Double standards in "statutory rape" as opposed to rape.

This topic idea came to mind thinking about this thread.

I'm guessing most of you are aware by now that a grown woman who has sex with a young boy won't get in as much trouble as a grown man who has sex with a young girl will.

That said, I do think it's a bit more reasonable than the double standard with respect to rape itself.

Both are based on the assumption that guys, on average, are hornier than girls. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable; I doubt dating would be approached the way it is if there wasn't at least some truth to it; but the notion of rape itself being okay when female on male doesn't follow from it, because, well, it's an average. Individual guys may very well be afraid of the risks of sex, or may have some other reasons to turn down sex, and individual girls may very well have some reason or another to force said guys into sex. It's probably much less frequent than male on female rape, but then again, it's reported much less frequently, so that cancels out. I would say the guys who do report it will be the "exceptions" to the average or they wouldn't bother to report it in the first place.

With female-on-male "statutory rape," the kind of case we often hear of is some teenage boy having sex with his female teacher or swimming coach. There's not much indicating these guys to be the exceptions, other than that they somehow got such women to have sex with them in the first place. They don't mean to report such things; it's when someone else finds out, or when he mentions it to his friends and they spread the word. Perhaps more of this goes on than the stories about it get across, depending on what percentage of guys who do this keep it secret.

This isn't to say that it isn't still wrong, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to say that it's not as wrong as the gender flip. A boy has more reason to want sex, and less to regret it. It's hard to think of female pedophiles as predatory for giving teenage boys something they are known to want.

That, and there's an added sense of vulnerability to the risk of a young girl getting pregnant; a teenage boy who impregnates a grown woman should not be required to pay child support IMO, but even that is not on quite the same level of personal vulnerability as having a child before one's body is ready for it.

Frankly, it strikes me as disingenuous to begin with to use the word "rape" for sexual encounters that both partners perceive as mutual. It's still wrong, but for very different reasons, and I wish they could have named the crime in a way more reflective of that. I also happen to consider it a less severe crime, but again, you don't have to agree that it's less severe to agree that it's a crime for very different reasons.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

I don't even see why statutory "rape" exists in the first place. That and it's complete bullshit that women aren't as horny as men are. Have you not read yaoi fanfiction?

"If there is a hole then it's a man's job to thrust into it" - Ryoma from New Getter Robo

I'm not into that kind of stuff. o.o

That said, I don't think the existance of yaoi fanfiction is enough to refute this. That it's fanfiction suggests on its own that it's not exactly a representative sample. To point to things like social double standards and the way dating tends to be approached, among other things, is to look at a bigger picture.

edited 3rd Nov '11 7:34:32 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

I've always figured that it was related to the "consent" aspect of rape, being a sexual encounter that happened without the consent of one of the people involved.

Since children are not thought of as mature enough to give informed consent, that is why the rape terminology is used.

That's my theory, anyway. I don't know that it's accurate or not.

But the part about it being "less wrong" when a woman is the instigator is bullshit. That's the kind of attitude that leads to the severe under-reporting of rape against male victims.

edited 3rd Nov '11 7:36:20 AM by Meeble

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!

If men tend to show more cases, then what crime or activity are women known more for? Whatever that is, this reasoning should say that the law should be adjusted for that, as I've said in another thread.

Having said that, I don't agree with this double standard. It's clear that both genders have both the ability and natural desire.

For statutory rape, why does the boy's desire matter if the reason it's rape is because he was underage? The real question is whether the person got the legal guardians' permission.

Now using Trivialis handle.

It's not that men have a higher sex drive, it's that women can get sex anytime they want, and know it. Most women have been offered sex nearly every day of their lives since they were teenagers. As a result, they also know that they can turn it down and another opportunity will present itself whenever they happen to be in the mood. Men on the other hand have grown up learning that sex is something that we have to earn and work for. Consequently, plenty of men will take nearly any opportunity that presents itself and doesn't Squick them out.

