Woman rapes 14 year old boy, escapes conviction, bemoans she'll be seen as a sex offender anyway

[ruby sparks]

Personally, I doubt that getting laid did the boy any harm. It probably boosted his self esteem.
Tom

<Consistency edit>

I think you should maybe count to 10 and then retract that.

 

[TomC]

Personally, I doubt that getting laid did the boy any harm. It probably boosted his self esteem.
Tom

<Consistency edit>

Brilliant analysis.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Prosecuting Mrs. Robinson? Gender, Sexuality, and Statutory Rape Laws
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/te...k5583.0016.003;g=mfsg;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1

A relevant Feminist article.

It does critique the issue quite well, albeit using a Feminist lens.

And I have skimmed it, not had time to read it through thoroughly.

One thing that struck me as potentially odd was that when it came to choosing 3 case studies, the 3 chosen were (a) adult woman/boy, (b) gay man/boy and (c) adult woman/girl. I would have thought the one left out (adult man/girl) was the most common? If so, why the omission?

The article does make points elsewhere about men in general getting the raw end of the deal (for reasons suggested by the writer) so it's not entirely as if straight men are not due appropriate consideration, but perhaps the emphasis (as regards the adults) was on women and 'our fellow oppressed' (gay) men. Given the Feminist leanings of the writer, that would not be surprising, but on the whole it strikes me that this is, at least, liberal Feminism, not radical Feminism.

Looks like it left that out, because it is the common one, and it's the one the laws were initially written for. The paper is looking at how other combinations get treated.

The laws originally were gender-specific: they punished a male who had sexual intercourse with a female not his wife under the age of consent. As of August 2000, all fifty states have gender-neutral statutory rape laws, in which either a male or female may be prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity with a male or female (who is not the perpetrator's spouse) under the age of consent. While a solely heterosexual framework would assume that this was meant to prohibit sex between an older female and younger male, prosecutions under the laws have targeted homosexual relationships as well.

Considering the marital exemption, the prosecutions of same-age perpetrators (usually males), and the use of the laws against homosexual activity even as most states have decriminalized sodomy, one wonders if "age" is really the operative category in statutory rape laws. I would argue, rather, that such laws are based on—and serve to reinforce—cultural stereotypes of gender. That is, heterosexual males are perceived to be the active, aggressive, party in sexual intercourse (defined in the laws as penetration); heterosexual females as the passive, victimized, party.

This article explores the ways in which cultural narratives of sexuality work to undermine the gender-neutral language of statutory rape laws.

 

[Jarhyn]

Prosecuting Mrs. Robinson? Gender, Sexuality, and Statutory Rape Laws
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/te...k5583.0016.003;g=mfsg;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1

A relevant Feminist article.

It does critique the issue quite well, albeit using a Feminist lens.

And I have skimmed it, not had time to read it through thoroughly.

One thing that struck me as potentially odd was that when it came to choosing 3 case studies, the 3 chosen were (a) adult woman/boy, (b) gay man/boy and (c) adult woman/girl. I would have thought the one left out (adult man/girl) was the most common? If so, why the omission?

The article does make points elsewhere about men in general getting the raw end of the deal (for reasons suggested by the writer) so it's not entirely as if straight men are not due appropriate consideration, but perhaps the emphasis (as regards the adults) was on women and 'our fellow oppressed' (gay) men. Given the Feminist leanings of the writer, that would not be surprising, but on the whole it strikes me that this is, at least, liberal Feminism, not radical Feminism.

Looks like it left that out, because it is the common one, and it's the one the laws were initially written for. The paper is looking at how other combinations get treated.

The laws originally were gender-specific: they punished a male who had sexual intercourse with a female not his wife under the age of consent. As of August 2000, all fifty states have gender-neutral statutory rape laws, in which either a male or female may be prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity with a male or female (who is not the perpetrator's spouse) under the age of consent. While a solely heterosexual framework would assume that this was meant to prohibit sex between an older female and younger male, prosecutions under the laws have targeted homosexual relationships as well.

