Feminism?

That the boy from @Danoff's link might ultimately be messed up due to the sexual assault in a different way to how a girl may typically, doesn't mean that it's of any less importance

I've seen a couple studies that claim that males who were abused by females often have a harder time dealing with it as society doesn't really allow them to be victims.

- and certainly shouldn't mean that the woman is any less culpable. Surely it's counter to what feminism is ideally all about...... equal treatment.

I've always thought feminists should push for harsher sentences in these cases as the way it is currently set up pretty much makes it seem like teenage females are too stupid to make their own choices about their bodies, but males of the same age are apparently more than capable of making the same decisions.
 
I guess this depends on what lens you view it through. We know that women are treated more leniently by the justice systems in essentially all cases, but depending on your viewpoint it could be framed as special treatment or as an example of how women are viewed as fragile and needing to be coddled.

For me it's hard to blame feminism for this difference when in my opinion it's because men are portrayed as sex hungry and less emotional about sex. Feminists didn't create that view of men. I mean, this very discussion started with that "nice" picture. Is it feminism's fault that men high five and fist bump when a 16 year old boy sleeps with his teacher?
 
For me it's hard to blame feminism for this difference when in my opinion it's because men are portrayed as sex hungry and less emotional about sex. Feminists didn't create that view of men. I mean, this very discussion started with that "nice" picture. Is it feminism's fault that men high five and fist bump when a 16 year old boy sleeps with his teacher?

For me it's more about what treatment feminists should ask for women, rather than assigning blame. Also, I wasn't quite sure where to move the topic to, after it was removed from where it originated - a thread that essentially equals the quest for gender equality as it's topic seemed apt.

For equality, we'd need to be harsher on one gender, and/or softer on the other.
 
@LeMansAid @Noob616 @Northstar

When I get a chance, I'll try to find the reasoning that the supreme court relies upon to explain why women get preferential sentencing in this regard, but I'll point out that the fact that women get preferential treatment in other regards - such as custody - and that such a thing has real, logical, substantive reasoning that shouldn't be swept under the rug as biased. There are real material differences between men and women, and I don't think there's any point in trying to deny that reality.

Can the folks in this thread agree that women should get preferential treatment in regards to custody?
 
Depending on the age of the child... and perhaps the preference of the child... yes. But this should all be taken on a case-to-case basis.

As for sexual assault on a minor... I would think this would depend on how aggressive the minor is in seeking sex. This is not to say the minor in this case was actively seeking to be boozed and used, but I do realize, despite being an absolute eunuch in High School, that younger boys do actively seek sex with older women.

Whether that's any different from younger girls is debatable.

I think the greater leniency may have something to do with males being physically stronger. But that's wrong. Whether or not a fifteen year old can physically defend himself against an older woman, she may still assert dominance over him due to the age difference.

Physical maturity does not equal emotional or cognitive maturity.
 
Can the folks in this thread agree that women should get preferential treatment in regards to custody?

Not sure why exactly I ended up in this thread, but I, for one, most certainly do not agree that women should get preferential treatment in regards to custody.
 
Can the folks in this thread agree that women should get preferential treatment in regards to custody?

You'd have to provide some reasoning as to why. Then I might agree, but I'd have to see what the reasoning was.

As it stands, I don't see why all other things being equal that women should be given custody over men. If all things are equal, then surely it should be a coin flip as to who gets custody. If all things are not equal, then surely the adult capable of providing the best custody of the child should get it.
 
You'd have to provide some reasoning as to why. Then I might agree, but I'd have to see what the reasoning was.

As it stands, I don't see why all other things being equal that women should be given custody over men. If all things are equal, then surely it should be a coin flip as to who gets custody. If all things are not equal, then surely the adult capable of providing the best custody of the child should get it.

Men can't produce breast milk.

That might or might not be a joke.

SRSLY.
 
As for sexual assault on a minor... I would think this would depend on how aggressive the minor is in seeking sex. This is not to say the minor in this case was actively seeking to be boozed and used, but I do realize, despite being an absolute eunuch in High School, that younger boys do actively seek sex with older women.

