Revision 26093 of "Talk:Rape" on enwiki

==Archive==

*[[/Archive 1]]
*[[/Archive 2]]

==Mary Koss and the "One in four" statistic==

One of the most widely quoted statistics on rape is that "One in four women have been raped", originating with a survey conducted by psychologist Mary Koss in 1985. The survey found that 27.5% of college women were victims of a rape or attempted rape in their lifetime. While also noting this statistic includes attempted rapes as well as actual rapes, it is also important to recognise that 73% of the rape victims did not categorise their experience as rape. (That distinction was made by Koss herself, based on the definition of rape used by most North American legal statutes.) In a study conducted on women in college by the National Institute of Justice, 48.8% of rape victims did not consider themselves "raped." The NIJ posited that these women may have avoided the use of the word "rape" due to embarrassment, reluctance to be blamed for the incident, not understanding the legal definition of rape, or because they did not want to think of an acquaintance as a rapist. Koss' study found that women who had been raped by someone they knew were less likely to label their experience as a rape than those who were raped by strangers, but found the experiences of both types of victims in terms of psychological trauma and relationship/sexual problems to be the same. Koss also found that a majority of the women surveyed for her study tried to stop the rape from happening. 84% tried to talk their attackers out of raping them, and 70% physically struggled against their attackers.
These facts are often overlooked or minimalized by those who wish to shed doubt on the 1-in-4 statistic.
References:

Koss, Mary. "Hidden rape: sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher education." In Burgess, A.W. (ed.) Rape and Sexual Assault II. Garland, New York, 1988 

Koss, Mary P. and Sarah L. Cook. "Facing the facts: Date and acquaintance rape are significant problems for women". In Current Controversies on Family Violence. Edited by Richard J. Gelles and Donileen R Loseke. Sage, California, 1993.

Muehlenhard, Charlene L., Susie C. Sympson, Joi L. Phelps, and Barrie J. Highby. Are rape statistics exaggerated? A response to criticism of contemporary rape research. The Journal of Sex Research 31(2), 1994, pp 144

National Insitute of Justice. The Sexual Victimization of College Women. December 2000. Available online at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/182369.htm

Orman, Katie. The Date Rape Research Controversy. AARDVARC. Available online at: http://members.aardvark.net.au/~korman/rape/controversy

Warshaw, Robin. I never called it rape: the Ms report on recognizing, fighting and surviving date and acquaintance rape. HarperPerennial, New York, 1994.

:The above is extremely POV. [[Mary Koss]] was a quack of the first degree, and the misuse of her fradulent statistics is a grave crime of propoganda. We went over her methods in my psychology class, and they are unacceptable to almost anyone who is informed of them. She counted as rape: 

*having consensual sex under the influence of alcohol or other drugs

*having consensual sex and later regretting it 

:and 

*having consensual sex after having been talked into it or persuaded (i.e. in a completely non-agressive manner)

:Her "facts" are about as useful as the "10%" figure on homosexuality (based entirely on if active duty sailors had ever had a homoerotic experience). These sorts of bogus studies deserve discussion, but not the disgraceful interpretation I found in the article. {{Vip|user=Sam_Spade}} 18:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::Okay, Sam_Spade... And why should anybody believe you, when you don't bother to cite anything to back up your claims?--[[User:Calanctus|John]] 11:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:::Well, I've looked at the National Insitute of Justice report, which states that rape is defined as "forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force." If the threat of force is 'psychological coercion' I have no problem with that, but if it means any form of persuasion, or even giving someone alcohol, we need to be very suspicious. The report does not make its criteria for psycholgical coercion clear. Any study which counts as 'rape' experiences that the women themselves do not consider to be rapes should surely be treated with scepticism. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 14:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== The Anger-Excitation Rapist ==

"The anger-excitation rapist exhibits behavior characteristic of antisocial personality disorder, and is therefore often perceived as charming and intelligent."