So, men are the instigators of sex, and women are the ones who give sex to men. A 30 year old man who seduces a 16 year old girl is seen as a predator because it's assumed that he used his experience, power or whatever to "take advantage" of her "innocence". On the other hand, a 16 year old boy who has sex with a 30 year old woman is not, because presumably the older woman did not seduce him, but rather she allowed him to have sex with her.

edited 3rd Nov '11 8:00:27 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

If we're using the reasoning that men have greater "desires", then I would make laws in favor of men, since they have a handicap that makes it more difficult for them to control themselves. According to the reasoning, the women would be committing statutory rape when there was no reason to.

If the parental consent is what matters, then technically the woman cannot allow the boy.

Please don't be rude. I question the supposed assumption but I think the discussion is worth a civil course.

edited 3rd Nov '11 8:12:01 AM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

What does this mean, I can't parse this shit.

Is your account hacked or something??

I mean that the state of the boy is, under statutory rape regulation, not the question, but rather the consent of the boy parents is.

Now using Trivialis handle.

I don't know what it's like to be a woman but I highly doubt it's actually the case. Seriously, saying shit like "Men can't control themselves" not only makes men look weak and stupid. It also takes away from the personal responsibility and reinforces negative gender roles. There is simply more of a risk of having sex if your a woman than if your a man. Both societal and biological.

"If there is a hole then it's a man's job to thrust into it" - Ryoma from New Getter Robo

I am not convinced. Teenagers, of either gender, have strong impulses they are not very used to yet, that's true; but they are not rabid, hormone-crazed little beasts that people jokingly suggest they are.

What would instead be likely to happen is that the 16 year old boy, even if he was uncomfortable with the situation, would think it shameful to voice his discomfort, and perhaps even just to refuse the advances: after all, a man who rejects a reasonably attractive woman is not much of a man.

edited 3rd Nov '11 8:17:37 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

You are confusing "women" with "attractive women". It's not WOMEN who can get sex easily, it's ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE, regardless of gender. It's just that you know full well that all men can't get sex easily because you are, presumably, a straight man who's not so attractive you get women clamoring to sleep with you.

This is a very good summary of the societal attitude towards this, but it doesn't reflect reality at all.

---

Also, what PHC just said. And furthermore, the idea that men have stronger sex drives than women is very recent. Here's a decent overview which unfortunately doesn't mention the Most Triumphant Example of Lysistrata.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

The idea behind these laws is that people of a certain age are not mature enough to be having sex. Many are anyway, but the law is still there, and people who are legally adults should respect them. A teenage boy is no more emotionally mature than a teenage girl, so I see no difference in the level of offence committed.

Edit: What actually are the statutory rape laws in America? Because in Britain, I think - I may be wrong - that while the age of consent is sixteen, it's only classed as rape if the victim is under thirteen, otherwise it's 'unlawful sexual intercourse'. Still illegal, but not as serious. I think that's reasonable.

edited 3rd Nov '11 8:52:17 AM by ArlaGrey

Please if a mature attitude towards sex was required to have sex most women wouldn't get any until their thirties and then they'd have to turn lesbian because almost no men would be allowed to have sex ever.

Trump delenda est

But the point is, you can't say it's not as bad if the victim is a boy because he would have wanted it. It's the same situation either way. If a teenage girl isn't mature enough to have sex, then neither is a boy of the same age.

edited 3rd Nov '11 8:57:49 AM by ArlaGrey

14: It varies from state to state. If I remember correctly, in most states the age of consent is 16, but there are a few where it's 17 or 18. Most states have lesser punishments if the younger party is within a few years of the age of consent and/or the older party is not that much older. In places and situations where the federal government has jurisdiction, it's 18.

Wow, sure is sexist in here, down to the assumption that women mature mentally faster than men.

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Well I don't agree with statutory rape laws in the first place. I should think mental capacity should be decided on a case by case basis rather than on an arbitrary thing such as age. However, teacher/student relationships are always illegal here because of the differing power structure.

