I'm not welcome here?

What a rude post, and you need to take a long look in the mirror.

I respect boston bean as she isn't dishonest. It's sad that you and others are bringing this group down.

She doesn't deserve that. You should respect that.

[BainsBane]

43. Perhaps if you once tried to participate in a discussion without attacking posters here

People would feel differently about your presence in this group. Unfortunately, that has never happened, not as long as I've been a member here. As for whom you respect, I am not even slightly interested.

[JTFrog]

57. "It's sad that you and others are bringing this group down."

I've seen the folks interested in trying to bring this group down. Wish you all would just go away already.

[boston bean]

33. Knock this shit off in this group.

I truly abhor these types of games where one is virtually threatening, by saying they would never do such a thing, but provide details to try to shame or harass.

Fuck that shit. Knock it off, or you will be blocked from this group. I would like you to delete the posts you have made here.

[RiffRandell]

35. Done.

Shouldn't have stooped to that level, but I'm tired of hearing the lies regarding the apology.

[boston bean]

36. No reason for it, it was personal bullshit way below the belt.

Poisonous bullshit, meant to try and intimidate.

Thank you for deleting.

[RiffRandell]

37. You are very welcome. nt

[BainsBane]

45. What you call a lie

Quote:

yes and for some odd reason apologies has been on my mind today - evidently
I don't give good enough ones. Go figure.

What lie is that? Are you so omniscient you know what she was thinking of? How can you possibly claim someone else's thoughts are "a lie"?

[BainsBane]

50. She apologized twice in this thread

that you scoured closely enough to notice an edit to my post and scold me for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125544536#post38
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125544536#post11

I also saw her apologize for it several months ago. Given that at least a dozen people have thrown it in faces of several members of this group, it has been discussed ad nauseam. If I had that kind of memory for insults against me, I'd have no time for anything else.

Why you feel entitled to drone on endlessly about that one comment while simultaneously insisting I must accept an apology immediately upon reading a stunning insult is truly astounding.

[seabeyond]

52. and i just thought that one poster did a good job of accepting another perspective. that was all. nt

[seabeyond]

53. ya. i saw that somewhere. cant remember where. i did however have a terrific

afternoon and evening and night with my family.

hmmm.

[ismnotwasm]

56. What the hell is going on in this thread?

RQ posts an interesting tumbler quote, there's a bit a of a back and forth about definitions and meanings-- and out of the blue, it gets personal?

Huh.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. It is my fault. I apologize for anything I ever said to RiffRandell. I hope this apology is accepted

in the spirit it is intended.
I want peace among all women on DU.
Please, can we move forward in harmony.

I seek only dignity and respect for Humans of All Nations no matter their color, sex, or creed.

[redqueen]

62. It's kinda routine at this point. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. Maybe this can be a turning point, redqueen. I just received a PM from Riff and she accepted my

my apology. She would have posted in the thread but, she can't because of the hidden post.

I know that bad and hurtful things have been said by women and to women on this site.

I know that wounds heal own their own timetable.

I hope that we all can at least try to NOT bring up the past.

Perhaps, in time, it can all be forgiven because it will all be truly forgotten.

I am not asking that everyone sing kumbaya.

Just asking that we give people time and space to come to terms with each other.

[MadrasT]

67. Well, this thread sure sparked a lot of hair-splitting and redirection.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Anything to deflect from the fucking point.

[redqueen]

70. Someone is 'laying down the law' in differentiating sex from rape?

QUICK SOMEONE CALL A LAWYER!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

73. LOL

You are funny, woman. Love ya.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. yes, Please see my post #71 in this thread. Let us all quit deflecting and move forward. There are

women dying over this while we mince words.

[ismnotwasm]

77. Basically how I feel about it.