This little bit here doesn't make much sense to me; could someone be so kind as to explain why exhibiting behavior characteristic of antisocial personality disorder would make you appear to be charming and intelligent? [[User:LavosBacons|LavosBacons]] 04:34, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

:Well, the characteristics of APD include glibness and superficial charm.  Self-confidence can be a very attractive aspect to someone until you realize that the self-confidence is an outgrowth of egomania, and likewise someone who has no qualms about lying to you can seem very charming indeed until you see through the lies. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 07:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::All right, then. Going simply by the name, antisocial personality disorder simply doesn't sound like something people would be likely to find particularly charming. Thanks. [[User:LavosBacons|LavosBacons]] 23:01, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

== Illustration possibility ==

I am enclosing a 160 year old image, art depicting a rape scene. I would like to include it in the article. Objections? Affirmations? [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 05:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:Rape scene - Utagawa KUNIYOSHI.jpg]]

Humm. ''Not'' a good idea, I think. It can easily be interpreted as pornography. Probably because that's just what it is. The Japs still produce quite a lot of similar stuff. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 12:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I disagree. All articles should have images, and this is the most tasteful image I can imagine on the subject. ([[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] | [[user_talk:Sam Spade|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/Sam Spade|contributions]]) 18:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well if you are looking for a 'tasteful' image of rape, then try one of the many ''Sabine Women'' pics, Poussin maybe. Or go for Rubens' ''Rape of the daughters of Leucippus''. Of course they all depict rape in the archaic sense of 'forced abduction'. But they are certainly more tasteful. I don't know why all articles should have illustrations. But even if they should, I can see no reason why it should be an actual explicit depiction of a rape in progress.[[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 18:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The pornography argument is not germane, by that token all erotic art would be equated with pornography and that is not a defensible position. The remaining question is whether to use an euphemistic definition of "rape" or an explicit one. The rape of the Sabines is better described (as depicted) as an abduction of the Sabines. Kidnapping may be followed by a rape, or not. So I see that type of picture as belonging in other articles, here it would be misleading. As for why articles should have pictures, my own take on that is that artistic and photographic froms of communication have special power. If we are to free information here, visual representations should not be excluded. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 19:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::This article is not supposed to be about 'erotic' experiences of any kind, so the point about erotic art is not a 'defensible position'. But anyway, you provide no argument that callng one thing pornography automatically labels everything 'erotic' as pornographic. By that logic you could never use the word about any image at all. And there could never be ''any'' meaningful distinction between erotic and pornographic. The use of the word 'rape' to refer to violating abduction is not a euphemism (it would be an odd kind of 'euphemism'). It's the original meaning of the word, as you should know if you've read the article. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 01:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::If I had offered a photograph would you have said that this article is not about photography?! I do not find this image erotic (though some might; an unpublished paper by Julia Lesage suggests that "Many women have rape fantasies as part of their mental process of pleasurably representing sexuality to themselves," and psychoanalysis is replete with such things.) But we should separate thought from action, otherwise what would our Oedipal complexes make of us?. Do you see this as a glorification of rape and a catering to the perverse? I don't, I see it as the opposite, I see a woman being wounded by men with obsessive and animalic expressions. I see it as an indictment of rape. And I think that this very debate that we are having here is a valuable process that should be part of the experience of reading the article.  To answer your point about making a distinction between pornography and art, that can degenerate very quickly into a pissing match. A whole line of critics and curators have seen this as art, but even judges on the Supreme Court disagree. MOre to the point, this article is about a disturbing subject, and this work matches it well. The images of the Sabines are euphemistic in that they do not communicate the enormity of the crime, they romanticize the act. Is that what we want here, in 2005? [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 04:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::Your arguments are becoming more and more confused. Photography is a ''medium''. It's what the image depicts and how it depicts it that's at issue. I don't believe there are such things as 'Oedipal complexes', but that's another issue. Do I see it as a glorifying of rape? I don't really know what the artist's intentions were. I don't see how you can say so confidently in your caption that it was designed to condemn rape. Japan has a long tradition of graphic rape imagery that continues in its graphic art today and in sex cartoon-films. I don't think most of it is designed to condemn. I made no point about distinguishing between porno and art. I made a point about distinguishing between the ''erotic'' and porno. It think it can be described as porno ''and'' as art, but not as erotic. The ''Sabines'' images are not euphemistic because they do not depict rape in the modern sense of the term. My main worry is that having a graphic visual depiction of rape will seem to be either titillating or deliberately provocative and grotesque by some readers. I don't think we should encourage such responses. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 10:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