Whether that's any different from younger girls is debatable.

A boy may aggressively seek sex, find it, seemingly love it, seemingly take all the adult behaviour in his stride, then ultimately have subconscious adverse effects for the rest of his life. It's part of why we have limits in place - because when their yet to fully develop brains think they are absolutely sure of something, it's not necessarily the case.

I think the greater leniency may have something to do with males being physically stronger. But that's wrong. Whether or not a fifteen year old can physically defend himself against an older woman, she may still assert dominance over him due to the age difference.

Or get them drunk, and impair both body and mind, concurrently inspiring hilarity destined for a funnies thread on a forum.
 
A boy may aggressively seek sex, find it, seemingly love it, seemingly take all the adult behaviour in his stride, then ultimately have subconscious adverse effects for the rest of his life. It's part of why we have limits in place - because when their yet to fully develop brains think they are absolutely sure of something, it's not necessarily the case.



Or get them drunk, and impair both body and mind, concurrently inspiring hilarity destined for a funnies thread on a forum.

Yeah, I never quite understood the "men raping girls is a crime against humanity, women raping boys is a bit of a joke" thing.

The whole point of statutory rape is the abuse of power, not any physical or emotional damage which may range from non-existent to catastrophic. Abuse of power doesn't change depending on the sex of the abuser.

I suppose it's an extension of the fact that adult female on adult male rape is treated as a joke at best, and completely denied to exist at worst. Not by feminists, but by society in general. To most people, there appears to be no crime there. If a child is involved it has to be worse somehow, but worse than not a crime can't really that bad.
 
Yeah, I never quite understood the "men raping girls is a crime against humanity, women raping boys is a bit of a joke" thing.

The whole point of statutory rape is the abuse of power, not any physical or emotional damage which may range from non-existent to catastrophic. Abuse of power doesn't change depending on the sex of the abuser.

I suppose it's an extension of the fact that adult female on adult male rape is treated as a joke at best, and completely denied to exist at worst. Not by feminists, but by society in general. To most people, there appears to be no crime there. If a child is involved it has to be worse somehow, but worse than not a crime can't really that bad.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/464/case.html
Michael M. v. Superior Ct., 450 U.S. 464 (1981)
Michael M. v. Superior Court

No. 79-1344

Argued November 4, 1980

Decided March 23, 1981

450 U.S. 464


CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

Petitioner, then a 17 1/2-year-old male, was charged with violating California's "statutory rape" law, which defines unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years." Prior to trial, petitioner sought to set aside the information on both state and federal constitutional grounds, asserting that the statute unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender since men alone were criminally liable thereunder. The trial court and the California Court of Appeal denied relief, and on review the California Supreme Court upheld the statute.

Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 450 U. S. 468-476; 450 U. S. 481-487.

25 Cal.3d 608, 601 P.2d 572, affirmed.

JUSTICE REHNQUIST, joined by CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, JUSTICE STEWART, and JUSTICE POWELL, concluded that the statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 450 U. S. 468-476.

(a) Gender-based classifications are not "inherently suspect" so as to be subject to so-called "strict scrutiny," but will be upheld if they bear a "fair and substantial relationship" to legitimate state ends. Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71. Because the Equal Protection Clause does not "demand that a statute necessarily apply equally to all persons" or require "things which are different in fact . . . to be treated in law as though they were the same," Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U. S. 305, 384 U. S. 309, a statute will be upheld where the gender classification is not invidious, but rather realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances. Pp. 450 U. S. 468-469.