Considering the marital exemption, the prosecutions of same-age perpetrators (usually males), and the use of the laws against homosexual activity even as most states have decriminalized sodomy, one wonders if "age" is really the operative category in statutory rape laws. I would argue, rather, that such laws are based on—and serve to reinforce—cultural stereotypes of gender. That is, heterosexual males are perceived to be the active, aggressive, party in sexual intercourse (defined in the laws as penetration); heterosexual females as the passive, victimized, party.

This article explores the ways in which cultural narratives of sexuality work to undermine the gender-neutral language of statutory rape laws.

One thing to note is that as a man, I am terrified of the cultural bias against men with regards to just being around children, let alone being out and about with my own kid when the day comes.

The worst part about the situation is how fucking inconsistent things are. Sure this shit happens, and a travesty of justice to be sure! But then the Kavenaughs are out there boofing and raping and seeing no consequences at all. Metaphor and the like are on the lookout of any woman who gets less punishment than they thi k she deserves (and to be fair, this woman has definitely earned herself some corrective action, albeit she dodged it anyway)... But I could fill these forums every day with rape cases where judges play softball with rapists because they are from "good families" or "wouldn't do well in prison".

I really just want all rapists to be taken off the streets and put somewhere that the only people they have around to rape are each other, and hopefully we can prevent that, too.

 

[J842P]

Looks like it left that out, because it is the common one, and it's the one the laws were initially written for. The paper is looking at how other combinations get treated.

One thing to note is that as a man, I am terrified of the cultural bias against men with regards to just being around children, let alone being out and about with my own kid when the day comes.

The worst part about the situation is how fucking inconsistent things are. Sure this shit happens, and a travesty of justice to be sure! But then the Kavenaughs are out there boofing and raping and seeing no consequences at all. Metaphor and the like are on the lookout of any woman who gets less punishment than they thi k she deserves (and to be fair, this woman has definitely earned herself some corrective action, albeit she dodged it anyway)... But I could fill these forums every day with rape cases where judges play softball with rapists because they are from "good families" or "wouldn't do well in prison".

I really just want all rapists to be taken off the streets and put somewhere that the only people they have around to rape are each other, and hopefully we can prevent that, too.

I would say, by a long shot, the most dismissed type of rape, which occurs relatively frequently, is of male prisoners by other male prisoners. It is frequently the subject of jokes, and a lot of people seem to treat it as simply a part of the punishment package that comes along with prison. That is my impression.

I understand what you mean about the cultural bias against men. But I also think it is not entirely irrational. But yeah, it sucks.

 

[Metaphor]

Looks like it left that out, because it is the common one, and it's the one the laws were initially written for. The paper is looking at how other combinations get treated.

One thing to note is that as a man, I am terrified of the cultural bias against men with regards to just being around children, let alone being out and about with my own kid when the day comes.

The worst part about the situation is how fucking inconsistent things are. Sure this shit happens, and a travesty of justice to be sure! But then the Kavenaughs are out there boofing and raping and seeing no consequences at all. Metaphor and the like are on the lookout of any woman who gets less punishment than they thi k she deserves (and to be fair, this woman has definitely earned herself some corrective action, albeit she dodged it anyway)... But I could fill these forums every day with rape cases where judges play softball with rapists because they are from "good families" or "wouldn't do well in prison".

I really just want all rapists to be taken off the streets and put somewhere that the only people they have around to rape are each other, and hopefully we can prevent that, too.

I would say, by a long shot, the most dismissed type of rape, which occurs relatively frequently, is of male prisoners by other male prisoners. It is frequently the subject of jokes, and a lot of people seem to treat it as simply a part of the punishment package that comes along with prison. That is my impression.

I understand what you mean about the cultural bias against men. But I also think it is not entirely irrational. But yeah, it sucks.

Many airlines have policies that unaccompanied children will not be seated next to adult males. (This policy isn't openly advertised of course, but it's there nonetheless).

What Jarhyn probably would not recognise is that these kinds of cultural biases get more heavily entrenched by feminists who believe, and preach, that all men are potential predators, and, because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator, women are justified in treating all men with suspicion. (Of course, treating any other demographic group with suspicion or making sweeping generalisations about them would be regarded with horror and cries of bigotry from those selfsame feminists).

