I think these laws deserve to be there, but they should be reasonable (allowing a certain age range). They should also be taught in public schools and be widely available on government documents, etc.

The reason for this being the fact that young girls (and men) could possibly be intimidated by men (or women) into saying they consented or vice versa.

There has to be a line because at the end of the day young girls (and more recently men) are often preyed on by older members of society. And some of them simply do not have the experience to truly advocate for themselves. It's such a tough issue because it's hard to know what is going on in the mind of a person that young, they may admit consent and then take it back the next day due to insecurities or emotional issues. It's so complicated.

But I definitely think if you're old enough to be in the same school together and interact with each other on a daily basis (within a normal limit, no flunked 21 year olds with 14 year olds!) then you should be allowed. I guess that is a basic start. But beyond that it turns into a mess.

Where to start...

Who says she's a victim? The law, which we are debating in this thread.

Whoa there. You cannot place the blame on someone else here. If a woman DOES NOT SAY NO, then SHE WAS NOT RAPED.

Not saying no definitely doesn't mean no.

She didn't want it THEN or she doesn't want it now that it's fashionable to cry date rape?

Only if she says no is it illegal.

Sorry, but have you looked at a single 17 year old lately? 90%, if not more, have the ability to look like they're in their 20s. Pedophilia (being attracted to underdeveloped children) definitely is not in effect here. As little as the early 1900s, it was normal for people to marry at 16 or 17. It's only recently that we've decided they're too young.

And...it IS a moral issue, because when a young woman does not say no but ALLOWS (yes, allows) a man to have sex with her and then later decides she didn't want to do it, she is ruining the life of a man (young or old) who did nothing wrong.

According to your twisted logic here, every time someone has sexual relations with someone else the man must ask the woman, "Can I get a verbal agreement that you want to have sex?" What if after this happens, the woman later says, "I changed my mind halfway through...I didn't tell him, but I did. He raped me!" That would never work...because how was the man expected to know?


Sorry to make this so long, but the whole 'rape fad' that's been going on lately really pisses me off. I feel like far too many lives have been ruined by the premise that "the woman in the rape case is automatically a victim". This basically says that the man is automatically guilty, like in the article posted on the first page of this thread. I don't think that most date rape is actual rape - I think that a lot of women, due to moral and societal pressure, feel guilty or awkward for having slept with a man and try to get around that by saying, "I didn't really want to do it...he made me!" This really hurts women - and men! - who WERE legitimately raped, because it makes people (yes, like me) question them when they deserve to be believed. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell, because it's almost always he-said she-said. Making a ridiculously large number of sexual interactions into rape only mocks the victims who were raped, and that's terrible. Get real, people - it's not always rape just because she says it is.

Actually, at least in NJ, body language inferring no means no; it does not have to be verbal. This applies to any sexual victimization, not just rape.

Can you cite the law? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I find it hard to discern body language as saying no clearly (minus the obvious fighting, like kicking or biting or punching, of course).

That kind of seems like a cop-out, by the way. Not on your part, but on the woman's part.

I can't personally. I had a contemporary women's class this semester taught by a woman on our campus who runs the Women's Center, runs the confidential hotline on campus and also works with the county rape crisis hotline. She knows what there is to know.

Frottage, for example. A guy comes up behind a girl in a club and starts dancing with her in a way that has non-consensual sexual touching. If she pushes him away or moves away from him, this is seen as a no. It's taken into consideration as this atmosphere has loud music, and verbal conversation is not as clear as physical.

No can really be made clear if that's what you want to get across. I agree that just saying it can be simpler, but body language is still taken into account.

Lol, you guys are debating the rape issue. The victim was under sixteen, i.e. 15 or under, and I am going to make an assumption (don't jump all over me), he was probably way beyond 18 because he got 40 years. He definitely deserved some time... BUT FORTY YEARS... I can go murder someone and get less. I know that rape is traumatizing and effects her for life, but 40 seems severe. That better have been one awesome vagina for that big of a price to pay.

Right. I would agree that that is a clear 'No'. But body language is not always clear...and it's one of the 'gray areas' that can be turned against an innocent person.

This has nothing to do with liberalism. Liberals are the ones who usually make these. Unless they're made by conserveatives. At anyrate, it's not wrong just because you say so.

Not to mention that it puts a woman into a victim mentality when she would be much better off if she would say "he was an asshole, but I was responsible too, I screwed up, I'm going to move on."

Not to mention that it makes ALL male/female interactions a walking on eggshells proposition.

I could talk about this for days, but I won't.

As far as the age of consent...if the girl says it was consensual, believe her. You can't say that you believe someone age 8 when they say their parent abused them, and then turn it around and say that a 16 or 17 year old is lying about consensual sex.

Good point 33girl...rock on! (just kidding)

So, if the underage girl in question is a prostitute, is it still rape? I mean, really, consensual sex is consensual sex. As long as no one is being forced or coerced, then I don't see why it matters. Some 14-yr-olds can make up their minds better than some 30-yr-olds ... :rolleyes:

Just to throw something into the mix: what about the teenagers who grew up in polygimist families, and find that normal? Should that whole mess be thrown out, because they consented?

And just an afterthought: When I was in high school, because of the whole statuatory rape law, we were told continually to avoid relationships with guys in college if we cared for them.

The polygamous cults set up the marriages, that's a pretty proven thing. If you don't get to pick who you're sleeping with that's not consensual no matter what your age is.

Actually - and let's be sure that I'm not in agreement here, I'm just throwing this out - if you look at other polygamist families, like the Green family, each of his wives wanted to marry him. And, they were under 15 at the time.

Arranged marriages can be consensual. Of course this isn't always the case, but if both parties WANT an arranged marriage, then what's the problem?