(b) One of the purposes of the California statute in which the State has a strong interest is the prevention of illegitimate teenage pregnancies. The statute protects women from sexual intercourse and pregnancy at an age when the physical, emotional, and psychological consequences are particularly severe. Because virtually all of the significant harmful and identifiable consequences of teenage pregnancy fall on the female, a legislature acts well within its authority when it

450 U. S. 470-473.

(c) There is no merit in petitioner's contention that the statute is impermissibly underinclusive, and must, in order to pass judicial scrutiny, be broadened so as to hold the female as criminally liable as the male. The relevant inquiry is not whether the statute is drawn as precisely as it might have been, but whether the line chosen by the California Legislature is within constitutional limitations. In any event, a gender-neutral statute would frustrate the State's interest in effective enforcement, since a female would be less likely to report violations of the statute if she herself would be subject to prosecution. The Equal Protection Clause does not require a legislature to enact a statute so broad that it may well be incapable of enforcement. Pp. 450 U. S. 473-474.

(d) Nor is the statute impermissibly overbroad because it makes unlawful sexual intercourse with prepubescent females, incapable of becoming pregnant. Aside from the fact that the statute could be justified on the grounds that very young females are particularly susceptible to physical injury from sexual intercourse, the Constitution does not require the California Legislature to limit the scope of the statute to older teenagers and exclude young girls. P. 450 U. S. 475.

(e) And the statute is not unconstitutional as applied to petitioner who, like the girl involved, was under 18 at the time of sexual intercourse, on the asserted ground that the statute presumes in such circumstances that the male is the culpable aggressor. The statute does not rest on such an assumption, but instead is an attempt to prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancy by providing an additional deterrent for men. The age of the man is irrelevant, since young men are as capable as older men of inflicting the harm sought to be prevented. P. 450 U. S. 475.

The above is an excerpt from the majority opinion of a landmark statutory rape case. The court's opinion (which is upheld) is that equal protection does not apply to cases of statutory rape because girls share a factually disproportionate likelihood of injury as compared to boys. Several reasons are cited above.

The article I posted was about a 15 year old boy who had sex with an older woman. I have trouble accepting that a 15 year old is incapable of at least some level of comprehension (either male or female) of the implications of their actions, as at age 16 I was attending university and was effectively out of my parents' custody. If at age 16 in the united states we are entrusted to make judgement decisions regarding whether we are in a mental state conducive to operating a potentially lethal motor vehicle, or select a field of study for our careers, or even where or whether to study, I think we can be expected to be at least partially aware of the implications of our actions involving sex. The notion that a 15 year old boy who suffered no physical injury and offered consent to the best of his ability should be treated on even remotely equal grounds to a scenario in which a girl does suffer physical injury and does not offer consent to the best of her ability (such as in the case of date rape) is beyond preposterous.

But perhaps more to the point, even for a girl who does consent and who is 15 and can understand some degree of what she is consenting to, she is consenting to a greater risk of emotional and physical trauma (as outlined by the US courts above). Therefore there are material differences between the genders in this activity and there is rightly a recognition of that difference when it comes to prosecuting offenders.

...and that's why southpark makes light of it.

Beyond that though, I was thinking last night about the notion of gender equality on this issue and why I consider it to be so absurd, and I came to a realization. The realization is that the nature of the sexual encounter means a great deal more to me than the genders involved, and it's why I went looking for the details in that case before I posted it. Because if that boy was tied down and forcibly raped (via an instrument of some sort) by the older woman, I would consider that to be far more severe and serious than what amounts to "fondling" when it comes to voluntary intercourse with the older woman. I realized that a 25 year old man being convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy carries a LOT more weight with me than a 25 year old woman being convicted of the same thing - not because of the genders involved or the implied sexual orientation of the offender - but because of the physical implications of the act itself.

At that point I realized that perhaps even though equal protection still should not apply in cases of statutory rape, there should be another test - one in which the natural of the violation to the victim should be a major consideration. Because even though the younger boy suffers no likelihood of pregnancy, they still take on greater risk by consenting to sex with men (and certain kinds of sex with women), and so the penalty for the offense should reflect that.

Now, a request to those reading this... please do not knee-jerk "but the genders are equal" as a response and really thoughtfully consider the material differences between men and women and the imbalanced nature of sex between them.
 
The above is an excerpt from the majority opinion of a landmark statutory rape case.

