Feminism?

[Danoff]

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.

Statutory rape refers to the statutory bar for age of consent. It is rape defined by age and no other aspect of the incident. It is treated wildly differently by the courts and is a fundamentally different offense.

Your point seems to be defending that rape is funny.

Actually no, my point is that statutory rape perpetrated by women against underage boys is fundamentally different than that perpetrated by men against underage girls (or boys) and the law very correctly upholds that.

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.

FTFY. You're doing a lot of sloppy confusing of issues, and it prevents you from recognizing really key distinctions in these crimes. If you had to actually witness these events you would not easily make these mistakes.

Still not funny, Danoff.

What you think is funny is your business.

 

[Tornado]

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.

I disagree with this, actually. There is no inherently unfunny concept, and the South Park episode was hilarious. The bigger issue in my mind is that when you're attempting to tell a joke of that caliber you're supposed to know your audience and (particularly when blatantly recycling a joke from a far funnier source) sell it properly. So when you instead post it on a PG videogame forum and mangle the punchline so badly that it doesn't even resemble a joke so much as political pontificating, it comes off as more crass than it ordinarily be anyway.



Even more so when you double down and try and claim some sort of objective comedy value in a joke to show why others were wrong for not finding it funny by copying the court documents relevant to the joke and going into detail for what they mean for the joke; representing a level of misunderstanding for what humor is usually only seen in robots and aliens.

 

[Danoff]

I disagree with this, actually. There is no inherently unfunny concept, and the South Park episode was hilarious. The bigger issue in my mind is that when you're attempting to tell a joke of that caliber you're supposed to know your audience and (particularly when blatantly recycling a joke from a far funnier source) sell it properly. So when you instead post it on a PG videogame forum and mangle the punchline so badly that it doesn't even resemble a joke so much as political pontificating, it comes off as more crass than it ordinarily be anyway.



Even more so when you double down and try and claim some sort of objective comedy value in a joke to show why others were wrong for not finding it funny by copying the court documents relevant to the joke and going into detail for what they mean for the joke; representing a level of misunderstanding for what humor is usually only seen in robots and aliens.

Holy crap.

Look, this is the opinions forum - and we're discussing the topic of gender bias and equal protection as it applies to statutory rape. Whether or not you think referencing southpark to a news article is funny is really not the point here. This is the feminism thread, and we're discussing the actual topic - which a lot of people took issue with philosophically.

I get it, you didn't like the reference to the show in regards to a news article that was basically lifted from the show. Either get over it and get on board with the actual topic in this (different) thread, or get out. I'm sick of the personal attacks.

Just in case you missed the point, here it is again:

Nothing I have posted in this thread is intended to be funny, or is intended to defend my reference to southpark. Nothing I have posted in this thread is funny, or is meant to be humorous in any way. People took real philosophical issue with the topic, and that's what I'm talking about. Let's not do any more laps around this pointless circle.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Statutory rape refers to the statutory bar for age of consent. It is rape defined by age and no other aspect of the incident.

That's a narrow and literally-incorrect definition. Statutory means it's on, or interpreted through, the statute.

 

[Danoff]

That's a narrow and literally-incorrect definition. Statutory means it's on, or interpreted through, the statute.

I know what statutory means. When a law is referred to as "statutory" it is referred to as such because there is an established statutory bar based on dates. There is no wiggle room, in otherwords, as to whether it is a crime. Not all laws codified in statute are referred to as "statutory" in the name of the offense. It has a special connotation. "Statue of limitations" is another example. There are more that spring to mind, but they're fairly specific.

Also, what's your end game with this post? If I agreed with you (which I don't), does that somehow invalidate my position? Do you think statutory rape is NOT defined by age and no other aspect? No. In fact you have no rebuttal to that point and you're just trying to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

 

[Vagabond]

"Statutory rape" is specifically used to refer to unlawful sex with a minor to distinguish between that and an unsolicited sexual assault on an adult. All criminal law is statutory but does not require the prefix "statutory" except in specific circumstances like this.

Let's not do any more laps around this pointless circle.

Amen.

 

[LeMansAid]

Look, this is the opinions forum - and we're discussing the topic of gender bias and equal protection as it applies to statutory rape. Whether or not you think referencing southpark to a news article is funny is really not the point here. This is the feminism thread, and we're discussing the actual topic - which a lot of people took issue with philosophically.

I get it, you didn't like the reference to the show in regards to a news article that was basically lifted from the show. Either get over it and get on board with the actual topic in this (different) thread, or get out. I'm sick of the personal attacks.

I can certainly see how they would come across as (and might actually be) personal attacks - but for me at least, it's more that it's an immediate and convenient representation of a wider attitude, that I have a problem with. It's also not so much whether or not one finds it funny, but that finding it funny denotes dismissiveness.

 

[Swift]

@LeMansAid @Noob616 @Northstar

Can the folks in this thread agree that women should get preferential treatment in regards to custody?

I know this is a bit late, but I think it should be on a case by case basis. I know a situation personally where the father made more money, had a home and they didn't separate due to any kind abuse. The ex-wife moved over 1200 miles away. The father won custody, but decided to give primary custody to the mother just because the kids at the requested. It is tearing the father up.

