Who is "you"?
At age 16, I lived on my own, in my own home, with my own car, with a full-time job.
Do you realize how many minors served in wars throughout this nations history? You can still join the service at 17, I almost did.
So, my problem is that you (you personally) are stating outright what others can and cannot do, without any historical or biological basis for your argument.
Historically, marriages have been of people who were much younger than the present age. In America, the median age for a woman
marrying a man, not simply having sex - but getting married - was in her
teens. The man's age was generally that of land-ownership so at least 21, but the median age was 25.
To quote Slate magazine which had a piece on both the historical and biological aspects of the age of consent:
"The original age of consent, codified in English common law and later adopted by the American colonies, ranged from 10 to 12. In 1885, Britain and the states began raising the age to 16, ostensibly to protect girls' natural innocence. This moral idea was later bolstered by scientific reference to the onset of puberty."
Biologically, your point is
way off. The average age of first menstruation has fallen from 15.3 years old in the 1840s to 12.8 by 1980. Women are pubescent at a much earlier age in the United States, largely due to dietary and cultural factors. But with pubescence comes sexual desire.
Again, to quote Slate:
"Getting your period doesn't mean having sex right away. But earlier puberty does, on average, mean earlier sex. According to the most recent data from the U.S. government's Youth Risk Behavior Survey, one of every three American ninth graders has had intercourse. And that's not counting the millions of teens who have had oral sex instead.
Having sex at 12 is a bad idea. But if you're pubescent, it might be, in part, your bad idea. Conversely, having sex with a 12-year-old, when you're 20, is scummy. But it doesn't necessarily make you the kind of predator who has to be locked up. A guy who goes after 5-year-old girls is deeply pathological. A guy who goes after a womanly body that happens to be 13 years old is failing to regulate a natural attraction. That doesn't excuse him. But it does justify treating him differently."
Emotionally, there is very little deviation between a 16 year old and a 21 year old with respect to emotional development. In fact, according to the article above, this range and these factors make 16 a reasonably scientific cutoff. A cutoff not establishing statutory rape laws, but, wherein the state could criminalize predatory behavior of adults going after young individuals who are unable to see the situation for what it is; but this is not rape.
The word "always" is not in my post. You inserted that word to bolster your argument.
My point is that there is no functional difference between the average 17 year old and the average 18 year old. There simply is no real separation there. So to make this distinction, and put people in jail who fall on the wrong side of your own personal moral judgement, I think, is a flawed, irrational, and untenable position.
No. That's entirely the point.
You wouldn't feel raped, because you were not raped.
A 16-year old boy having sex with 40-year old woman who happens to teach at his school is not rape. He's not being raped. So let's drop that pretense.
Yet, this woman would be convicted of serving prison time for doing so.
Who is the victim here? The boy who got high fives and was bragging about it?
Sure it shouldn't be permissible behavior; but let's not call it rape. I don't even think it's criminal. Fire her, ban her from teaching ever again. But putting her in prison for decades? C'mon.
This is circular reasoning.
You are justifying the existence and just nature of statutory rape laws; by citing them as the law.
That's not a valid argument.
I would be shocked, and worried... for my own safety. Not hers.
I would do anything to keep it a secret, because no matter what, I'm fucked in this situation. But again, that's because there is no room in the law for such a hypothetical situation resulting in a just outcome.
And again, you're using the law itself to justify itself. It's circular.
The question is, who is the victim here? Me or her?
You could...
If you can prove to a jury that this girl appears or said she was of age then you shouldn't go to prison. In fact, in the case I cited above, the girl herself did just this. She went to court, and told the judge and jury that she duped the guy into thinking she was of the age of consent and wasn't. It didn't matter.
So this guy, not realizing she was underage, is in prison, because he gambled and lost. Oh well, fuck him, protect our daughters, right?
Sure.. But that line need not be so black and white.
You're saying that a 17-year old cannot have consensual sex; that's your argument.
I think that's nuts. And I can't find any rational basis for it.
It's very hard to understand.
If you didn't commit a rape, yet the law says you did and you need to live with the consequences; then that's just and okay with you?
Laws are not self-referential. They do not justify themselves. Laws must be just, and you are blatantly ignoring the ethical, moral, and legal components here.
I get that you might err on the side of caution, and while that's good advice, that's not really the point of the discussion.
See?
This entire conversation is about whether or not the law is or isn't wrong.
We know what the law is.. There is no disputing the fact that having sex with a person under the age of consent is at a minimum statutory rape. No one is arguing this isn't the case.
The argument here is that it should not be the case because it is not just and does not address the problem of child predators.
Because your position seems so concrete and absolute that it seems it lacks experience.
I'm not trying to offend you at all, btw. And if you want, we can discuss this completely rationally and devoid of emotion. I have no problem arguing my position completely from a logical standpoint if that's your preference.
I kinda figured.
I just think you, as a young man, have probably not had the same experiences as many others. And often in our youth, we think our experiences are representative on the whole of everyone else's, when this is rarely, if ever, the case.
That might sound condescending, but, trust me, I'm speaking from first hand knowledge.
But like
@godfather , I remember being 20 years old, even 21, 22, and having teenage girls slinging me their pussy. I also remember being 16, 17 years old and fucking college girls in their 20s.
To me, for someone to say that 17-year olds can't consent to sex, when in fact, that's all I did every day when I was 17, speaks more about that person's life experiences than it does about 17-year olds in general.
And does this mean I made all the right decisions...? No.. All of my sex, and lack of
wisdom, meant that by the age of 18, I had my first kid. It wasn't that I couldn't conceptualize what I was doing - it was that I could make wise decisions that come from make enough poor ones. You don't glean wisdom on your 18th birthday.
Life happens.... And frankly we should stop trying to keep people from living it... Now, in my 30s, kids, married, house, career, etc; I can finally look back and
not feel regret. I actually miss those years.
With all the fun I had in my youth, I just find it sad that there's seriously people who would imprison teenagers and young folks for simply having sex. They would go to the point to pretend that teenagers cannot consent, just so they can stop teenage
girls from having sex... Guess what.. teenagers are still going to have sex..