That's a 35-year old case regarding a statutory limitation that stood at the time which stands no more. The penal code has been greatly modernised since then. Your argument is very much like me arguing that I'm allowed to beat the post-boy for late mail under my Parish bye-laws of 1905.

Californian Penal Code 216 et al
261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or
developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and
this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing
the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant
to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1
(commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an
element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or
physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving
consent.
(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of
force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful
bodily injury on the person or another.
(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating
or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this
condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the
accused.
(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the
act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph,
"unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting
because the victim meets any one of the following conditions:
(A) Was unconscious or asleep.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act
occurred.
(C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the
essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud
in fact.
(D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the
essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's
fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a
professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person
committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the
accused, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or
concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the
belief.
(6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any
other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the
perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph,
"threatening to retaliate" means a threat to kidnap or falsely
imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or
death.
(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate,
arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a
reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used
in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a
governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position,
to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not
actually have to be a public official.
(b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied
threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to
coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an
act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in
an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total
circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her
relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising
the existence of duress.
(c) As used in this section, "menace" means any threat,
declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury
upon another.
 
That's a 35-year old case regarding a statutory limitation that stood at the time which stands no more. The penal code has been greatly modernised since then. Your argument is very much like me arguing that I'm allowed to beat the post-boy for late mail under my Parish bye-laws of 1905.

I'm failing to see the relevance of this to what I posted. None of what I posted has been overturned. You're citing changes in California law as somehow being relevant to interpretations of the US constitution when those changes do not challenge the US constitution. You might have a point if I said that it was unconstitutional NOT to create a difference between men and women in this case, but I didn't say that.
 
The above is an excerpt from the majority opinion of a landmark statutory rape case. The court's opinion (which is upheld) is that equal protection does not apply to cases of statutory rape because girls share a factually disproportionate likelihood of injury as compared to boys. Several reasons are cited above.

The article I posted was about a 15 year old boy who had sex with an older woman. I have trouble accepting that a 15 year old is incapable of at least some level of comprehension (either male or female) of the implications of their actions, as at age 16 I was attending university and was effectively out of my parents' custody. If at age 16 in the united states we are entrusted to make judgement decisions regarding whether we are in a mental state conducive to operating a potentially lethal motor vehicle, or select a field of study for our careers, or even where or whether to study, I think we can be expected to be at least partially aware of the implications of our actions involving sex. The notion that a 15 year old boy who suffered no physical injury and offered consent to the best of his ability should be treated on even remotely equal grounds to a scenario in which a girl does suffer physical injury and does not offer consent to the best of her ability (such as in the case of date rape) is beyond preposterous.
Fair enough.

But perhaps more to the point, even for a girl who does consent and who is 15 and can understand some degree of what she is consenting to, she is consenting to a greater risk of emotional and physical trauma (as outlined by the US courts above). Therefore there are material differences between the genders in this activity and there is rightly a recognition of that difference when it comes to prosecuting offenders.
You are either able to understand or you unable, not with rights as a whole, but with each individual right. The risks don't matter, if the person can consent and does, nothing wrong was done. Strictly speaking age doesn't come into play either outside of being used for convenience. If we're going to say that 15 is not old enough to fully consent, then rape of a male or female victim equally violates the victim's right to their body. A female may suffer additional harm by becoming pregnant, and in that case I'd think it's fair to get more compensation. I don't see why risk would matter when consent is legitimately given though.
 
Fair enough.


You are either able to understand or you unable, not with rights as a whole, but with each individual right. The risks don't matter, if the person can consent and does, nothing wrong was done. Strictly speaking age doesn't come into play either outside of being used for convenience. If we're going to say that 15 is not old enough to fully consent, then rape of a male or female victim equally violates the victim's right to their body. A female may suffer additional harm by becoming pregnant, and in that case I'd think it's fair to get more compensation. I don't see why risk would matter when consent is legitimately given though.

