Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you're Spain, you apparently draw it at 13.

And you think that's the right age?

 Kojiro wrote:
And you think that's the right age?

No. Merely illustrating that a full-throated insistence that 16 year-olds aren't mentally capable of giving consent is something that not nearly everyone agrees with.

People mature at different rates. Some individuals are never ready for the responsibility of raising a child. How much will a 16 years old's desire to get laid and damn the consequences differ from an 18 year old or a 20 year old? Why is it legally acceptable for minors to have sex with each other, but suddenly it is an issue if an adult has sex with a minor? Aren't many of the reasons people are arguing against an adult having sex with a minor applicable to minors having sex with one another? It can still lead to pregnancy, you can still transmit STDs, and it can still be emotionally damaging for both parties.

To be fair, age of consent must be hard to implement as everyone's maturity develops at different times.

 Kojiro wrote:
There may be exceptions who are ready at sixteen but they'd be few and far between.

Seaward wrote:No. Merely illustrating that a full-throated insistence that 16 year-olds aren't mentally capable of giving consent is something that not nearly everyone agrees with.

Hardly 'full-throated' when I've already acknowledged the existence of exceptions. And I fully accept that not everyone agrees. Not everyone agrees on pretty damn near everything. And my argument, to be particular, is that they're incapable of giving informed consent because they (largely) can't appreciate the scope of what they're doing and potential outcomes.

Does this disappear at 17, 18 or 21? Not necessarily but the age of consent is the age is also the age of responsibility. If you can consent to it you're responsible for it and as pregnancy (and to a lesser extent disease) is utterly inherent to sex, that is one consequence you have to be responsible for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well have to agree to disagree- after all the localities of the world do. Also this is off topic.

 LordofHats wrote:
Aren't there a few states that have an age range instead of a set age of consent? Like someone within 3 years of your age or so is fine?

Some states have what are called "Romeo & Juliet laws" which are intended to rectify previous instances of (for example) a 17 year old boy being charged for having sex with a 16 year old girl. Usually there is a floating 3 year window, such as there is in this example, Texas. It's not applicable to this situation because she is too much older (and additionally because of the Educator clause).

I'm not arguing what age that sex should be legal at, I'm just saying a 16 year old is physically capable of giving consent regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. If someone reaches the age of 16 without being able to say "yes" then they are likely mentally handicapped.

Nonetheless there has to be a cut off point for the law to function, otherwise the police would not be able to determine if an offence might have occurred.

On conviction Judges have discretion to vary their sentence within the sentencing guidelines.

The reasons why this woman got off lightly seem to be partly that the lad involved was nearly 17, which is the age of consent in Texas, the sex appears to have been consensual, and there doesn't seem to have been a specific abuse of her position as a teacher. (As well as expressing contrition, etc.)

Going back to the chart of sex offenders, it's true that women outnumber men in elementary school teaching, however if you think about it, female heterosexual predators are unlikely to target pre-pubescent boys because they cannot give satisfaction. Male heterosexual predators of course can target pre-pubescent girls.

In senior schools there is a much higher proportion of male teachers. It is known that men are more sexually predatory then women.

Thus the fact that there are a lot more men in prison for such offences is not necessarily a reflection of institutional bias for women.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

She is betraying the trust of her husband, leaving room fo the consequences the betrayal and scandal that come to him emotionaly, physically, and sociologically.

Well, she might be. Marriage does not imply the existence of a monogamous relationship, though I suppose placing oneself in legal jeopardy could also constitute a betrayal of trust.

Relapse wrote:

When the kid she had her fling with has time to reflect on what part he has possibly played in the wreck of a marriage, if it falls apart, and he has a shred of concience, it's going to burn him badly.

If it would have bothered him at all, it would have bothered him at the beginning of the relationship.

Relapse wrote:

Remember this relationship?

http://abcnews.go.com/news/t/blogEntry?id=15823439&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Yes, and it clearly demonstrates that married, white men in their 40's cannot be trusted around girls
of high school age.

Marriage should, since a part of the vow is to "forsake all others", but I understand that not all people take that vow seriously. It still leaves room for the other consequences I mentioned that you didn't quote here.

As far as the kid not feeling anything, I heavily disagree with what you say. I think most people here on the thread have seen instances where a lot of regret comes about things done in youth when they are thought about at a more mature age.

The link I posted was not saying men can't be trusted around kids, as I think you well know, but was put there as an example of another case where trust was abused by a teacher and the fallout from that event.

The other points you didn't address illustrate, also, why it is worse moraly and by reason of consequence on all affected by this if she was married.

I really don't think the moral implications of her potentially cheating are relevant to this case anymore than any other moral wrongdoings she may have in her past.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
I really don't think the moral implications of her potentially cheating are relevant to this case anymore than any other moral wrongdoings she may have in her past.

Legally, no. Morally, along with other potential fallout, absolutely they are.

Again, if we're talking about all her moral flaws then why not bring up the puppy she might have kicked when she was eight?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Again, if we're talking about all her moral flaws then why not bring up the puppy she might have kicked when she was eight?

I see that marriage means nothing to you, so there is really not much point in talking to you about all the things that she could have potentially brought down on everyone by way of consequences. Just google some news stories of spouses reactions to finding out they were being cheated on.

People get prosecuted for actual crimes, though, not for things they've done that aren't nice.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People get prosecuted for actual crimes, though, not for things they've done that aren't nice.

Once again, I am not talking about legal consequences, but moral implications and other things that come about when one spouse cheats on another, especially when the one cheating is resorting to having sex with children.