Anyway, I said all that to say, it should be looked at on each situation. I'm sure there are many situation when the children would be better off with the father. You never know.

 

[doctorrg]

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

One of many, perhaps, but seemingly a rather important one:

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.

As you seem to agree:

but the gender of the victim is still critical - because boys can't get pregnant.

There are a number of reasons why I take issue with that, to be addressed shortly...

Fondling referring to touching bits on the outside of one's body, I think it's an appropriate distinction.

To call it "fondling" is appropriate?

Males who consider their experience in intercourse to be equivalent in nature to a female's experience are buying social engineering over facts.

Who said they do, or that that was even the issue? Why call it "fondling"? To me, it reeks of belittlement. Just because there is a difference, doesn't mean the victims, whether girl or boy, wouldn't get equally deep emotional scars. Some boys may even get deeper emotional scars than some girls. So, instead of looking at the case in question, and judge it, free from bias, we'd want women to automatically have lesser sentences because they can't get a boy pregnant? What does that say about the actual act in question? What do we tell that boy? That he should accept the lesser sentence, because, well, it's not that he can get pregnant?

Do you really not see why one would have an issue with that?

I already said yes.

You did.

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

Not pregnancy, the risk of pregnancy! Based on your account it seems to be a factor in statutory rape laws in the United States (?), or at least in California. But that doesn't make it right. What exactly ought statutory rape laws be about? Protecting children, or preventing illegitimate teenage pregnancies?

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

Yes. Assuming everything else is equivalent.

I agree.

We agree here.

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.

And you'd equally agree if the victim were a girl in both cases, correct? I.e.:

Case 1) A 15 year old girl, who identifies as lesbian, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old woman to which she gave consent.
Case 2) A 15 year old girl, who identifies as straight, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old man to which she gave consent.

Same sentencing in both, case 1 and 2, and same sentencing as in previous cases 1 and 2, as it's essentially the same act and doesn't really carry any further risk, correct?

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.

Who said anything about modifying statutory rape laws based on sperm count? If the perpetrator is truly sterile, surely, there is no risk of pregnancy, whether the girl knows it or not. If, in her mind, she gave consent, whether or not the perpetrator is sterile or not wouldn't even matter. I'd agree such knowledge would matter in a case of actual rape, as the thought of becoming pregnant from such an ordeal would surely add to the trauma.

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.

But not for others. Some men don't even have any sperm cells in their ejaculate at all. Surely, if the risk of pregnancy is a main factor in sentencing, this ought to be considered in sentencing, no?

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.

The way I am using it? You are the one talking about there being a critical difference because boys can't get pregnant. You do realize that, right?

It is a contributing factor.

Wow! So if the girl is known to be infertile, it actually should make a difference? And you do not have an issue with that? What exactly are we (or is the law) saying here? Sentencing generally reflects the severity of the crime, so if having intercourse with a girl who is infertile should carry a lesser sentence than having intercourse with a girl who is fertile, aren't we telling that girl that the guy who had sex with her has committed a lesser crime than if he would have had sex with that girl over there? Or are we telling her, look, the crime's just as bad, but it's not that you can get pregnant.

Do you see why somebody could have an issue with that?

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.

So what we're telling the girl is, look, what happened is bad, but it's not quite as bad as it could have been because he's used a condom, and that irrespective of whether the girl actually gets pregnant or not in either case. Yes, getting pregnant is definitely worse than not getting pregnant, I doubt anyone would deny that, but why would we want to equate taking contraceptive measures to be a lesser crime? It is still the same act that is performed, or?

The question is simple, what should statutory rape laws be about, protecting children, or also preventing illegitimate teenage pregnancies?

To me, the main concern is the message we are sending the victims. Is a girl a lesser victim because she is unable to conceive?

Yes.

A major difference of opinion it seems.

The whole point of statutory rape laws is to protect someone who can't weigh the risks and implications of the activity.

They're not to protect children who may not be able to say "No" from sexual predators?

It's the same reason we have underage drinking laws.

It isn't quite the same though, or is it?

It's not that anyone here is advocating that one type of statutory rape should be a crime and the other type shouldn't.

As a side note, I would. If one half of a teenage couple has a birthday and is no longer a minor, while the other is, while technically the older half may commit statutory rape, I'd have extreme difficulties considering this to be a crime.

On the other hand, a 25 old man who really should know better praying on the naivety of a 15-year old girl I'd most definitely consider a crime. And the crime isn't any better or worse just because he may use contraception.

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.

And this can't be dealt with by charging the perpetrator with multiple crimes, and sentencing him or her accordingly?

Seriously now, the crime in question is that of statutory rape. Explain to me why we should give a perpetrator a lesser sentence for the mere fact that it was known to him that the victim was infertile?

Is the message we are sending the victims no consideration at all? You are subjected to the exact same act, yet, the sentence is less. Please, explain that to me like you would explain it to that 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.

So these do not exist to protect children who may not be able to say "No" from sexual predators?