Nobody is questioning whether it is a crime for both genders. The question is why the sentencing is different, and the sentencing is different because the risks are different.
 
The notion that a 15 year old boy who suffered no physical injury and offered consent to the best of his ability should be treated on even remotely equal grounds to a scenario in which a girl does suffer physical injury and does not offer consent to the best of her ability (such as in the case of date rape) is beyond preposterous.

It is. I completely agree.

But perhaps more to the point, even for a girl who does consent and who is 15 and can understand some degree of what she is consenting to, she is consenting to a greater risk of emotional and physical trauma (as outlined by the US courts above). Therefore there are material differences between the genders in this activity and there is rightly a recognition of that difference when it comes to prosecuting offenders.

So, it is worse if a man rapes a girl, because the girl can get pregnant? Is that essentially what the argument comes down to? And it does not need to exclude prepubescent girls because very young females are particularly susceptible to physical injury from sexual intercourse, even if they can't yet get pregnant? Something that does not apply to very young males I take it, or how exactly is this argument to be read? Would the court argue that if a young fertile female was anally raped, it would still be covered, due to the risk of physical injury from such type of sexual intercourse? Or would the court say anal rape is not quite as bad, because at least the girl can't get pregnant? After all, the main aim is the prevention of illegitimate teenage pregnancies, no?

Beyond that though, I was thinking last night about the notion of gender equality on this issue and why I consider it to be so absurd, and I came to a realization. The realization is that the nature of the sexual encounter means a great deal more to me than the genders involved, and it's why I went looking for the details in that case before I posted it. Because if that boy was tied down and forcibly raped (via an instrument of some sort) by the older woman, I would consider that to be far more severe and serious than what amounts to "fondling" when it comes to voluntary intercourse with the older woman.

Ditto. Just as I would consider it far more severe than voluntary intercourse of a girl with an older man. Not sure how "fondling" fits with intercourse, though.

I realized that a 25 year old man being convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy carries a LOT more weight with me than a 25 year old woman being convicted of the same thing - not because of the genders involved or the implied sexual orientation of the offender - but because of the physical implications of the act itself.

At that point I realized that perhaps even though equal protection still should not apply in cases of statutory rape, there should be another test - one in which the natural of the violation to the victim should be a major consideration.

Let me get this straight, you say that there should be another test, regarding the nature of the violation, but in the same sentence you say equal protection still should not apply?

Let's say, in both cases, the act was the 25 year old man/woman performing oral sex on the young boy. Let's say, for argument sake, the act is identical. How exactly should this be reflected in the sentencing?

Because even though the younger boy suffers no likelihood of pregnancy, they still take on greater risk by consenting to sex with men (and certain kinds of sex with women), and so the penalty for the offense should reflect that.

So we look at the nature of the violation, independent of the gender of the perpetrator?

Mind you, I'd think we'd all agree that physical injuries are often negligible here compared to the emotional. A young homosexual boy could quite possibly be more violated by an older woman forcing herself on him than by an older man he consented (in his limited capacity) to.
 
So, it is worse if a man rapes a girl, because the girl can get pregnant? Is that essentially what the argument comes down to? And it does not need to exclude prepubescent girls because very young females are particularly susceptible to physical injury from sexual intercourse, even if they can't yet get pregnant? Something that does not apply to very young males I take it, or how exactly is this argument to be read? Would the court argue that if a young fertile female was anally raped, it would still be covered, due to the risk of physical injury from such type of sexual intercourse? Or would the court say anal rape is not quite as bad, because at least the girl can't get pregnant? After all, the main aim is the prevention of illegitimate teenage pregnancies, no?

The risk of (and probably demonstrable) injury goes way up. So I would not weigh them differently.

Ditto. Just as I would consider it far more severe than voluntary intercourse of a girl with an older man. Not sure how "fondling" fits with intercourse, though.

I used the term "fondling" to refer to things done to the exterior rather than things done to the interior - which I think is a pretty significant difference.

