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

[ruby sparks]

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.

Yes, I can see that when it came to case studies, the writer took a limited view. But if your article is about the bit I bolded above, then why sideline by far the most common type of example?

My guess, as before, is that as a Feminist, the types chosen are closer to her concerns. Which as I said, would not be surprising, if true.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Yes, I can see that when it came to case studies, the writer took a limited view. But if your article is about the bit I bolded above, then why sideline by far the most common type of example?

My guess, as before, is that as a Feminist, the types chosen are closer to her concerns. Which as I said, would not be surprising, if true.

We sideline by far the most common example because it is already well studied and widely understood.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

What on earth are you talking about? What double standard? I've never told any person to stop taking precautions. I simply pointed out that feminists publically advertise their prejudiced discrimination against men.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

What. On. Earth.

I did not say anything was 'outlandish feminist propaganda'. I said that feminists perpetuate the social attitude that men should be pre-emptively treated as predators/regarded with suspicion.

And I pointed out that supporting pre-emptive treatment with suspicion, if it were applied to any other group, would be a cancellable outrage.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

Yes, I can see that when it came to case studies, the writer took a limited view. But if your article is about the bit I bolded above, then why sideline by far the most common type of example?

My guess, as before, is that as a Feminist, the types chosen are closer to her concerns. Which as I said, would not be surprising, if true.

We sideline by far the most common example because it is already well studied and widely understood.

Doesn't make sense. The premise is that the laws now have gender neutral language, and the stated aim of the article is to explore "the ways in which cultural narratives of sexuality work to undermine the gender-neutral language" (explicitly restated elsewhere as "..has the change in the language of the law resulted in a change in prosecutions under the laws, or a change in cultural discourses about statutory rape?"). So by far the most common type is not covered by being previously 'well studied and understood' because the gender neutral language is now the relevant new factor being considered, and the writer has focused more on minority cases.

 

[Toni]

Maybe but the issue is whether it was proved she knowingly broke the law and committed a crime. It's very difficult to prove in these situations.

If she believed he was 16 or older then it's up to her (and the boy) what happens next.

And from the boy's description of what happened, it doesn't sound like she was all that committed to establishing consent, either. I certainly have little pity for the damage to her reputation. Luring someone upstairs with video games, then suddenly stripping down, makes a person sound pretty damn predatory even if her actions fall into the zone of technical legality.

If indeed it went down that way. These cases are always very difficult.

It doesn't or shouldn't matter whether she DID know but rather whether she SHOULD have known. She is an adult. She knew that the boy was a boy and not a legal adult. His actual age is a quibble and one she surely would have ignored. Justice was not served in this case. I hope the boy gets the help he needs and that karma comes calling for that woman.

Society barely acknowledges that 14 year old girls can be and are raped. It remains unwilling for the most part to acknowledge that 14 year old boys are raped even when presented with evidence of rape.

 

[Jarhyn]

We sideline by far the most common example because it is already well studied and widely understood.

Doesn't make sense. The premise is that the laws now have gender neutral language, and the stated aim of the article is to see if cultural narratives of sexuality work to undermine this language (explicitly stated as "But has the change in the language of the law resulted in a change in prosecutions under the laws, or a change in cultural discourses about statutory rape?"). So the by far the most common type is not covered (in the case studies) by being previously 'well studied and understood' because the gender neutral language is now the relevant new factor, and the writer has focused more on minority cases.

Because we absolutely know the interplay of cultural narratives around men and little girls: they are the oldest aspect of the question. We have, even since neutralizing the language, studied that aspect into the ground, and have answered it for that case: the cultural narrative absolutely impacts that case because it is the case that set the narrative in the first place!

It's like asking "the wetness of the ground caused by various meteorological events", and spending any time with regards to the question of wetness caused by rain.

 

[ruby sparks]

We sideline by far the most common example because it is already well studied and widely understood.

Doesn't make sense. The premise is that the laws now have gender neutral language, and the stated aim of the article is to see if cultural narratives of sexuality work to undermine this language (explicitly stated as "But has the change in the language of the law resulted in a change in prosecutions under the laws, or a change in cultural discourses about statutory rape?"). So the by far the most common type is not covered (in the case studies) by being previously 'well studied and understood' because the gender neutral language is now the relevant new factor, and the writer has focused more on minority cases.

Because we absolutely know the interplay of cultural narratives around men and little girls: they are the oldest aspect of the question. We have, even since neutralizing the language, studied that aspect into the ground, and have answered it for that case: the cultural narrative absolutely impacts that case because it is the case that set the narrative in the first place!

It's like asking "the wetness of the ground caused by various meteorological events", and spending any time with regards to the question of wetness caused by rain.

No, it's not. See what I wrote above (sorry I edited it).

We absolutely don't know, using old narratives, if anything has recently or now changed for the most common type, in light of the recent changes in the wording of the laws. It's a completely valid question for such an analysis (in fact, for the general or neutral analyst it might be the most pertinent question, by dint of being the most common type) and it's not that she omits it entirely either. It's just that it's not one of the case studies.

One side effect (to do with small sample size) is that her cases studies are even more anecdotal than if she had cited a typical recent one from the most common type.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

What on earth are you talking about? What double standard? I've never told any person to stop taking precautions. I simply pointed out that feminists publically advertise their prejudiced discrimination against men.

Defending the right to take sensible precautions against the eventuality of a man being a predator without being called a hysterical man-hater is not "publically advertising ones prejudiced discrimination against men" - no more than defending the right to lock your door is "publically advertising ones prejudiced discrimination against neighbours and passer-bys".

The only difference between the two scenarios is that the likes of you perversely attack women for something you, without giving it a thought, do yourself, mutatis mutandi.

 

[Metaphor]

Defending the right to take sensible precautions against the eventuality of a man being a predator without being called a hysterical man-hater is not "publically advertising ones prejudiced discrimination against men" - no more than defending the right to lock your door is "publically advertising ones prejudiced discrimination against neighbours and passer-bys".

Writing an article that says in part "I, as a woman, take precautions and feel anxiety when I see men around" is publically advertising and justifying your prejudiced reaction to men. I did not attack the feminist for writing it for having those feelings. I said they have the feelings, they do not feel ashamed advertising them, and they would not do the same (advertise them) if it were prejudiced feelings about any other group.

The only difference between the two scenarios is that the likes of you perversely attack women for something you, without giving it a thought, do yourself, mutatis mutandi.

I did not attack women for having anxiety around men. People can't help the way they feel. I said that feminists sustain the cultural prejudice that men are dangerous (for example, around children) and it's okay to form policy that treats them that way.

 

[ruby sparks]

Old (2010) BBC article relevant to some of the recent posts:

BA seat policy made man 'feel like a child molester'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869

Contrast the OP woman saying she felt she would be treated like a sex offender (for having sex with a 14 year old) and the man here feeling he was treated like a potential sex offender for doing nothing.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

What on earth are you talking about? What double standard? I've never told any person to stop taking precautions. I simply pointed out that feminists publically advertise their prejudiced discrimination against men.

Defending the right to take sensible precautions against the eventuality of a man being a predator without being called a hysterical man-hater is not "publically advertising ones prejudiced discrimination against men" - no more than defending the right to lock your door is "publically advertising ones prejudiced discrimination against neighbours and passer-bys".

The only difference between the two scenarios is that the likes of you perversely attack women for something you, without giving it a thought, do yourself, mutatis mutandi.

I would in fact caution you (or anyone) of saying that just because someone holds a hypocritical opinion, it does not make their stance wrong.

The fact is that there IS significant bias against even innocuous activity by men, and this is amplified by certain groups that declare universals as a result of trends ("all men are pigs").

Locking your door doesn't impugn your neighbors, it impugns reality itself for containing the ability to steal; the very ability of anyone to do it creates the need to make it harder than it is worth to do, and it would be wise even if nobody had ever stolen anything ever. The mere hypothetical case creates the need to prevent a selection pressure that retains the behavior once it starts.

Conversely, gripping your purse tighter when a man walks down the street adjacent to you (or whatever) does impugn that man. And when they do it for men universally, does impugn all men in a clearly sexist way. That absolutely publicly advertises prejudice.

Further, these prejudices do injury for the ability of a man to seek redress, as they bolster the idea that a man, as a victim, is an absurdity.

I will absolutely impugn ANYONE who distrusts 'men' because of either stereotype or case study. If you want to distrust someone because their actions are sus, that's fine: That's distrusting a person for actual reasons directly relating to their behavior; It is distrust earned through action. It is certainly within people's rights to do, but it will absolutely earn you a total loss of respect from anyone with a modicum of sense.

 

[ruby sparks]

I've said this before. If (and it has happened a few times) I'm walking down a footpath on a quiet street late at night and I find myself catching up on a lone woman walking ahead of me in the same direction on the same footpath, I may cross over the road, rather than gradually overtake her on the same footpath, because I understand that men, and perhaps especially to a woman walking alone late at night, ARE (and seem) potentially more dangerous. I agree that I should not perhaps be obliged to do it, but I do think it's reasonable behaviour, just in case.