:::::Paul, I am willing to continue this discussion depite its increasingly strident tone. My arguments confused?! Do you think ad hominem attacks are appropriate in this forum?<br>
:::::Present day artistic and legal thinking separates pornography and art as being mutually exclusive. Since you agree that this is not an erotic image (for most people, including myself) and since there seems to be a general consensus in the art world (and to some extent here, viz. Sam Spade and Corvun) that this is art, then what we are discussing is an art object. Policy here seems to be that art is OK when related to the topic.
:::::Euphemistic or not, the Sabine women shoud be included as an example of "rape as abduction", which does not address "rape as vaginal penetration".
:::::As for the caption, the issue revolves around what is or is not a "sympathetic character" in a work of art.
:::::As for titillation or revulsion on the part of the readers, what you are suggesting is that we should be nannies to the readers and dumb down the article for fear of offending. I am aware of that type of thinking, it has gained currency lately here and there. I am not a fan of writing for the lowest common denominator, but rather believe that information should be free, especially free to work its effect on pushing the limits of the mind.
:::::There are types of denial that are comfortable, and that are indulged in by the media. You will rarely or never see dismembered bodies in war reportage, which distorts the viewer's understanding of war, it sanitizes it and thus makes it more acceptable. Why are we sanitizing rape? And reverting the image and calling it a "troll" is censorship and deception. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 15:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::: I did not remove the image or call you a troll. Two other contributors did. Check it out. An ad hominem attack is an attack on a person. Attacking ''arguments'' as confused is not ad hominem. That's a rather...er...confused use of the term! BTW. I am merely responding to your own dogmatic tone in response to my first post on the topic. I don't think 'present day artistic thinking' separates porn from art in the way you describe (and I have written books about art theory, as it happens). In the UK the obscenity laws concern images that 'deprave and corrupt'. I don't know about other jurisdictions. That is not a ''definition'' of porno, but rather of the grounds for making images illegal. Years ago, I discussed the definition of porn with the feminist writer Susan Kappeler, who wrote the ''Pornnography of Representation''. I don't think there's any real aggreement about whether something can be porno and art. I'd say the two concepts are not exclusive. The graphic imagery you illustrate is typical of prints of this kind, such as Hokusai's famous rape-fantasy image ''The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife''  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dream_of_the_fishermans_wife_hokusai.jpg), complete with exaggeration of the size of the sexual organs and concentration on the act of penetration. They are, of course, art. But they were also the most visually realistic images in Japanese culture of the day, so are likely to have had the same appeal in their day as realistic photographic images of sex today - i.e. porn. I don't see the two things as contradictory. I suggested nothing about nannying, and why you would think this has anything to do with writing to the 'lowest common denominator', I don't know. By your logic we should have a shot of someone being murdered on a page about "snuff movies". Having such images tends I think to sensationalise the subject. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 15:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


