Oh, Matty. Have you been a naughty boy?

[Bronzeage]

Jesus! It sounds like Derec is defending sexual assault! Heaven forbid we call it rape.

No, I am saying that consensual sex in not rape or sexual assault.

While some here (laughing dog, Patooka) seem to think it's rape (and indeed like raping 10 year olds according to Arctish) if you have consensual sex with somebody young-looking even if they are over 18.

The problem with your defense strategy of "consensual sex in not rape or sexual assault", is it depends upon something that doesn't exist. A person may appear to be an adult, but they are not. The presumed adult does not exist. In the same way, it may appear to be consensual sex, but the consent does not exist.

One can argue against the law, but that generally requires one to concede the law was broken. All laws are built upon definitions. In the case, we define adult with an arbitrary number and define actions with adults which require the consent of both parties. When one party cannot give consent, it's a crime.

Fortunately for the human species, the percentage of humans who feel compelled to protect children from predators(hyenas, wolves, leopards, Congressmen, PYL) has always greatly outnumbered humans who see children as prey. This may seem inconvenient to some men and a few middle school teachers, but protecting children is what we do.

 

[Rhea]

Rape is well understood both legally and morally

To call consensual sex "rape" is something as far as I know unique to US.
There certainly is no moral equivalence between raping somebody and having consensual sex with them, even if she is 17. Especially if the older partner did not know that the younger one was under 18.
Other developed counties have laws protecting youth. However, hey do set a more reasonable age of consent and they do not pretend that non-rape is rape. It's funny how so-called liberals get medieval on this one issue and will defend US puritan attitudes toward it as the only sensible approach.

[…]
People can look older than younger than the age they are. What are you people advocating? Carding all potential sex partners? Even IDs can be faked.

Jesus! It sounds like Derec is defending sexual assault! Heaven forbid we call it rape.

No, I am saying that consensual sex in not rape or sexual assault.

While some here (laughing dog, Patooka) seem to think it's rape (and indeed like raping 10 year olds according to Arctish) if you have consensual sex with somebody young-looking even if they are over 18.

Derec you seem to be attempting to define consent as “they said yes” without any regard to whether they are qualified to say yes.

That’s what the statutory rape laws are all about.
Young people, developmentally delayed people, drugged people, drunk people, none of these are in a condition to make a rational assertion of consent. It’s why you can’t hold them to loan or mortgage papers they sign, for example, because while they might enthusiastically WANT to buy a bridge in Brooklyn, they do not have the capacity to understand the consequences of the situation. And so, the law helps everyone out by defining who is not capable of making decisions like mortgages, sex, car loans, and alcohol or tobacco purchases.

You love to ignore this reality, because you seem to advocate for sexual access to people who don’t know better, specifically drunk and underage women.

But the reality is that the law defines who is mentally capable of these decisions in order to help society avoid exploitation. And that’s the law.

Of COURSE there will be developmentally disabled women who will say yes to sex. Of course there will be 12 year olds who say yes to sex. Of course there will be drunk people who sign a loan for $1M to buy a bridge. And the mentally competent people who accept that “yes” are exploiting the lack of capacity, and thereby breaking the law.

With sex, there is an added buffer to help the exploiter, in many cases, the romeo and juliet provisions. But for people outside of that window, they know better, and there is no excuse to for their plan to exploit the poor decision-making abilities of those named as unable to give consent.

You argue this again and again and again. That you don’t want to take any responsibility to detect exploitable people, that you’d like it to be considered an accident if you happen to exploit one. No, no, that you’d like it to be her fault if you get one. That you’d like to be able to be considered LESS SMART than the 15 year old and a victim of their deceit. (Honestly not sure why you are so vociferous in arguing that you are less able to make a wise decision than a 16yo, but you’ve been very clear and consistent on this.)


But in the end, society already decided, and it is not confined to sex, of course, that it is helpful to identify who is and who is not mentally competent to give consent to life changing decisions. And all people doing any of those transactions are required to be the adult in the room and make sure they are not exploiting vulnerable people.