Here you are charged with sexual assault, regardless of consent if the person is incapable of giving consent, you are in a position of power over them (including being a teacher) or certain age differences (more than 2 years apart when under 13, 14 year can only be with 12-19, 15 with 13-20 and then 16+ can be with any age).

I think the double standard might still exist even if you considered everything on a case by case basis because most men will likely not admit that they were overpowered by a woman. Afterall, you'd probably be seen as unmanly if you were actively refusing sexual intercourse with an attractive older woman. In this case, we "just" have to shift culture to find it acceptable that no matter the gender a person can admit to not wanting sexual intercourse. In our society, women are assumed to inherently refuse intercourse, and men are inherently assumed to accept intercourse, even though it's not entirely true and most of it is just built by our current social expectations.

Right, but that's an internalized thing. We need to reach out to male victims, not congratulate them.

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

The fact remains that statutory rape is when an someone the age of consent or over has sex with someone who is under the age of consent. Even when both parties are consenting, it's still a crime, and a woman being the older party shouldn't make a difference in cases like this.

Another variation is two people under the age of consent having sex, I'm not sure if the laws about that being statutory rape are across the board, but I was told that this was the case in the state I grew up in, and I'm assuming mine wasn't the only one. In those cases, it tends to be the boy that gets in trouble and not the girl. Personally, I think that's bullshit, because technically, the girl was also committing statutory rape. Both parties should get in trouble there.

If what I say doesn't make sense, please refer to my name. Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE! http://orkinet.lefora.com/

Neither party should get in trouble.

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

It's the older person who gets in trouble here, that is our law.

I'll be responding to several users here, so I'll try to put who I'm referring to per quote in the response to each.

---

I already stated that the double standard in rape itself doesn't quite follow from the assumptions on which it's based, Meeble.

So, Laywerdude, why else would women be in a position to get sex "anytime they want" other than that men have higher sex drives?

Depends on how you look at it, abstractematics. I think self-control is a bit more difficult for males, but then again dealing with stalkers is probably a bit more difficult for females.

In any case, your approach to the issue seems somewhat communistic; give men a handicap because women have something they want?

You say "no reason to" as if the reasons were exclusively sexual, abstractematics, and as if she couldn't be having sex as a means to another end. If a female teacher has dozens of male students, then even if not all of them want to have sex with her, and even if many of those who do try to keep it to themselves, that still leaves quite a few left over who will be pretty open with her about their desires. Maybe she just finds it more convenient to go along with it. Maybe she just puts out for them out of pity. Whatever, we don't know much about what was going on here, my point is just that reasons for sex aren't always sexual.

I'd think it'd be the other way around, Carciofus. A teenage boy getting a grown woman to offer to have sex with him would most certainly be impressive whether he agreed to it or not. If anything, that he had sexual favours offered to him that he turned down would probably be more of a source of "bragging rights" than of shame.

So is quantum mechanics, Black Humor. "Recent" doesn't imply "inaccurate." (Similarly, coming from the church doesn't imply it to be wrong either; a broken clock is right twice a day.)

Yes, the statement is about social attitudes, but I think they imply biological differences anyway; otherwise, wouldn't there be more frequent criticisms of these attitudes, both from women who want to have sex and from men who want to be in a position to decline it?

From a lawful perspective, they would technically be equivalent, Arla Grey, but taking into account the things I already mentioned about how much more reason guys have to want sex, how much less to regret it, etc... those strike me as pretty crucial differences.

I've heard that some jurisdictions have different ages of consent for males than females, joey. Anyone else have anything that would confirm or refute this?

So be it, Katrika. "Sexist" does not always imply "wrong." Assumptions should be judged on their own merits, not for whatever labels can be attached.

Here's the thing, breadloaf; even if they're not capable of giving legally-valid consent, wanting sex has implications all its own very different to those of the sex being non-consensual, and a label like "statutory rape" doesn't reflect this. I happen to think of it as a bit less severe of a crime, but as I said before, I don't think you need to agree that it's less severe of a crime to think of it as a false equivalence to call it rape.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart