
Statutory Squirming
By Scott Cunning
Are you a rapist?, asks War of the Genders, in a thoroughly reasonable look at how much we take for granted with regard to statutory rape:
So this must mean the law refers to more subtle matters: Responsibility in case something does go wrong, willpower to make the right decisions, understanding of sex and when it is correct to have it, being able to tell when you are being manipulated, and an understanding of the effects of sex on relationships.
Now I can go in an obvious but controversial direction with this and argue that the rare teenager may be mature enough to handle this, but this isn't interesting. What's much more fascinating is that I know plenty of 30 year olds who wouldn't pass these tests. How long does it really take before adults can tell they are being used? How long before they act responsibly and have the willpower to be consistent with what they know? How many ever reach an understanding of sex, its full consequences and its power? Who says that a superficial knowledge of how to use and control sex is enough? And what about having sex with people under the influence of alcohol, drugs or even strong emotions?
One can argue that responsibility is the key issue and that even if adults make mistakes, at least they are mature enough to handle it. But this isn't always the case either. If all adults were mature about their sexual decisions, they wouldn't need so much revenge and therapy after their errors in judgement.
So why don't more people look at a 26 year old after they get to know them and think "this person has not yet reached the age of consent"? In fact, why not declare casual sex as illegal since in this case one obviously did not have enough time to determine whether one's partner has reached the age of consent?
I love this stuff.
First of all, brilliant points on the question of responsibility and understanding the consequences of sex. I've been accused of being quite the bastard to women with some of the things I've said about consequences in the past, but I think that only reinforces the Baron's point: The artificial ages our laws pick are way too young. A great many women are going to be taken advantage of and/or terminally mess themselves up because their sexual awareness is immature.
Secondly, the "statutory casual sex" bit at the end is classic. It points up the lunacy of age-based laws; while I certainly agree that American teenagers are, by and large almost universally incompetent at making intelligent decisions about tobacco and alcohol, the laws foisted upon retailers to control access are approaching epic proportions of ridiculousness. Sting operations, penalties for falling for fake i.d.s, and recent laws in several municipalities (one almost passed here last spring, as I recall) mandating that minors attempting to buy alcohol be detained by a store place a grossly unfair burden on the frontline employees of these businesses. (Who, I'd like to point out--in an unusually liberal slant for Scott Cunning--generally have few other options for employment and no say at all in whether or not their employer sells alcohol or tobacco.)
The very perceived necessity of such jackboot tactics, however, suggests a similar problem faced by statutory rapists who are young enough to court borderline teens: How much effort is a man required to undertake to ascertain that his quarry is of legal age?
I met a college student who took home a girl he met at a Greek mixer; she turned out to be not a member of the sorority she was hanging out with, but one of the sorority sister's little sister. How little? 16 years old, in a state with an age of consent at 18. He was understandably freaked out the next morning.
"What the hell are you talking about?" I hear you saying. "There are some questionable 18-year-olds, but you can tell a 16-year-old from a consenting adult. He must have been trashed."
Okay, maybe he was trashed. But if it's so easy to tell, why do retail workers labor under insane "You must check the i.d. of any adult under the age of 27" laws?
We need statutory rape laws; don't misunderstand my rant. But they're broken. I don't know that there is a better way, and I'm certainly not looking to date anybody who's within even three years of the line in my own state, but it needs to be said that this is another mommy-state (or, maybe in this case, daddy-with-a-shotgun-state) statute that draws a hard line on a squirming issue.
Filed under sex, statutory rape and age.
|
|