::::Abstaining for a moment on the question of whether we should have an image, and whether it should be this one, I will simply note that I oppose the use of a picture that shows "rape" in its archaic sense, since that is not the focus of the article. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 18:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::::Nor do I want to persist against what may be a generalized feeling that this is not appropriate, but it is unfortunate that the debate has been so imprecise, and that the decision to not use the image seems to be based on intangibles rather than reasoned conclusions. As far as this last comment about the focus of the article, forgive me but I am really nonplussed. I even went back to look at the article thinking I had missed something. "Rape is a crime wherein the victim is forced into sexual activity against his or her will." Are we splitting hairs, that this is an old picture and not a new picture?! [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 19:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I think the image should be used.  I personally find it disturbing, disgusting, and lacking any form of taste whatsoever.  As a professional artist myself and a victim of attempted rape, I think it captures the violent nature of such violation perfectly.  Even in the encyclopedic spirit of emotional indifference and objectivity, the emotional effects of such a horrific act as rape cannot be denied and should not be censored.  I'd go so far as to say that it can only be a person's personal revulsion to the naked terror of the act that this or any other graphic image might depict that would lead one to wish its exclusion from the article; that our personal revulsion should not determine whether or not the image be included, and that its "rawness" perfectly depicts the act in all its (objectively knowable) resultant horror.  --[[User:Corvun|Corvun]] 19:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::I think that you should consider taking back that last part.  It's not a very good or civil thing to do, to put words into people's mouths, and in saying "If someone ''doesn't'' want this picture in the article, ''this'' is the only reason they could possibly have" you're not only putting words in people's mouths, in many cases you're doing it before they've even joined the discussion.  -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 00:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::Sorry, forgot the <opinion></opinion> tags. --[[User:Corvun|Corvun]] 01:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::I hope it will not be considered as "jumping the gun" if I post the image in the article at this point. I wanted to take into consideration the opposing viewpoints, and therefore I wrote up a caption pointing out what may not be obvious to all visitors. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 04:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::::I'm afraid it's very "not obvious".  When you proposed using this image, you didn't say you were going to make the claim in the caption that "the artist's intent is not to exalt but to condemn an act here depicted with brutal honesty".  Unless you have some statement from the artist explaining his intentions, there is no reason to leap to such a conclusion.  It is not, frankly, as if all of the many millions of men and women who are aroused by [[rape fantasy|rape fantasies]] would look at that image and shudder in revulsion and say "My God!  That's so brutal; the artist clearly could ''not'' have intended the image to stimulate people like me!"

:::::Earlier I abstained on whether we should use an image; I think this has clarified my stance.  I don't think we should use an image which depicts rape.  Whether the intent is to make people feel arousal, or to make people feel revulsion, ''neither'' intent is in line with the aims of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is here to give people information, not to instill emotional responses.  And yes, I'm aware that that statement will probably elicit at least one self-righteous cry of "That's on ''all '''other''' issues'' that Wikipedia is supposed to maintain neutrality!  ''This'' is the issue that's so clearly important that Wikipedia ''must'' break its rules and be openly partisan!  In fact, this issue is so ''clearly'' important that not only must we break the rules that we adhere to for any other subject, anyone who advocates ''adhering'' to the rules is clearly themselves morally bankrupt!"  That's the sort of logic one heard in the 1950s about Communism:  fair trial?  presumed innocent until proven guilty?  Constitutional rights?  Out the window!  This is too important for that! -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 18:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::::No one wants to use the image to stir-up anyone's emotions or to instill any sort of emotional response.  The fact is that the emotional response to rape is a subject of objective academic study; a piece of artwork that seeks to capture these emotional responses is therefore, in my opinion, a reasonable addition to the article.  Acknowledging that rape is an emotionally charged issue which has had an impact on the world of art breaks no Wikipedia rules of neutrality or anything else.  How does including an artist's representation of the act of rape "break the rules"?  In what way is it the same as taking a position?  It's neither of those.  The particular piece of artwork is an excellent representation of the emotional responses to rape; emotional responses which are objectively knowable and the subject of scientific study.  From what I've read here, I'm left only to re-assert my opinion, more firm in it than ever:  ''it can only be a person's personal revulsion to the naked terror of the act that this or any other graphic image might depict that would lead one to wish its exclusion from the article; ... our personal revulsion should not determine whether or not the image be included, ... its "rawness" perfectly depicts the act in all its (objectively knowable) resultant horror.''