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.

Depends on the teacher really, but what applies to you doesn't necessarily apply to the next guy. Besides, there's this thing with fantasies, the reality often turns out to be entirely different from how it was imagined, and with scars you couldn't even have considered, I mean, being at that age where it is questionable as to whether you're able to even consent to such things or not.

Edit: Very late typo fix (difference of he and she seemed important enough).

 

[Danoff]

I can certainly see how they would come across as (and might actually be) personal attacks - but for me at least, it's more that it's an immediate and convenient representation of a wider attitude, that I have a problem with. It's also not so much whether or not one finds it funny, but that finding it funny denotes dismissiveness.

Yea that's on point for this thread. It is dismissiveness. I intentionally dismiss the severity of statutory rape perpetrated by women in cases where penetration, injury, and force were not involved. And I'm not alone, the bias in law exists for a reason.

I know this is a bit late, but I think it should be on a case by case basis. I know a situation personally where the father made more money, had a home and they didn't separate due to any kind abuse. The ex-wife moved over 1200 miles away. The father won custody, but decided to give primary custody to the mother just because the kids at the requested. It is tearing the father up.

Anyway, I said all that to say, it should be looked at on each situation. I'm sure there are many situation when the children would be better off with the father. You never know.

Agreed that each situation is different. I'm advocating a bias in custody, not a bright line rule that says the father will never be considered for custody.

To call it "fondling" is appropriate?

I actually can't take credit for that. I had this discussion with my wife the other night and she came up with the term. I found it appropriate so I decided to use it here. So... yes.

Who said they do, or that that was even the issue? Why call it "fondling"? To me, it reeks of belittlement.

That's because it is.

Just because there is a difference, doesn't mean the victims, whether girl or boy, wouldn't get equally deep emotional scars.

Sure, the particulars of each case need to be considered in sentencing. I'm advocating a bias in sentencing, not a bright line rule that says it is never possible for someone to emotionally scar someone else (whether there was a crime involved or not).

So, instead of looking at the case in question, and judge it, free from bias, we'd want women to automatically have lesser sentences because they can't get a boy pregnant? What does that say about the actual act in question?

That it is less of an abuse because the voluntary minor had fewer risks to consider.

What do we tell that boy? That he should accept the lesser sentence, because, well, it's not that he can get pregnant?

Yup!

Do you really not see why one would have an issue with that?

Nope!

What exactly ought statutory rape laws be about? Protecting children, or preventing illegitimate teenage pregnancies?

The former, but preventing unwanted pregnancy IS protecting children in this case.

And you'd equally agree if the victim were a girl in both cases, correct? I.e.:

Case 1) A 15 year old girl, who identifies as lesbian, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old woman to which she gave consent.
Case 2) A 15 year old girl, who identifies as straight, has oral sex performed by a 25 year old man to which she gave consent.

Same sentencing in both, case 1 and 2, and same sentencing as in previous cases 1 and 2, as it's essentially the same act and doesn't really carry any further risk, correct?

Yup.

Who said anything about modifying statutory rape laws based on sperm count? If the perpetrator is truly sterile, surely, there is no risk of pregnancy, whether the girl knows it or not. If, in her mind, she gave consent, whether or not the perpetrator is sterile or not wouldn't even matter.

Of course it does because she is under age and presumed unable to weight the implications of the act.

But not for others. Some men don't even have any sperm cells in their ejaculate at all. Surely, if the risk of pregnancy is a main factor in sentencing, this ought to be considered in sentencing, no?

Sure. What difference does it make? At this point we're talking about a ridiculous hypothetical. Yes, some guy who has no testicles might be convicted of statutory rape and would have a weird trial. Moving on.

The way I am using it? You are the one talking about there being a critical difference because boys can't get pregnant. You do realize that, right?

It would be weird for me not to.

Wow! So if the girl is known to be infertile, it actually should make a difference?

Yes. For all of the reasons I mentioned before.

And you do not have an issue with that?

You're acting as though I implied that it's not a crime for an older man to have sex with an underage girl if she's infertile (also, again, infertility is not a bright line. So it's almost an impossible scenario to say that she couldn't get pregnant).

What exactly are we (or is the law) saying here? Sentencing generally reflects the severity of the crime, so if having intercourse with a girl who is infertile should carry a lesser sentence than having intercourse with a girl who is fertile, aren't we telling that girl that the guy who had sex with her has committed a lesser crime than if he would have had sex with that girl over there? Or are we telling her, look, the crime's just as bad, but it's not that you can get pregnant.

Do you see why somebody could have an issue with that?

No, I don't. The reason statutory rape is a crime is because the younger party cannot appropriately weigh the risks. If some of the risks were removed by the offender, then the offender SHOULD get a lesser sentence.

So what we're telling the girl is, look, what happened is bad, but it's not quite as bad as it could have been because he's used a condom

Yes, for about 1000 reasons, most of which are disease names. Yes, if the offender used a condom, the offender committed a lesser crime by exposing the victim to reduced risk. It's not something that the offender can eliminate by the way, the act carries risk inherently.