Let me get this straight, you say that there should be another test, regarding the nature of the violation, but in the same sentence you say equal protection still should not apply?

Yup.

Let's say, in both cases, the act was the 25 year old man/woman performing oral sex on the young boy. Let's say, for argument sake, the act is identical. How exactly should this be reflected in the sentencing?

Least-harsh sentencing of the cases mentioned. The nature of the act carries very little risk of injury or even long term emotion consequences (such as abortion or forced "parenthood").

So we look at the nature of the violation, independent of the gender of the perpetrator?

I think that's fair, but the gender of the victim is still critical - because boys can't get pregnant.

Mind you, I'd think we'd all agree that physical injuries are often negligible here compared to the emotional. A young homosexual boy could quite possibly be more violated by an older woman forcing herself on him than by an older man he consented (in his limited capacity) to.

Yea not so sure about that. Some of the emotional injury stems from physical injury and the physical nature of the crime. I do think that statutory rape is a much lesser crime than forcible rape (as you allude to above), but within statutory rape there is also a wide spectrum of assumed risk. A person needs to be more emotionally prepared and mature to properly account for actions that carry a greater responsibility.
 
Last edited:
The risk of (and probably demonstrable) injury goes way up. So I would not weigh them differently.

Ok, so the risk of physical injury during vaginal intercourse we'd deem less, or at least less significant? Is that what I'm reading here? The main risk during vaginal intercourse seems to be tied to the risk of pregnancy, is that the argument? And sentencing should reflect this risk?

I used the term "fondling" to refer to things done to the exterior rather than things done to the interior - which I think is a pretty significant difference.

I'd agree that there's a difference between being on the giving and the receiving end, but don't you think "fondling" is an odd choice of word here? Having a woman take anything of yours inside of her can hardly be considered "fondling", or? Unless, of course, there already is a bias?


So you do think that even though there should be another test, regarding the nature of the violation, equal treatment of genders should still not apply? But if the nature of the violation is considered on an individual case by case basis, and it should turn out that, on average, males do get harsher sentences, would this not suffice? Is there a need to generalize and have a gender-bias?

Least-harsh sentencing of the cases mentioned. The nature of the act carries very little risk of injury or even long term emotion consequences (such as abortion or forced "parenthood").

You didn't exactly address my question.

Case 1) A 15 year old boy, who identifies as heterosexual, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old woman to which he gave consent.
Case 2) A 15 year old boy, who identifies as homosexual, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old man to which he gave consent.

Do you agree that sentencing should be equivalent in both cases? Or, to pick another example:

Case A) A 15 year old boy, who identifies as heterosexual, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old woman without his consent.
Case B) A 15 year old boy, who identifies as homosexual, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old man without his consent.

I doubt anyone would disagree that cases A and B should carry harsher sentences than cases 1 and 2. But what about the differences in between the individual cases A and B, or 1 and 2 respectively?

I think that's fair, but the gender of the victim is still critical - because boys can't get pregnant.

If the perpetrator is infertile, girls can't get pregnant either. Should an infertile perpetrator receive more lenient sentencing for the exact same act? What if the girl in question is infertile, and this is known? If the risk of pregnancy is a main contributing factor in sentencing, surely, this all needs to be considered, no?

Nobody would disagree that an actual pregnancy adds to the trauma. But, does that mean more lenient sentencing should be considered for perpetrators who think about contraception, and mitigate the risk?

Can you see why I do not consider the risk of pregnancy to be a main factor? It ultimately doesn't make any sense. It should be a crime for the act that was committed, not for the fact that it could result in an illegitimate teenage pregnancy.

Yea not so sure about that. Some of the emotional injury stems from physical injury and the physical nature of the crime. I do think that statutory rape is a much lesser crime than forcible rape (as you allude to above), but within statutory rape there is also a wide spectrum of assumed risk. A person needs to be more emotionally prepared and mature to properly account for actions that carry a greater responsibility.