I repeat, the adults are expected to be the adult in the room, regardless of the pull of their penises.

 

[Elixir]

You love to ignore this reality, because you seem to advocate for sexual access to people who don’t know better, specifically drunk and underage women.

But the reality is that the law defines who is mentally capable of these decisions in order to help society avoid exploitation. And that’s the law.

Being illegal doesn’t reduce the allure of under age girls. I hear incels complaining about that as if that allure is a quality that belongs exclusively to the under age girls to whom they are attracted, and deny any responsibility to control their own response to that attraction.
This reflects an immaturity of a sort that serves as armor and excuse for abuse of inebriated women, young girls and others who might commit the cardinal transgression of arousing feelings that incels can’t or won’t control.
This inability/unwillingness is a large part of the reason they are incels in the first place. Women can smell it a mile away. Ask them.

 

[Rhea]

This reflects an immaturity of a sort that serves as armor and excuse for abuse of inebriated women, young girls and others who might commit the cardinal transgression of arousing feelings that incels can’t or won’t control.

You bring up a good point. It is indeed curious why certain people spend so much time trying to justify sexual access to 16 year olds. Like after 22 years posting here together, for example, how can it be that 16 year olds are still such a focus for the “we should have sexual access” crowd.

I hadn’t really thought about that before but, yeah, at this point one questions; for whom is the battle being fought here? A heartfelt investment in the sexual prospects of random 20 year old men?

I personally am no longer interested at all in the sexual availability of 16 year old boys, or even 25 year old men, for that matter. Anything around whether they are available to older women is not something I spend even a second thinking about. I do think about whether 16yo boys are protected from 30yo women (or 40yo, if they’ve been posting here for 22 years now…) But I never think about whether they are sufficiently available to those women.

It really is an interesting point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rape is well understood both legally and morally

To call consensual sex "rape" is something as far as I know unique to US.
There certainly is no moral equivalence between raping somebody and having consensual sex with them, even if she is 17. Especially if the older partner did not know that the younger one was under 18.

While I don't know if other countries call it rape they do have the same concept. Fundamentally, the law says that sex with someone who is unable to consent is rape regardless of what caused them to be unable to consent. And the law says that someone who is too young is not able to consent. Thus, it is sex without consent, aka rape.

I have no problem with this with three provisions: There should be Romeo and Juliet laws (which many places have). There should be a defined standard to determine if someone is legal (which is what everyone's going after me about--I'm not saying you can fuck kids, I'm objecting to the strict liability nature of the law. And I think that an existing relationship should not become illegal. If you've already had legal sex with someone it shouldn't be possible for the relationship to suddenly become illegal. I would define this both in terms of age (two 17 year olds are in the back of a vehicle going down the highway, having sex. By current law if the vehicle goes from a 16 state to an 18 state it suddenly becomes statutory rape) and familial status (there have been couples that discovered they were siblings. Does society benefit from forcing them to separate? Especially if they already have kids together?)

If a woman has consensual sex with somebody who is 17, I do not think she is a "rapist" either. And if the teen lied about his age and told her he was 18 I do not think she did anything wrong whatsoever.

People can look older than younger than the age they are. What are you people advocating? Carding all potential sex partners? Even IDs can be faked.

I don't consider "lied about their age" an adequate defense. I do think carded should be, though. Which is why I'm saying the law should codify what is an acceptable means of determining if someone is legal. A crime should require either intent to commit the act or negligence in avoiding committing the act.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People can look older than younger than the age they are. What are you people advocating? Carding all potential sex partners? Even IDs can be faked.

People are simply pointing out that if one is not sure of the age of one’s potential sex partner and one is worried about potential charges of statutory rape, either verify the age or forego the sex.

You still don't get it.

Verify how? What constitutes acceptable verification?