The question is simple, what should statutory rape laws be about, protecting children, or also preventing illegitimate teenage pregnancies?

The former, which is partially accomplished by the latter.

To me, the main concern is the message we are sending the victims. Is a girl a lesser victim because she is unable to conceive?

Lesser victim... what exactly does that mean? Is statutory rape a lesser offense if the degree of potential damage is mitigated by the particulars of the crime. Yes. As is the case with all crime.

They're not to protect children who may not be able to say "No" from sexual predators?

Now you're trying to blur the line between statutory rape and forcible rape.

As a side note, I would. If one half of a teenage couple has a birthday and is no longer a minor, while the other is, while technically the older half may commit statutory rape, I'd have extreme difficulties considering this to be a crime.

The definition of statutory rape is yet another topic, this one is already messy enough.

On the other hand, a 25 old man who really should know better praying on the naivety of a 15-year old girl I'd most definitely consider a crime. And the crime isn't any better or worse just because he may use contraception.

The sentencing should take into account the nature of the crime.

And this can't be dealt with by charging the perpetrator with multiple crimes, and sentencing him or her accordingly?

Of course it could.

Is the message we are sending the victims no consideration at all? You are subjected to the exact same act, yet, the sentence is less. Please, explain that to me like you would explain it to that victim.

Ok here you go:

"I know that you wanted to have sex with this guy, and you think you're old enough to make that decision. You might think you love him now, but you need to wait until you're older to be able to weigh all of the factors involved with sex. Thank goodness he used a the condom, that will spare him some jail time."

Depends on the teacher really, but what applies to you doesn't necessarily apply to the next guy. Besides, there's this thing with fantasies, the reality often turns out to be entirely different from how it was imagined, and with scars you couldn't even have considered, I mean, being at that age where it is questionable as to whether you're able to even consent to such things or not.

I'm telling you now that I would have consented to it both under and over the legal age.

 

[doctorrg]

Yea that's on point for this thread. It is dismissiveness. I intentionally dismiss the severity of statutory rape perpetrated by women in cases where penetration, injury, and force were not involved. And I'm not alone, the bias in law exists for a reason.

Do you think it is easier for you to dismiss this because you're thinking of a concrete example of a 15-year old boy, and are considering how you were as a 15-year old boy?

And that's the thing I really need to ask now, before I proceed, as I might not actually know enough about US law. It seems to me that you somehow think statutory rape only covers teenagers on the cusp of the age of consent who really do want to have sex, seeing how you've put it to a victim:

"I know that you wanted to have sex with this guy, and you think you're old enough to make that decision. You might think you love him now, but you need to wait until you're older to be able to weigh all of the factors involved with sex. Thank goodness he used a the condom, that will spare him some jail time."

Is there a minimum age in the US for something to be covered by statutory rape, before it is automatically covered by rape? If, for example, an older man grooms a prepubescent girl to the point where she is willingly having sex with him (at least in her mind), would this be covered under statutory rape law, or would this automatically fall under rape?

It just dawned on me that we may actually be talking past each other. Surely, what you just told that victim above you wouldn't possibly tell a prepubescent girl, or? I realize that this is an international forum, and laws may be different from country to country, so I need to make sure US statutory rape laws don't exclusively cover teenagers on the cusp of the age of consent, who, in fact, uphold such consent.

Which ages exactly are covered under statutory rape laws in the US? Is there a minimum age under which it automatically falls into the category of rape?

 

[Danoff]

Do you think it is easier for you to dismiss this because you're thinking of a concrete example of a 15-year old boy, and are considering how you were as a 15-year old boy?

Well yes, especially given that the case that spawned this was about a 15 year old boy.

And that's the thing I really need to ask now, before I proceed, as I might not actually know enough about US law. It seems to me that you somehow think statutory rape only covers teenagers on the cusp of the age of consent who really do want to have sex, seeing how you've put it to a victim:

Statutory rape is defined slightly differently by state, but the general concept is that it is the name given to a case where a person over a threshold age has voluntary sex with a person under a threshold age. If it's forced, it's still statutory rape, but it just gets called rape because that's the greater crime. You wouldn't describe a murder as an assault or battery, you'd describe it as a murder.

So there's a wide range of ages, all the way from prepubescent to seconds before 18.

Is there a minimum age in the US for something to be covered by statutory rape, before it is automatically covered by rape? If, for example, an older man grooms a prepubescent girl to the point where she is willingly having sex with him (at least in her mind), would this be covered under statutory rape law, or would this automatically fall under rape?

It's a good question and to be honest I don't know the answer. I imagine that when you get to the point where the victim hasn't learned how to talk yet it's not even considered for statutory rape and is just rape because it's impossible for the victim to even attempt to consent.

It just dawned on me that we may actually be talking past each other. Surely, what you just told that victim above you wouldn't possibly tell a prepubescent girl, or?

I aimed it at an older victim just to clarify the point.

 

[doctorrg]

Fair enough, Danoff, I guess when you were talking about statutory rape, you were really only talking about teenagers within reach of the age of consent who were actively seeking sex then?