The physical injury that was sustained during the act should matter, I don't think anyone would disagree here. It's not the physical injury that is at issue, it's the supposed risk of physical injury due to differences in the gender of the perpertrator (Edit: and victim).
 
Last edited:
With respect, there are much worse things that can happen to the victim, male or female, than pregnancy. I'm sorry, but to say that the risk of pregnancy in rape cases is the reason why male perpetrators to female victims get harsher sentences than female perpetrators to male victims is absolute nonsense. At least with pregnancy, abortion is an option, but what about the risk of STDs?

The level of punishment should be identical for crimes. You cannot use children as an excuse, because if anything it sets an example to the children that you can get away with less by the abuse of possessions.
 
Oooh, feminism. Anytime I post in a thread that has an ism in the title, I usually get in trouble

Staying well clear in this case :lol:
 
Ok, so the risk of physical injury during vaginal intercourse we'd deem less, or at least less significant? Is that what I'm reading here? The main risk during vaginal intercourse seems to be tied to the risk of pregnancy, is that the argument? And sentencing should reflect this risk?

Yes the risk is less, but pregnancy is only one of the many reasons that statutory rape laws exist.

I'd agree that there's a difference between being on the giving and the receiving end, but don't you think "fondling" is an odd choice of word here? Having a woman take anything of yours inside of her can hardly be considered "fondling", or? Unless, of course, there already is a bias?

Fondling referring to touching bits on the outside of one's body, I think it's an appropriate distinction. Males who consider their experience in intercourse to be equivalent in nature to a female's experience are buying social engineering over facts.

So you do think that even though there should be another test, regarding the nature of the violation, equal treatment of genders should still not apply?

I already said yes.

But if the nature of the violation is considered on an individual case by case basis, and it should turn out that, on average, males do get harsher sentences, would this not suffice? Is there a need to generalize and have a gender-bias?

Pregnancy is a factor in (is one of the many reasons for) statutory rape laws. Pregnancy is a generalized gender-bias.

You didn't exactly address my question.

Unintentional I'm sure. I thought I answered it fully.

Case 1) A 15 year old boy, who identifies as heterosexual, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old woman to which he gave consent.
Case 2) A 15 year old boy, who identifies as homosexual, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old man to which he gave consent.

Do you agree that sentencing should be equivalent in both cases? Or, to pick another example:

Yes. Assuming everything else is equivalent.

Case A) A 15 year old boy, who identifies as heterosexual, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old woman without his consent.
Case B) A 15 year old boy, who identifies as homosexual, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old man without his consent.

I doubt anyone would disagree that cases A and B should carry harsher sentences than cases 1 and 2.

I agree.

But what about the differences in between the individual cases A and B, or 1 and 2 respectively?

Well, you say "gave his consent" which is a little tricky because we're assuming that a 15 year old boy is incapable of giving consent (which I think is an exaggeration anyway, but that's a different issue). I assume you're distinguishing between forcible rape and statutory rape. As such, Cases A and B are really a different topic altogether. But, to answer your question, I don't see a difference between Cases A and B that should matter in sentencing.

If the perpetrator is infertile, girls can't get pregnant either. Should an infertile perpetrator receive more lenient sentencing for the exact same act?

Men are very rarely completely infertile, and the girl can't know for sure anyway. So statutory rape laws shouldn't be modified based on a sperm count. A man who has a million sperm in a given ejaculate is considered infertile and yet is fully capable of causing pregnancy, same for men who have had vasectomies. I know this seems like dodging the question, but it highlights what a shade of grey infertility is and how you can't really use it the way you are.

What if the girl in question is infertile, and this is known? If the risk of pregnancy is a main contributing factor in sentencing, surely, this all needs to be considered, no?

It is a contributing factor. And yes, actually, I think the use of contraception during the act of statutory rape should be a factor in sentencing. A 25 year old who does not use contraception during an act of statutory rape should be treated more harshly precisely because the 15 year old is less capable of understanding the full extent of the risks. I actually find it nearly impossible that you disagree with that.