I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?

I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?

I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?

What if he grows up with the idea it's acceptable for him to have sex with 14 year old girls because of how this played out. Right now we have a precident that it's alright as long as a nice apology letter is written.

It was statutory rape. That is the name of the crime when a minor has sexual relations whether they are consensual or not.

It's clear that there is a difference between consensual and non-consensual sexual relationships. That's why we have "Romeo & Juliet" laws, and laws about enticement and abuse of positions of power.

It was legally statutory rape. Without a doubt. She's still incredibly hot, and each one of us would have done the same thing in his shoes. I give the kid props. Did she make a bad decision? Of course. Did the kid win the metaphorical jackpot? Oh yeah.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?

I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?

Here's the problem. If instead of having sex that night, the woman had quit her job and waited a month, it would magically not be rape. She wouldn't be an educator, and he'd be 17. Has his ability to consent changed markedly in that time? Or have simply the circumstances changed?

Statutory rape laws are arbitrary, which is fine, because a big part of being adult is following arbitrary rules. Arbitrary doesn't mean bad or frivolous, but it also doesn't mean that somebody is morally bankrupt because they ended up on the wrong side.

Rape, at its broadest, is sexual contact without the consent of the victim. We have no reason to doubt that that boy gave consent, it was simply his age under Texas law, and the fact that the woman was his teacher, that prevented him from giving legal consent.

Maybe he is upset by this. Maybe he's in counseling because he was taken advantage of by a predator. Or maybe he's happy he slept with a hot 24 year old. We don't know, probably won't ever know, but I'm gonna take a guess that there's no real victim here.

 Polonius wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?

I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?

Here's the problem. If instead of having sex that night, the woman had quit her job and waited a month, it would magically not be rape. She wouldn't be an educator, and he'd be 17. Has his ability to consent changed markedly in that time? Or have simply the circumstances changed?

Statutory rape laws are arbitrary, which is fine, because a big part of being adult is following arbitrary rules. Arbitrary doesn't mean bad or frivolous, but it also doesn't mean that somebody is morally bankrupt because they ended up on the wrong side.

Rape, at its broadest, is sexual contact without the consent of the victim. We have no reason to doubt that that boy gave consent, it was simply his age under Texas law, and the fact that the woman was his teacher, that prevented him from giving legal consent.

Maybe he is upset by this. Maybe he's in counseling because he was taken advantage of by a predator. Or maybe he's happy he slept with a hot 24 year old. We don't know, probably won't ever know, but I'm gonna take a guess that there's no real victim here.

Okay, this makes sense. It was early in the morning and my only half my neurons showed up to work on time. Hopefully, the kid is all right and giving high fives to all his classmates etc.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
I'm not arguing what age that sex should be legal at, I'm just saying a 16 year old is physically capable of giving consent regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. If someone reaches the age of 16 without being able to say "yes" then they are likely mentally handicapped.

Again it's not whether he can physically say yes...It's about if he knows what he's agreeing to and the aftermath.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
because that's what consent is when it comes to sex.

The whole issue is really to do with parental/adult anxieties about emerging sexuality of teenagers. It's about a socially constructed view of whether a 16 year old is capable of giving informed consent to sex, or should be allowed to.

In many countries and states he can. He can't in Texas and many other countries and states.

Being 16 years and 364 days old and then waiting 24 hours does not magically imbue someone with the knowledge of good and evil. But we have to have a legal dividing line, and Texas chose 17.

It might be considered that "informed consent" cannot be properly "informed" without good quality sex education, whatever the age of consent. And vice versa.

 Polonius wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?

I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?

Here's the problem. If instead of having sex that night, the woman had quit her job and waited a month, it would magically not be rape. She wouldn't be an educator, and he'd be 17. Has his ability to consent changed markedly in that time? Or have simply the circumstances changed?

Statutory rape laws are arbitrary, which is fine, because a big part of being adult is following arbitrary rules. Arbitrary doesn't mean bad or frivolous, but it also doesn't mean that somebody is morally bankrupt because they ended up on the wrong side.

Rape, at its broadest, is sexual contact without the consent of the victim. We have no reason to doubt that that boy gave consent, it was simply his age under Texas law, and the fact that the woman was his teacher, that prevented him from giving legal consent.

Maybe he is upset by this. Maybe he's in counseling because he was taken advantage of by a predator. Or maybe he's happy he slept with a hot 24 year old. We don't know, probably won't ever know, but I'm gonna take a guess that there's no real victim here.

Or they could've just driven to the state line with Oklahoma and gone a foot across it to get it on.

Which of course necessitates a Reno 911 reference.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?

I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?

So if you ever regret a sexual encounter it becomes rape? What?

 trexmeyer wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?

I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?

So if you ever regret a sexual encounter it becomes rape? What?

I think what Sgt means is when the full implications of what happened sink in as he grows older and realizes what happened was, in fact, rape.

"Patriarchy."

 BlaxicanX wrote:
"Patriarchy."

*barfs*

Back to OP: heh... double-standard. Who knew?

Relapse wrote:

Marriage should, since a part of the vow is to "forsake all others", but I understand that not all people take that vow seriously.

Probably because marital vows don't necessarily include "forsake all others". People write their own vows all the time, and it isn't (to my knowledge) a required element of the ceremony at civil marriages.

Relapse wrote:

As far as the kid not feeling anything, I heavily disagree with what you say. I think most people here on the thread have seen instances where a lot of regret comes about things done in youth when they are thought about at a more mature age.

I doubt this will be one of those things. I certainly wouldn't regret it.