 

[Imari]

Agreed that each situation is different. I'm advocating a bias in custody, not a bright line rule that says the father will never be considered for custody.

Not sure if I missed this amongst the walls of text or if it hasn't been specified yet, but why exactly?

What makes females more suitable for custody that they should have an innate bias for them, instead of simply weighing each case on it's merits?

 

[Danoff]

Fair enough, Danoff, I guess when you were talking about statutory rape, you were really only talking about teenagers within reach of the age of consent who were actively seeking sex then?

No, but they were included in the discussion and are generally the focus of statutory rape discussions, and this topic spawned from a discussion of a particular teenager who actively participated in the act.

Not sure if I missed this amongst the walls of text or if it hasn't been specified yet, but why exactly?

What makes females more suitable for custody that they should have an innate bias for them, instead of simply weighing each case on it's merits?

...because from the moment the child is born the caregiving biological imperative falls on the woman, and women are biologically predisposed to adopt that role. That's not to say that:

- it will always be the case
- that it is impossible for women to not adopt that role
- that it is impossible for any woman to be biologically NOT predisposed to adopt that role
- that women desire that role in all cases
- that men cannot adopt that role
- that all men are not biologically predisposed to adopt that role
- that men are not suited to be caregivers

It is a simple recognition of material differences between men and women.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...because from the moment the child is born the caregiving biological imperative falls on the woman, and women are biologically predisposed to adopt that role. That's not to say that:

- it will always be the case
- that it is impossible for women to not adopt that role
- that it is impossible for any woman to be biologically NOT predisposed to adopt that role
- that women desire that role in all cases
- that men cannot adopt that role
- that all men are not biologically predisposed to adopt that role
- that men are not suited to be caregivers

It is a simple recognition of material differences between men and women.

Didn't you get the memo? It isn't 1932 any more.

 

[Danoff]

Didn't you get the memo? It isn't 1932 any more.

What year it is doesn't change reality.

 

[Exorcet]

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.

I didn't think that you were saying one was a crime and one wasn't. I was getting hung up on your use of consent. I think I see now that you're saying that because the female has more to consent to, it is harder for her to give consent. I suppose technically, but I don't think the difference is so big as to really matter.

To properly understand the situation requires foresight for either gender. Also, if there is something like alcohol involved and decision making is impaired, then there is no way for someone to consent who would not be able to consent when they have all their senses.

On sentencing, for me, there shouldn't be a difference based on gender. If the damage was only physical, then sure. A male doesn't need to be tested for pregnancy and go through abortion. Emotional damage is a potential for anyone though, and it's not something that is easy to undo. That is what would make the sentencing harsh, you can't necessarily take away all the negative consequences that result from the rape. There are differences between male and female, but not large enough ones to make consent different for each sex.

It is a simple recognition of material differences between men and women.

That's less important than the differences between individuals which is what the focus should be on. General trends are unimportant unless you have absolutely nothing else to go on. The argument for gender bias when it comes to custody is even more flimsy than the one for rape.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't think that you were saying one was a crime and one wasn't. I was getting hung up on your use of consent. I think I see now that you're saying that because the female has more to consent to, it is harder for her to give consent. I suppose technically, but I don't think the difference is so big as to really matter.

To properly understand the situation requires foresight for either gender. Also, if there is something like alcohol involved and decision making is impaired, then there is no way for someone to consent who would not be able to consent when they have all their senses.

On sentencing, for me, there shouldn't be a difference based on gender. If the damage was only physical, then sure. A male doesn't need to be tested for pregnancy and go through abortion. Emotional damage is a potential for anyone though, and it's not something that is easy to undo.

Higher for someone who is tested for pregnancy and is concerned about getting an abortion.

That is what would make the sentencing harsh, you can't necessarily take away all the negative consequences that result from the rape. There are differences between male and female, but not large enough ones to make consent different for each sex.

Like pregnancy and abortion? They also don't have to be "large enough" to be the most important thing. Sentencing can take into account a LOT of factors, even small ones, in the particulars of the crime.

That's less important than the differences between individuals which is what the focus should be on. General trends are unimportant unless you have absolutely nothing else to go on. The argument for gender bias when it comes to custody is even more flimsy than the one for rape.

I think in both cases gender bias is appropriate. Obviously the particulars of the case can outweigh that bias, even easily outweigh it. In the case that sparked this conversation though, it doesn't. I would sentence that cheerleader to almost nothing (which is basically what she got).

 

[Exorcet]

Like pregnancy and abortion?

The pregnancy can be, for lack of a better word, fixed. Having to deal with the abortion is the bigger problem and falls in with the stress and emotional damage that comes from being a rape victim. Pregnancy/abortion is not the only source of emotional damage that can come from rape though. Being forced into something or perhaps being betrayed by someone you know can also be emotionally stressful. How damaging this is will vary from person to person and I don't think it's easy to apply a measurement and decide who has it worse. Even if the majority of male rape victims can be said to come off better than females, that shouldn't impact less typical cases. Basically, judge case by case. If you do go case by case, a general bias isn't useful.