::::::It is neither our responsibility nor our liberty here on Wikipedia to take a position on whether rape is "good" or "bad", but it is likewise not our job to pretend that no one on the planet Earth has any emotional reaction to it at all.  Read the article.  As I've said, the emotional impact is academic.  The image reflects this impact and is relevant to the subject.  And if you're so certain that someone with a rape fetish can be aroused by it, then that's an argument more ''for'' this image's neutrality and usefulness to the article than any I've heard in relation to it.  Our only job here is to be accurate and truthful in all matters, not to judge what is in "good taste" or what might be "offensive".  Accuracy and truthfulness in an issue such as this require blatancy -- not cowering and evasion.  Cowering and evasion aren't NPOVs.

==="Trolling" accusation===

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=0&oldid=10492162 This accusation of "trolling"] was in poor taste, particularly given that the user making it had not, and has not participated in the talk page regarding this image. ([[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] | [[user_talk:Sam Spade|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/Sam Spade|contributions]]) 14:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:My apologies. As you know, I'm on the liberal side of the censorship debate. However, this does not mean that I believe that people should have ''carte blanche'' to post any image they like here. I do not believe that this image adds any information to this article; it is, instead, like adding shock images to the shock site article. The proposer of this image has argued that the most important function of the image is to shock, even if they justify this with a "moral" argument. However, the function of an encyclopedia is not to shock (for whatever reason, good or bad), it is to ''inform''. Compare and contrast with the [[clitoris]] and [[penis]] images, or even the [[autofellatio]] images, where the intent of the images is to inform, not to shock. We have a rule: [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]], and I believe adding this image is doing just that. <p> I would also point out that, given the place and time of origin of that image, its original intent was presumably as an erotic drawing, not a moral warning. I doubt whether we should be in the business of providing titillating images for people who are excited by the idea of rape.<p> I also echo Paul B's point about snuff movies: just because we are very liberal in our attitude to images does not mean there should not be any limits. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 16:34, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

:Just to test the logic of the image's proponents, by ''reductio ad absurdam'', do they advocate that if someone can find a more horrifying image, its depiction in this article will be more moral in its aversive effect? Do they really argue this, or will they stop short of making this argument? (I would say that they deliberately chose the current image because its age, style of drawing and cultural distance somehow made it "tasteful" enough to have some chance of being retained on the page). After some thought, I think "trolling" might just be the right word for this activity.<p> Just to let everyone know, I've posted the image on images for deletion. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 16:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't agree w you, and would actually like to see all 3 images discussed aded to the article, but I do appreciate you becomming involved in the talk page here. Cheers, ([[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] | [[user_talk:Sam Spade|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/Sam Spade|contributions]]) 16:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::This is an article on rape.  Just because rape is shocking doesn't justify it's censorship.  I strongly disagree with it and find it similiar to book burning.  Plus some would say the image is informing while others would say the entire article including text is shocking.  Everything depends on how the viewer defines it.  One person's art is anothers pornography. [[User:Apollomelos|Apollomelos]] 17:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::The Anome: My original intent was not as you saw it. It was to illustrate and communicate.
:::Antaeus Feldspar: I accept your critique, it was an error for me to reach for political corectness. But your critique applies to the caption, not to the image. I disagree with the position that articles on touchy subjects should not be illustrated. It is just a question of how.
:::Paul Barlow: My apologies for my dogmatism, especially vis a vis someone with more seniority in the field. In refuting the label of pornography I was applying the [[Miller test]]. Outside of that of course it becomes a matter of opinion. My accusation of "nannying" came from your comment that: ''My main worry is that having a graphic visual depiction of rape will seem to be either titillating or deliberately provocative and grotesque by some readers. I don't think we should encourage such responses.'' I think you take on too much responsibility for a reader's response. Everyone will respond differently, and we are under no obligation to protect some from their sexual arousal and others from their reaction of revulsion. This is a revolting topic to most, titillating to some. Had I tried to insert the image into an article about the history of eyeglasses your concerns would make more sense to me.
:::I have removed the image from the article in the hope we can arrive at some approximation of consensus here first. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 19:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::Just a note to let all know that I am not going to pursue this matter further. While I (and apparently most of the participants here) think the image would enrich the article, I do not intend to post it in the face of unresolved strong objections. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 00:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have a thought.  Perhaps this image, which most of the contributors here feel is appropriate to the article, would be a lot ''more'' appropriate in a more specialized location than right at the top of the page.  I'm certain there must be a better place to put an artistic depiction of a rape scene.  I was thinking under a "depictions of rape in media" section, which as yet does not exist, but would surely benefit the article.  Thoughts? --[[User:Corvun|Corvun]] 00:40, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