Nobody would disagree that an actual pregnancy adds to the trauma. But, does that mean more lenient sentencing should be considered for perpetrators who think about contraception, and mitigate the risk?

Yes.

Can you see why I do not consider the risk of pregnancy to be a main factor? It ultimately doesn't make any sense. It should be a crime for the act that was committed, not for the fact that it could result in an illegitimate teenage pregnancy.

The whole point of statutory rape laws is to protect someone who can't weigh the risks and implications of the activity. It's the same reason we have underage drinking laws. It's not that anyone here is advocating that one type of statutory rape should be a crime and the other type shouldn't. I'm advocating that sentencing should take into account the nature of the crime - which, by the way, is exactly how the US legal system works. Sentencing is almost always entirely based on the nature of the act rather than a black and white test of whether the act was performed. You almost never hear "X crime carries with it Y sentence exactly". Judges modify sentencing based on the particulars of the case in every single case they hear.

You're failing to take into account the highly subjective nature of sentencing and the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of sentencing vs. criminality. These are very different animals.

A statutory rape crime that exposes the victim to greater risks that they are assumed incapable of weighing should necessarily carry a harsher sentence.

The physical injury that was sustained during the act should matter, I don't think anyone would disagree here. It's not the physical injury that is at issue, it's the supposed risk of physical injury due to differences in the gender of the perpertrator (Edit: and victim).

See above re: the purpose for statutory rape laws. They exist because the individual cannot be assumed capable of weighing the risks, not because the individual actually realized those risks.

"See everyone? I can be funny! Honest!"

This thread actually makes it funnier.
 
Well, you say "gave his consent" which is a little tricky because we're assuming that a 15 year old boy is incapable of giving consent (which I think is an exaggeration anyway, but that's a different issue).

In the case of the California statute, as with many others, the ability to consent is removed by law. No assumptions therefore need to be made, rape is rape.

This thread actually makes it funnier.

Yay, rape. I'm trying to bear @Vagabond's comments in mind in my answer but I really really don't see how you think rape is funny, I really don't.
 
In the case of the California statute, as with many others, the ability to consent is removed by law. No assumptions therefore need to be made, rape is rape.

Nope, and you're way out of touch. Statutory rape is not forcible rape. That's why it's called statutory rape. The fact that you're willing to conflate the two means you need to seriously rethink your position on the entire matter.

Yay, rape. I'm trying to bear @Vagabond's comments in mind in my answer but I really really don't see how you think rape is funny, I really don't.

Almost anything can be funny. Humor is funny that way.
 
Nope, and you're way out of touch. Statutory rape is not forcible rape. That's why it's called statutory rape. The fact that you're willing to conflate the two means you need to seriously rethink your position on the entire matter.

Conflated them where? Certainly not. Rape is rape, despite you saying that it isn't. Forcible rape is statutory rape although not all statutory rape is forcible.

Deciding harm and punishment is for the judgement.
 
I wish 15 year old me was seduced by a cheerleader.

15 year old me would have done a lot for that honor. Same with 16 year old me, 17 year old me, and 18 year old me. 19 year old me was with my future wife, so it wasn't an option.

TenEightyOne
Conflated them where? Certainly not. Rape is rape, despite you saying that it isn't. Forcible rape is statutory rape

Nope, I'll give you an example. A 20 year old is raped. [/example]

TenEightyOne
although not all statutory rape is forcible.

Also true, and you've made my point for me.
 
Forcible rape is statutory rape although not all statutory rape is forcible.

Nope, I'll give you an example. A 20 year old is raped. [/example]

Whut? Rape on the statue is rape on the statute. The circumstances or code may differ but statutory rape remains statutory rape. Circumstantial sub-division of "type" doesn't alter that.

Also true, and you've made my point for me.

Your point seems to be defending that rape is funny. Going on to say that you'd like to have been co-erced into sex at 15 by a cheerleader doesn't alter that, nor does it alter the situation for 15-year-olds who were unwillingly co-erced into sex in other circumstances.

Still not funny, Danoff.
 
Back