 

[Arctish]

What Jarhyn probably would not recognise is that these kinds of cultural biases get more heavily entrenched by feminists who believe, and preach, that all men are potential predators,

Any random person might be a predator. That's not controversial. It's why parents teach their children about Stranger Danger and why most people are leery about picking up hitch hikers.

and, because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator,

Are you exaggerating for dramatic effect here? Because ^this^ is misogynist bullshit. If this discussion follows the usual course someone will call you on it and you'll get all offended they thought you were being serious, so IMO it would be best to clear things up right away.

Are you being serious?

 

[J842P]

What Jarhyn probably would not recognise is that these kinds of cultural biases get more heavily entrenched by feminists who believe, and preach, that all men are potential predators,

Any random person might be a predator. That's not controversial. It's why parents teach their children about Stranger Danger and why most people are leery about picking up hitch hikers.

and, because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator,

Are you exaggerating for dramatic effect here? Because ^this^ is misogynist bullshit. If this discussion follows the usual course someone will call you on it and you'll get all offended they thought you were being serious, so IMO it would be best to clear things up right away.

Are you being serious?

He isn't claiming that is his position, he is describing the position of a certain strain of feminist discussion around "rape culture". There was definitely some threads about the whole “all men are potential rapists” statement that was going around a few years ago.

 

[Metaphor]

Are you exaggerating for dramatic effect here? Because ^this^ is misogynist bullshit. If this discussion follows the usual course someone will call you on it and you'll get all offended they thought you were being serious, so IMO it would be best to clear things up right away.

Are you being serious?

Am I being serious that I have read articles, penned by feminists, that make the exact claim "women can't tell good guys from predators"? (Also, the related claim that "abusive men are not monstrous abberaions, they are the ordinary and expected product of the patriarchy"). Yes, I have read those articles and seen those claims made.

If you think it's a misogynist thing to say, I'm not surprised, because feminists say some unbelievably misogynist shit.

 

[Arctish]

Are you exaggerating for dramatic effect here? Because ^this^ is misogynist bullshit. If this discussion follows the usual course someone will call you on it and you'll get all offended they thought you were being serious, so IMO it would be best to clear things up right away.

Are you being serious?

Am I being serious that I have read articles, penned by feminists, that make the exact claim "women can't tell good guys from predators"? (Also, the related claim that "abusive men are not monstrous abberaions, they are the ordinary and expected product of the patriarchy"). Yes, I have read those articles and seen those claims made.

I can't comment on what i haven't read, but I wonder if those Feminists were being all that radical when they talked about not being able to tell good guys from predators.

The women Ted Bundy murdered couldn't tell he was a predator when he was chatting them up. The young men John Wayne Gacy invited into his house couldn't tell he was a predator, either. Neither could the people who hired him to perform at parties and hospitals. Samantha Koenig could tell Israel Keyes was creepy before he abducted her at gunpoint, but she certainly couldn't tell he was a serial killer. If she could, she would have quit her job and never gone near that coffee kiosk again.

WRT the related claim "abusive men are not monstrous abberaions, they are the ordinary and expected product of the patriarchy", that sounds like Andrea Dworkin. Did you read one of her essays?

If you think it's a misogynist thing to say, I'm not surprised, because feminists say some unbelievably misogynist shit.

I can't take your word on that, and I think you know why.

I'd like to see the actual articles if you can find them.

 

[Metaphor]

I can't comment on what i haven't read, but I wonder if those Feminists were being all that radical when they talked about not being able to tell good guys from predators.

So then why the FUCK did you call me "misogynist" for repeating something you now appear to agree with??

I'd like to see the actual articles if you can find them.

I'll try to find the one I was thinking of tonight. I'm trying to be more proactive about saving them/bookmarking them.

 

[Arctish]

I can't comment on what i haven't read, but I wonder if those Feminists were being all that radical when they talked about not being able to tell good guys from predators.

So then why the FUCK did you call me "misogynist" for repeating something you now appear to agree with??

1. I didn't call you misogynist, I said that part of your post was misogynist bullshit and asked if you were being serious because

2. you the FUCK looked like you were doing that Dramatic Mental Voice thing and I wanted to know if you were going to get all huffy if people who can't 'hear' your tone took you seriously.