So, as ever, it's about reasonableness and balance, imo. Men should not be mistrusted to the extent that some airlines have the seating policy they have, nor should men in general be treated as 'potential sex assaulters', but at the same time, the relevant concern is based on statistical facts.

 

[Metaphor]

Old (2010) BBC article relevant to some of the recent posts:

BA seat policy made man 'feel like a child molester'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869

Contrast the OP woman saying she felt she would be treated like a sex offender (for having sex with a 14 year old) and the man here feeling he was treated like a potential sex offender for doing nothing.

I could not help but chuckle at this line:

The company denied the policy was discriminatory although a spokesman told the BBC it was now under review.

A policy that singles out males as males for being unsuitable to sit next to unaccompanied minors isn't discriminatory. I wonder if British Airways think the public can't discriminate between a truthful statement and an obviously false one.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

There are some cultural biases that are detrimental to men, most definitely. The inability of men to be around children without getting scandalous looks is perhaps the worst of them, but it's hardly the only one. Generally speaking, stereotypes and disadvantageous stereotypes hurt everyone all around. Gender stereotypes hurt both men and women, racial stereotypes hurt every race. They create boxes of expected conformation, and society (often subconsciously) punishes those who don't fit into the box.

Wealth bequeaths many advantages. When it comes to the law, I am firmly of the opinion that wealth should NOT make any difference.

In my opinion, this is one of those topics where the long-term aim of dismantling harmful stereotypes shouldn't be hampered because you disagree with Met on other topics.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

That one gets messy. It's not just prison rapes that get downplayed (although they are a large proportion of them). In general, rapes of males by other males are downplayed.

Part of that, I think, is the ingrained social bias that men shouldn't complain, should "man up" and "be strong" and that they're somehow less masculine if they admit to being harmed by it.

Part of it, also, is a pretty strong aversion to honestly look at the very strong pattern of aggression - especially sexual aggression - that is almost entirely exhibited by males. It's a male characteristic, whether it's socially developed or has some evolutionary root, it's still a problem that needs to be dealt with at some point. And that means that males are going to have to get involved with it too.

 

[Metaphor]

I've said this before. If (and it has happened a few times) I'm walking down a quiet street late at night and I find myself catching up on a lone woman walking ahead of me in the same direction, I may cross over the road, rather than gradually overtake her on the same footpath, because I understand that men, and perhaps especially to a woman walking alone late at night, ARE potentially more dangerous. I agree that I should not perhaps be obliged to do it, but I do think it's reasonable behaviour, just in case.

Why is it reasonable?

If more men did this, if it became a social norm that men that did not mean any harm to women would cross the road to signal that, then the only men who don't cross the road mean to harm women. Women will become hyper vigilant about any man who does not cross and regard him as a clear and present danger, much more than they regarded men as a danger before.

But why stop at crossing the road? Why should you be trusted in an elevator with a woman?

So, as ever, it's about reasonableness and balance, imo. Men should not be mistrusted to the extent that some airlines have the seating policy they have, nor should men in general be treated as 'potential sex assaulters', but at the same time, the relevant concern is based on statistical facts.

It's a statistical fact that an individual black man is more likely to commit a violent crime than an individual white man. Would you say there is a special obligation for black men to cross the street when they are catching up to a white person on a footpath, given the statistical danger they pose?

 

[Emily Lake]

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).

It's very unfair to the majority of men who aren't predators. But given that about 98% of all sexual violence is committed by males... it's also not something that can just be blithely ignored. Until we address that problem, it's a really tough one to overcome.

You know that you're not a danger. I know that you're not a danger. But a random stranger doesn't know that. If the choice is between potentially hurting a grown man's feelings and potentially exposing a child to a predator, which would you choose as the more ethical approach?

 

[ruby sparks]

“It must be great being a female pedophile!”: The nature of public perceptions about female teacher sex offenders
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1741659016674044?journalCode=cmca

Abstract of a small study which suggests that the public (based on the sample of 900 comments analysed) do recognise the double standard traditionally applied against men and in favour of women (teachers in this case), and that these results suggest that the public believes in equality in sentencing for all sex offenders. However the abstract notes that this result is contrary to existing research which found that more punitive attitudes were expressed toward male sex offenders.

 

[Emily Lake]

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's right. You might see it as being misogynistic, if you choose, but it's also reality. 98% of sexual violence perpetrators are male. The chances of any given male being a predator are low (just like the chance of being in a car crash are low). But nobody can tell whether or not a randomly chosen male is or is not a predator until they've already harmed someone.