That's what I have a problem with, the law provides no standard by which you can be sure someone is legal.

 

[TomC]

You still don't get it.

Verify how? What constitutes acceptable verification?

That's what I have a problem with, the law provides no standard by which you can be sure someone is legal.

Here's what I do get and you don't seem to get.

Life and morality in general is about risk management in many ways. Make good decisions and you'll probably have a better life than if you try to figure out what the lowest standard you can get away with is.
Expecting the government to tell you how low you can go is not good risk management.

Banging an under age person or hiring the cheapest applicant might not turn out well in the long run. Neither is buying the cheapest product or believing the politicians who tell you the best story. There's tons of judgement calls people make, then there's the consequences. Pretending to yourself that you just couldn't know that you were taking risks doesn't mean you are not responsible for the outcome of your decisions.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

People can look older than younger than the age they are. What are you people advocating? Carding all potential sex partners? Even IDs can be faked.

People are simply pointing out that if one is not sure of the age of one’s potential sex partner and one is worried about potential charges of statutory rape, either verify the age or forego the sex.

You still don't get it.

Verify how? What constitutes acceptable verification?

That's what I have a problem with, the law provides no standard by which you can be sure someone is legal.

I am talking about personal decision-making.

As to your problem, the answer is simple - when in doubt keep your pants on or risk legal issues.

 

[Rhea]

That's what I have a problem with, the law provides no standard by which you can be sure someone is legal.

I was going to point out the incredibly privileged arrogance of expecting a law to provide you with a risk-free sex scene, but Tom and LD said it beytter:

Life and morality in general is about risk management in many ways. Make good decisions and you'll probably have a better life than if you try to figure out what the lowest standard you can get away with is.
Expecting the government to tell you how low you can go is not good risk management.

As to your problem, the answer is simple - when in doubt keep your pants on or risk legal issues.

If guys are trying to skate the edge of legality and date them as young as they can possibly do legally, then they should either expect the risk they want to take to skate that edge, or date people they meet at the polling station.

Honestly, millions of men successfully navigate this without making errors. Especially ones who have been adults for 10+, 20+ years, right? If you can’t tell whether someone is 16 or 18, then keep your fly up. Meet people at places that are more likely than those you find in a bar to be legally able to consent to your sexual attentions. If you are drawn to the youngest looking ones, you are taking risks. That is on you. You can pause and meet their parents first, before you bang them, you know.

It’s really so interesting the people who insist they should be able to seek out really young looking women, but have no risk about being wrong. Your issue is wanting to seek out really young looking women and have sex with them without knowing much of anything about them. You’re retired, Loren (and married). Why are you consumed by this? How much time do you spend thinking about 18yo women? And why? I spend zero time thinking about how I could have had better access to 18yo men when I was 25. Honestly, I have not thought about that since I passed 25. And I recall telling a guy who was 21 when I was 29 that I had NO interest in dating someone so young. He didn’t understand. He thought his 21yo self was All That and I should be Very Ingterested. No. Teenagers and even 21yos are still immature. Who is out there wanting to date these people - and why?

 

[Millrat]

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. Quite unfair to the baby-faced.

But hardly in the same category of bad outcome as rape.

Oh dear, some people might find it difficult to get laid. What a disaster; We had better call open season on statutory rape, in an effort to help that maligned demographic.

You're not addressing my point at all.

I'm not objecting to the concept, I'm objecting to the yardstick. People don't come with a label that says "underage", define what should be done to verify.

It’s not a measure.

People can look older than younger than the age they are. What are you people advocating? Carding all potential sex partners? Even IDs can be faked.

People are simply pointing out that if one is not sure of the age of one’s potential sex partner and one is worried about potential charges of statutory rape, either verify the age or forego the sex.

You still don't get it.

Verify how? What constitutes acceptable verification?

That's what I have a problem with, the law provides no standard by which you can be sure someone is legal.

Sure it does. What would a reasonable person do under the circumstances?