I'd like to see the actual articles if you can find them.

I'll try to find the one I was thinking of tonight. I'm trying to be more proactive about saving them/bookmarking them.

 

[Metaphor]

1. I didn't call you misogynist, I said that part of your post was misogynist bullshit and asked if you were being serious because

2. you the FUCK looked like you were doing that Dramatic Mental Voice thing and I wanted to know if you were going to get all huffy if people who can't 'hear' your tone took you seriously,

and

3. because you were claiming that Feminists were saying women can't tell the difference in a way that implied you thought they thought men could.

That's on you. I told you what some feminists have said about women, and you appeared to believe it was something *I* was saying about women (or about men). Quite why you believed that I don't know, since the entire sentence was about what feminists have said, not what I believe.

 

[Arctish]

1. I didn't call you misogynist, I said that part of your post was misogynist bullshit and asked if you were being serious because

2. you the FUCK looked like you were doing that Dramatic Mental Voice thing and I wanted to know if you were going to get all huffy if people who can't 'hear' your tone took you seriously,

and

3. because you were claiming that Feminists were saying women can't tell the difference in a way that implied you thought they thought men could.

That's on you. I told you what some feminists have said about women, and you appeared to believe it was something *I* was saying about women (or about men). Quite why you believed that I don't know, since the entire sentence was about what feminists have said, not what I believe.

Apparently I missed your point. Please help me sift it out.

This is the exchange I quoted in part:

I would say, by a long shot, the most dismissed type of rape, which occurs relatively frequently, is of male prisoners by other male prisoners. It is frequently the subject of jokes, and a lot of people seem to treat it as simply a part of the punishment package that comes along with prison. That is my impression.

I understand what you mean about the cultural bias against men. But I also think it is not entirely irrational. But yeah, it sucks.

Many airlines have policies that unaccompanied children will not be seated next to adult males. (This policy isn't openly advertised of course, but it's there nonetheless).

What Jarhyn probably would not recognise is that these kinds of cultural biases get more heavily entrenched by feminists who believe, and preach, that all men are potential predators, and, because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator, women are justified in treating all men with suspicion. (Of course, treating any other demographic group with suspicion or making sweeping generalisations about them would be regarded with horror and cries of bigotry from those selfsame feminists).

You were talking about "these kinds of cultural biases" that become "more heavily entrenched by feminists who believe, and preach, that all men are potential predators, and, because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator, women are justified in treating all men with suspicion."

From the context it appears you are criticizing feminists for stoking bias against men, which you say becomes more heavily entrenched when feminists point out something that is true. All men are potential predators. All women are, too. And all gender non-conforming people are potential predators as well. Of course, the likelihood of any of them actually being a predator is pretty small, but let's be honest here, a woman or gender non-conforming person is a lot less likely to be a predator than a man, although that likelihood increases in the victim is a child under that person's care or supervision.

The next part of your sentence, "because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator, women are justified in treating all men with suspicion", I believed was an overly dramatic oversimplification that read like misogynist snark. Women and men and gender non-conforming people cannot tell a predator from a non-predator under normal circumstances. It would be helpful if you'd simply use the word "people" when you're talking about something common to people in general, especially if you're blaming feminists for something in the same sentence.

The last part, about women being justified in treating all men with suspicion, is generally true. The degree of suspicion can be unreasonable, but all it takes is one a-hole fingering a girl's crotch as he passes her on a sidewalk for a measure of suspicion to seem prudent.

Similarly, all it takes in one man sexually molesting an unaccompanied minor, and one family suing for damages, for an airline to conclude that adopting a policy to keep strange men away from kids traveling alone is sensible. And we all know it wasn't just that one guy molesting that one girl. Men groping women and children on flights has been a recurring problem.

 

[J842P]

I'm confused, what were you referring to as misogynist?

Because you quoted:

and, because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator

But you seem to agree with that?

 

[Arctish]

I'm confused, what were you referring to as misogynist?

Because you quoted:

and, because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator

But you seem to agree with that?

It was the singling out women that read that way to me.

Women and men and gender non-conforming people cannot tell a predator from a non-predator under normal circumstance.