:I would (of course) support that alternative. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 23:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Rape in marriage, legal peronae ==

The article currently states rthe following on rape in marriage:

:''Forced sex by a husband against his wife was not considered rape, or even a crime, throughout most of history, since as part of the marriage '''both partners were deemed to have given implicit informed consent''' in advance to a lifelong sexual relationship.''

I'd like to note that until recently (in common law countries) a married woman was the same legal person as her husband. She was unable to consent (or withold consent). She was unable, legally and economically, to prosecute rape. Any objections? Comments?[[User:AnnaAniston|An An]] 05:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:If it's true, why not note it? --[[User:Corvun|Corvun]] 10:06, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

== The "Statutory rape" section ==

Summary of my recent changes:

(Quotes are from the previous version)

"Some individuals, such as minors and the incapacitated, are considered unable to give consent, and therefore to have sex with them is always rape. "

I took out the part about the incapacitated, since that is dealt with elsewhere in the rape article and was not directly relevent to this section, which dealt with violations of age of consent laws.  I also added a subject (governments) to the sentence - so as to change it from passive to active voice and make clear just who was doing the considering.  I switched the word "minors" to "people under a certain age" to avoid ambiguity.  The word "minor" can have a number of different meanings, for example in the state of Kansas a person can legally have sex at age 16, is generally considered to be fully an adult by age 18, but can still be charged as a "minor in possession of alcohol" up until age 21.

"Because the state has an interest in protecting minors, it declares that children under a certain age are not able to give informed consent."

This seemed to be asserting a POV, so I changed to to make clear that it was the state, not Wikipedia, who was making that assertion.

"Laws vary widely in their definitions of statutory rape; some states make exceptions when the perpetrator is also young or of a similar age..."

"Perpetrator," IMO, is a very loaded word and most certainly not NPOV.  I feel it was particuarlly inappropriate in this case, when the state doesn't even say that the person has done anything wrong.  (Is a 19 year old who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend a perpetrator?)

--[[User:Blackcats|Blackcats]] 23:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Yes, and he can go to jail, as happened a number of years ago in wisconsin while I was there. Trivializes real rape if you ask me, but the US has an off relationship w sex. ([[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] | [[user_talk:Sam Spade|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/Sam Spade|contributions]]) 00:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::Many liberal states have provisions for such cases.  If one person is above the age of consent and another below, most states would not consider it a crime unless they were a certain number of months or years apart.  For example, a 21 year old can usually (as I understand it) have sex with anyone 17 or over, whereas for a 22 year old, anyone under 18 is off-limits.  If both parties are under 18, there usually has to be 36 months difference between them before the oldest can be charged with a crime.  In other words, it's usually legal for a nearly 17 year old to have sex with a 14 and a half year old, but a 17 and a half year old could not legally have sex with someone who just turned 14.  Then again, it seems like these laws change every couple of months.  In my own state we used to go by the 36 month rule, then the age of consent dropped to 16 instead of 18 and a 3 month rule was adopted concerning those under 16.  I have no idea what the law is now. --[[User:Corvun|Corvun]] 03:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

:::The distinction drawn between child molestation and statutory rape does not make sense to me. Here is a quote about Massachusetts law: 

In this Commonwealth, statutory rape is outlawed by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 265: Section 23 (Rape and Abuse of a Child):

Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall, for the first offense, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in jail or house of correction, and for the second or subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than five years. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 03:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:I think the general idea is that after a certain age (usually in the pre-teen or early teen years) you may very well know what sex is, and you'll certainly ''want'' to have sex, but you don't yet have the psychological maturity to make careful choices concerning sex.  A 14 year old girl is sexually mature in the biological sense and capable of bearing children with little to no personal health risk.  She is capable of ''wanting'' sex.  Yet, at the same time, the average 14 year old girl is incapable of making rational choices as to ''who'' she has sex with.  She can be easily taken advantage of, and usually only ''thinks'' she's making her own choices, when in fact someone older and smarter than her is manipulating and leading her.  She can succumb to a predator's sweet talk and her own biological urges without being able to give her "true consent".  (Although this is a more complicated matter; it's concievable that an exceptionally intelligent and mature 14 year old might actually be capable of making such choices for herself without being taken advantage of, whereas there are probably a number of very naive and emotionally immature women who will ''never'' reach a point that they are able to truly make their own decisions regarding sex, and will spend their entire lives being led and manipulated by one cad after another.)

:Those that have not yet biologically reached sexual maturity, on the other hand, aren't even capable of really ''wanting'' sex without manipulation.  They aren't thought to really understand what sex is.

:So I can see why there would be a distinction.  "Molestation" being the term for taking advantage of someone incapable of ''wanting'' sex, and "statutory rape" being the term for someone who may ''want'' sex, but isn't mature enough to decide ''with whom''. --[[User:Corvun|Corvun]] 05:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

[[Age of consent]] is a complex and arbitrary matter. God (or nature, or whatever) gave us clear physical distinctions between those who can breed, and those who cannot, age-wise.  Anything else is purely cultural in nature. Also children of every age have sexual inclinations, as any psychology or [[human sexuality]] student can tell you. See [[child sexuality]]. The article needs to be completely without judgement on these matters, as anything else smacks of ethnocentrism. One thing that is clear to me is that every culture has rules regarding sex which, when viewed by some other specific outside culture, appear obscene. The clear distinctions regarding rape are:

# Injury
# Consent

And cases where either is open to interpretation are distinctly less clear cut than those where they are not. ([[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] | [[user_talk:Sam Spade|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/Sam Spade|contributions]]) 10:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:I agree somewhat that the age of consent is arbitrary.  Once someone has reached sexual maturity, it is only a cultural matter whether or not that person is capable of giving consent.  As I stated earlier, some are undoubtedly emotionally/psychologically mature enough to make rational choices regarding sex almost as soon as they are sexually mature, while others may never reach this point.  It really has very little to do with age after sexual maturity, and more to do with the individual.  While I do think it is possible to be sexually mature (biologically) yet psychologically unable to give consent, I also think it's pretty silly to think there's a magical age at which someone lacking the emotional/psychological maturity to make his/her own choices and not be led around like a piece on some kind of sexual game board, will somehow mystically turn into someone capable of ''actually'' consenting to a sexual act with a specific person.

:I didn't mean to imply that children don't have sexual urges or inclinations.  Humans must have strong sexual instincts, like all animals, and it makes sense to see some manifestations of those instincts even in early childhood.  I personally would think, though, that there's a big difference between simply knowing that a certain movement or stimulus feels good, as in very young children, and making serious attempts to contribute to the gene pool, as in young teens and up.  Not to say there's a clear line.  Like all forms of human growth, the change takes place over a period of time.

:But, all of this is moot anyway, since it seems we're making a pretty similar argument. --[[User:Corvun|Corvun]] 11:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

::I was not questioning the logic (sounds perfectly reasonable that you should treat relations with a twelve year old differently from relations with a two year old) but actual law, which is what we are reporting here. If I read Massachusetts law correctly, they make no distinction. In their eyes too young is too young and distinctions be damned. So it seems to me that at the very least we should discuss two different categories of law, jurisdictions where a distinctions IS made between molestation and statutory rape, and those where everything is lumped together. I really have no idea where the preponderance of law falls, but my take on US law is that there is less rather than more distinction. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 11:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)