I also don't think that pregnancy is only a female concern. The male might be concerned about what happens to the fetus, if there is one. Perhaps he is Christian for example.

They also don't have to be "large enough" to be the most important thing. Sentencing can take into account a LOT of factors, even small ones, in the particulars of the crime.

My stance on criminal punishment is that the first goal is to repair damage done. If you can do that completely without jail or fines, nothing more is really necessary. You can't undo emotional stress, so it's hard to come up with an objective repayment for that issue. This makes sentencing based on those factors subjective. As such, you could argue for harsher punishment when the victim is female. I would not because I think that the potential for emotional stress is the same for either gender. I also wouldn't want something that might encourage making one type of person a victim more often than another.

I think in both cases gender bias is appropriate. Obviously the particulars of the case can outweigh that bias, even easily outweigh it. In the case that sparked this conversation though, it doesn't. I would sentence that cheerleader to almost nothing (which is basically what she got).

I think that 15 can be old enough to consent to sex (and drink), so the cheerleader might not be guilty of anything. I would say the same if the sexes were reversed, assuming that the 15 year old is mature enough.

 

[doctorrg]

No, but they were included in the discussion and are generally the focus of statutory rape discussions, and this topic spawned from a discussion of a particular teenager who actively participated in the act.

I've asked you to address a victim, and that's what you've said:

"I know that you wanted to have sex with this guy, and you think you're old enough to make that decision. You might think you love him now, but you need to wait until you're older to be able to weigh all of the factors involved with sex. Thank goodness he used a the condom, that will spare him some jail time."

So, your typical victim is one who "wanted to have sex", or how else should I take it? It's not just somebody who doesn't say "No" and who may seemingly willingly partake in the act (while actually not being sure about what is happening), it's one who actually "wanted to have sex".

Have you ever been talking about anything else? If you have not, I can just put this all down to us talking past each other, because let's face it, teenagers who are on the cusp of the age of consent and really do want to have sex with the "perpetrator" I'd treat quite a bit different from actual victims of statutory rape. When I was talking of victim, I more thought of one you'd have to tell something along the following lines (using above situation):

"I'm sorry that this has happened to you, we know that you didn't really want to have sex with him, and he merely used you, but unfortunately, you did not say "No". Even if it did not at all seem to you that you were willingy partaking in the act, it did to him, and as such, he could have reasonably believed that you wanted to have sex with him. I know it is not fair, but unfortunately, that's how things are. I know it is equally unfair that he gets an even lesser sentence for the mere fact that he only really protected himself by using a condom, but you need to consider that why you may not have been of any concern to him, it did, in fact, protect you as well. Seeing his concern for himself protected you as well, it should be reflected in a lesser sentence."

So, did we just completely talk past each other here?

 

[Imari]

...because from the moment the child is born the caregiving biological imperative falls on the woman, and women are biologically predisposed to adopt that role.

How so?

You were specific in the statutory rape discussion that it was because women were able to become pregnant and men were not. That clearly doesn't apply here, the child has already been born.

What specifically makes a women biologically predisposed to being a better custodian?

 

[Danoff]

The pregnancy can be, for lack of a better word, fixed. Having to deal with the abortion is the bigger problem and falls in with the stress and emotional damage that comes from being a rape victim. Pregnancy/abortion is not the only source of emotional damage that can come from rape though. Being forced into something or perhaps being betrayed by someone you know can also be emotionally stressful. How damaging this is will vary from person to person and I don't think it's easy to apply a measurement and decide who has it worse. Even if the majority of male rape victims can be said to come off better than females, that shouldn't impact less typical cases. Basically, judge case by case. If you do go case by case, a general bias isn't useful.

General bias is useful in combination with case-by-case fact-specific sentencing.

I also don't think that pregnancy is only a female concern. The male might be concerned about what happens to the fetus, if there is one. Perhaps he is Christian for example.

Agreed, it's just more of a female concern.

My stance on criminal punishment is that the first goal is to repair damage done. If you can do that completely without jail or fines, nothing more is really necessary. You can't undo emotional stress, so it's hard to come up with an objective repayment for that issue. This makes sentencing based on those factors subjective. As such, you could argue for harsher punishment when the victim is female. I would not because I think that the potential for emotional stress is the same for either gender. I also wouldn't want something that might encourage making one type of person a victim more often than another.

Criminal punishment has a lot of goals, not just reparations. If harsher sentencing for robbery leads potential robbers to be burglars instead, great. If that changes the demographic of the victims so be it.

So, your typical victim is one who "wanted to have sex", or how else should I take it? It's not just somebody who doesn't say "No" and who may seemingly willingly partake in the act (while actually not being sure about what is happening), it's one who actually "wanted to have sex".

That is the typical statutory rape victim. I fact, I know this is just anecdotal so it means very little, but every statutory rape victim I have met fits that description.

Have you ever been talking about anything else? If you have not, I can just put this all down to us talking past each other, because let's face it, teenagers who are on the cusp of the age of consent and really do want to have sex with the "perpetrator" I'd treat quite a bit different from actual victims of statutory rape.
So, did we just completely talk past each other here?

I don't know that we completely talked past each other, but I am focused primarily on the case that started the conversation and the general profile for statutory rape, so we may have talked mostly past each other.

How so?

You were specific in the statutory rape discussion that it was because women were able to become pregnant and men were not. That clearly doesn't apply here, the child has already been born.

What specifically makes a women biologically predisposed to being a better custodian?

Boobs and brain chemistry. Again, see all the disclaimers I posted earlier. I suppose you don't think men are biologically predisposed to be better hunters.

 

[A2K78]

I'd rather go for egalitarianism over anything else; all rights for all people. Equality for everybody regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, colour, ethnicity, nationality, religion, social status, age, height, hair colour or whatever doesn't float your boat.

Ignore the bit that talks about wealth redistribution.

Its times like this where Walter Williams really shine...

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/opinio...cle_df71fcdb-2c5f-5bdf-a99f-50362fab9170.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

I suppose you don't think men are biologically predisposed to be better hunters.

They aren't, that's simply a way to justify modern sexual inequality. If presumption of that predisposition was correct then we'd be unlikely to see "untouched" tribes with a long history of female hunters. But we do. You seem, in my opinion, to be continuing to justify another male-centric facet of your outlook.

 

[Imari]

Boobs...

So even without taking into account the fact that formula exists, half of your justification disappears after the child is about six months old.

...and brain chemistry. Again, see all the disclaimers I posted earlier. I suppose you don't think men are biologically predisposed to be better hunters.

If we're talking about hunters in the generic "go into the woods with a spear and get me a deer" sense, yes and no.

If on average men tended to be bigger and stronger and more likely to have skills useful for hunting, that could be considered an advantage. If I then I had to choose between a man and a woman to be my hunter, knowing nothing else about them than their sex, I'd probably get a better result choosing the man.

But the important part there is knowing nothing else about them.

That isn't the case in custody battles. The idea is to know as many of the relevant facts about the parties involved as possible, and to make the decision based on rational factors. The only reason to resort to this sort of statistical stacking of the deck is if you're either not trying to actively judge, or your system of active judgement is so ineffective that you're actually better off going on pure statistics.

Say I have a bag of coins. Some are weighted one way, some the other, some not at all. I know from experience that just picking a coin out of the bag and flipping it has a 60% chance of being a head.

I could just say "next coin will be a head", pull a coin out and flip it. That would be one way to decide.

Or I could pull the coin out, examine it, and make a rational decision based on observable factors as to the specific probability that this coin will end up being a head or not. If the weighted coins are often visibly weighted, I can do way better than statistical probability by using this method. If all the weighted coins are visibly weighted, I can reliably bat 1000, something that would only happen by luck if I was using statistics.

Group statistics are only useful in aiding decision making for individuals if you don't have specific data. When you do have specific data, introducing an inbuilt bias into your system only makes it worse.

Let's say you're a judge, and you're making decisions on who gets custody. You have objective assessments of each of the parties, which have in the past proven to be reliable. The candidate with the better "custody score" on their assessment gets custody.

If you simply use that system as is, then custody goes to the better custodian. Unless there's a tie, in which case it doesn't matter because they're equally good.

If you introduce bias, then you're effectively saying "females get +5 to their custody score because they're female". This is going to result in females who are objectively worse custodians than their opposing males ending up with custody, just because you've biased the system in their favour.

Now, in the real world it isn't that simple. The judge has to actually use judgement as to who is the better custodian, instead of being handed a pair of numbers and seeing which is higher. But the same idea applies; if each candidate is being judged fairly on all factors, then the better candidate will get custody. That includes whether the specific candidate has good rapport with their children, is caring, and all the other stereotypically female things that are not only found in females. In a system with bias, sometimes the worse candidate will end up with custody because the bias pushes them to the top.

You explain to me how introducing bias to the system gives a better result than simply choosing based on objective measures, and maybe I'll see where you're coming from. Maybe your country has such a shonky legal system that custody battles would have better results if they were chosen statistically, but we're talking about a somewhat idealised system here anyway. It's not necessarily about what is, which is always going to be a trade off between the best result and the most efficient, but what would give the best result overall if it were possible to do it.

You say it's a biased system. I say it's not, and that pure objectivity will give the best results in cases such as custody hearings where you have information about your choices.

I will say that where there is information missing, it can be useful to use statistical data to fill in for that, but that can be part of an objective system too. By baking it into a biased system, you're denying yourself the opportunity to objectively evaluate those criteria when you can. Presupposing bias limits your opportunity to adapt to what is available, in a system where only partial information (and not always the same partial information) is available.

 

[Danoff]

They aren't, that's simply a way to justify modern sexual inequality. If presumption of that predisposition was correct then we'd be unlikely to see "untouched" tribes with a long history of female hunters. But we do. You seem, in my opinion, to be continuing to justify another male-centric facet of your outlook.

Quite to the contrary, the fact that men are biologically predisposed for hunting does not preclude tribes with a long history of female hunters. That would be a different statement altogether, the kind of statement that I very specifically addressed in a long list of caveats. Is it impossible to have an honest conversation? Or do we need to reduce everything to corner cases?

So even without taking into account the fact that formula exists, half of your justification disappears after the child is about six months old.

1) Half of what I wrote is not half of my justification.
2) Yup, nursing has no psychological impact on the child or mother beyond six months. After the six month point the kid acts as though it never happened. The kid does not in any way show any effects.

If we're talking about hunters in the generic "go into the woods with a spear and get me a deer" sense, yes and no.

If on average men tended to be bigger and stronger and more likely to have skills useful for hunting, that could be considered an advantage. If I then I had to choose between a man and a woman to be my hunter, knowing nothing else about them than their sex, I'd probably get a better result choosing the man.

But the important part there is knowing nothing else about them.

That isn't the case in custody battles. The idea is to know as many of the relevant facts about the parties involved as possible, and to make the decision based on rational factors. The only reason to resort to this sort of statistical stacking of the deck is if you're either not trying to actively judge, or your system of active judgement is so ineffective that you're actually better off going on pure statistics.

I suppose I shouldn't be a surprised as I am that people want to ignore any and all biological differences between men and women. Yes biology is blurry, and yes some of it is social engineering, and yes everyone is different and need case by case treatment - all of which has been said (by me) before. That doesn't mean that we should ignore biology every time in all cases. It is still useful. Tossing out good information because it doesn't always work in every single case is why we have random screenings at the airport - it harms our ability to make decisions.

By the way we do use this sort of information when it comes to finding serial killers.

Say I have a bag of coins. Some are weighted one way, some the other, some not at all. I know from experience that just picking a coin out of the bag and flipping it has a 60% chance of being a head.

I could just say "next coin will be a head", pull a coin out and flip it. That would be one way to decide.

Or I could pull the coin out, examine it, and make a rational decision based on observable factors as to the specific probability that this coin will end up being a head or not. If the weighted coins are often visibly weighted, I can do way better than statistical probability by using this method. If all the weighted coins are visibly weighted, I can reliably bat 1000, something that would only happen by luck if I was using statistics.

Group statistics are only useful in aiding decision making for individuals if you don't have specific data. When you do have specific data, introducing an inbuilt bias into your system only makes it worse.

Group statistics are always useful, even when you have specific data. How you weight the data is what makes it useful. All information is useful for decision making, you never want to close your eyes when making a decision. This brings us back to equal protection, where we assign no weight to certain pieces of information because the information is not material. Where there is a material difference, some weight (the weight will depend on the case specifics) should be given to those facts.

Let's say you're a judge, and you're making decisions on who gets custody. You have objective assessments of each of the parties, which have in the past proven to be reliable. The candidate with the better "custody score" on their assessment gets custody.

If you simply use that system as is, then custody goes to the better custodian. Unless there's a tie, in which case it doesn't matter because they're equally good.

If you introduce bias, then you're effectively saying "females get +5 to their custody score because they're female". This is going to result in females who are objectively worse custodians than their opposing males ending up with custody, just because you've biased the system in their favour.

Then you have a crappy custody score. Not because you introduced bias, but because you did so improperly. If being female really is worth +5, then you don't end up with females who are objectively worse custodians.

Now, in the real world it isn't that simple. The judge has to actually use judgement as to who is the better custodian, instead of being handed a pair of numbers and seeing which is higher. But the same idea applies; if each candidate is being judged fairly on all factors, then the better candidate will get custody. That includes whether the specific candidate has good rapport with their children, is caring, and all the other stereotypically female things that are not only found in females. In a system with bias, sometimes the worse candidate will end up with custody because the bias pushes them to the top.

If the judge takes the time to get to know the parents, see each parent interact with their children individually, interviews the children, does a home study where the parents will be living, and spends a few years really getting to know everyone involved, their families, their priorities, and the judge has a really solid background in parenting, child education, and knows what the recipe is for raising a good adult, then the judge can make a complete and accurate decision that has nothing to do with gender.

You explain to me how introducing bias to the system gives a better result than simply choosing based on objective measures, and maybe I'll see where you're coming from.

You don't have much data, but you know something about the characteristics of the solution, so to make a rapid decision with little information that has a higher likelihood of being correct you take into account what you know about the end result.

I will say that where there is information missing, it can be useful to use statistical data to fill in for that, but that can be part of an objective system too.

Thank you for conceding my point.

 

[A2K78]

Just recently I was watching a show called To The Contrary and they were talking about the lack of women in congress. Now according to one of the guest, none of Republican women can really be women because:

- they don't support an expansion of the welfare state
- they don't support abortion

Now I am no fan individuals like Jodi Ernst but to say that women who don't support an expansion of the welfare state aren't women is down right retarded. To make things worse one of women declared men's sports as being opressive to women. My question is, what sort of brainwashing is this.

 

[squadops]

The sort of brainwashing that works

A woman has the power to give birth and her influence on rearing the child is second to none, there is nothing more powerful than that. Perhaps I should put my shovel down and let the ladies dig the ditch.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My question is, what sort of brainwashing is this.

An opinion? Hopefully a listener can make up their own mind.