 

[Metaphor]

You were talking about "these kinds of cultural biases" that become "more heavily entrenched by feminists who believe, and preach, that all men are potential predators, and, because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator, women are justified in treating all men with suspicion."

From the context it appears you are criticizing feminists for stoking bias against men, which you say becomes more heavily entrenched when feminists point out something that is true. All men are potential predators. All women are, too. And all gender non-conforming people are potential predators as well. Of course, the likelihood of any of them actually being a predator is pretty small, but let's be honest here, a woman or gender non-conforming person is a lot less likely to be a predator than a man, although that likelihood increases in the victim is a child under that person's care or supervision.

Yes, and black men are more likely to commit violent crime than white men, yet no feminist would dream of saying "I am afraid of white men, and really afraid of black men".

The next part of your sentence, "because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator, women are justified in treating all men with suspicion", I believed was an overly dramatic oversimplification that read like misogynist snark.

I was paraphrasing a feminist article (something that was published in the mainstream media). It was probably an article aimed at men telling them why they need to accept being regarded with suspicion by women, and giving them some tips on the labour men need to enact (like crossing the street away from any woman walking down it) so that feminists become less anxious.

Women and men and gender non-conforming people cannot tell a predator from a non-predator under normal circumstances. It would be helpful if you'd simply use the word "people" when you're talking about something common to people in general, especially if you're blaming feminists for something in the same sentence.

But the feminist sentiment I was talking about does not talk about 'people' being unable to distinguish predators from non-predators. It talks about women being unable to distinguish predatory men from non-predatory men.

The last part, about women being justified in treating all men with suspicion, is generally true. The degree of suspicion can be unreasonable, but all it takes is one a-hole fingering a girl's crotch as he passes her on a sidewalk for a measure of suspicion to seem prudent.

Women have the right to be as suspicious as they want. but the existence of anxiety of women does not create an obligation on non-predatory men to enact the labour to assuage anxiety, nor to pretend that policy that targets men is anything but prejudiced discrimination.

Similarly, all it takes in one man sexually molesting an unaccompanied minor, and one family suing for damages, for an airline to conclude that adopting a policy to keep strange men away from kids traveling alone is sensible. And we all know it wasn't just that one guy molesting that one girl. Men groping women and children on flights has been a recurring problem.

That doesn't detract from my point that the existence of such a policy, built on prejudiced discrimination against men, is something other than it is.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm confused, what were you referring to as misogynist?

Because you quoted:

and, because women cannot tell a predator from a non-predator

But you seem to agree with that?

It was the singling out women that read that way to me.

Women and men and gender non-conforming people cannot tell a predator from a non-predator under normal circumstance.

I didn't single out women. The feminist writer justified women's feelings of anxiety and suspicion about men based on women's inability to distinguish predatory men from non-predatory men.

 

[Jokodo]

But the feminist sentiment I was talking about does not talk about 'people' being unable to distinguish predators from non-predators. It talks about women being unable to distinguish predatory men from non-predatory men.

The latter is a subset of the former and a logical consequence of humans not being able to read minds, but the only one where there's an actual need to discuss. Chances are the "feminist sentiment" you mention doesn't discuss locking your doors because we all seem to agree that that's a sensible precaution, and picks out the more specific case because women actually get a ton of shit for perfectly sensible precautions here and here.

If it were commonplace for people to get all personally offended by the insinuation that they might be thieves whenever their neighbours lock the doors, it might make sense to discuss the broader case. As it is, the same people who in all other cases don't mind about sensible precautions all of a sudden become irrationally agitated when the one one taking the precautions is a woman and the misfortune against which the precaution serves is the low-probability event of an unfamiliar man turning out to be a predator.

tl;dr: It's you, not them, who's using a double standard.

 

[Jokodo]

Or in other words, from the widely acknowledged facts that women are people, that people don't have mind reading skills, and that it requires mind reading skills to reliably recognise a potential predator it necessarily follows that women are "unable to distinguish predatory men from non-predatory men". By treating this statement as some outlandish piece of feminist propaganda and insulting to all men rather than as the rather trivial truth thatit is, you're denying one of these truths. Which one is it?