what is the difference between nonconsensual and rape?
Rape is the violent knock-down physical rape.
Non-consensual is simply not consensual -- blackmail, coercion, mind control, drugged, etc.
Legally, all those non-consensual ones would be rape, but so would consensual sex with a minor. These aren't legal terms.
i have also wondered why we have age of consent laws for sex if it is still against the law to have consensual sex with a person under 18?if the state says age of consent is 15 then why does a person over 18 go to jail for something the state says is legal?
if the state says age of consent is 15 then why does a person over 18 go to jail for something the state says is legal?
No US state has the age for consent at 15. For the majority of US states the age of consent is 16, 7 states have the age of consent at 17, and 10 at 18.
For the purposes of:
Legally, all those non-consensual ones would be rape, but so would consensual sex with a minor.
minor should be read as anyone under the age of consent, not anyone under the age of majority.
For the purposes of:
Legally, all those non-consensual ones would be rape, but so would consensual sex with a minor.
minor should be read as anyone under the age of consent, not anyone under the age of majority.
In most cases the age of consent is fine. But I knew of at least one situation where the young woman was almost 30 years old, but due to mental problems her mental and emotional age was around 4 or 5 years old. In that case I would consider it rape anyway since there was no way for her to understand what was happening to her. It was a real situation. An employee of the institution she was held in had sex with her, stating there was no way he could be charged with rape. And it was his word against the mental patients. In some ways he was right the patients would not have counted in fact it wasn't even investigated partly because of her physical age and the fact that all the complainants were mental patients.
Later on he was arrested under a different charge however and plenty of evidence was found in the trunk of his car. Funny how many years he got for stealing drugs from that hospital. (He said he was FRAMED)
I guess my term "minor" was too vague. Sorry for that. It's age of consent that determines if the person was able to consent to sex.
That age is different by state.
There's an age "difference" that comes into play in some states. So if the age of consent is 18, a 19-yo isn't guilty of statutory rape if the girl is only 17. But if the guy was 30, he would be.
There's an age "difference" that comes into play in some states. So if the age of consent is 18, a 19-yo isn't guilty of statutory rape if the girl is only 17. But if the guy was 30, he would be.
As long as they are happy, why should it matter to anyone except the ones involved?
Why does the Government do anything? In theory the people tell their elected officials what they want them to do. Either many voters or a some influential ones have decided that kind of fun is bad. Why Prohibition (outlawing alcoholic beverages)? Why drug laws (except marijuana in Washington, Colorado and for "medical" purposes in a few other states? Girls used to get married in their early teens. Not any more. You could get married by telling people you were. Now you need a license and a ceremony by an approved person or organization. Minimum wage laws and lots of taxes determine if someone can take a job for what you can afford to pay and they can live on. There are "independent contractors" to get around those laws that have very little independence.
I am here from the Government to help you. One of the three big lies.
As long as they are happy, why should it matter to anyone except the ones involved?
Because the world is full of busybodies who aren't happy unless everyone does everything their way.
As long as they are happy, why should it matter to anyone except the ones involved?
Basically, it has to do with the societal standard as to when a person is considered capable of making an informed decision about their own life. In most modern, Western societies there is no single age at which a person is considered capable of making all decisions, instead we use various ages for different actions.
By the logic of your question, why should we stop children from drinking or smoking?
The reason that we prevent younger people from drinking is not just because alcohol can have serious negative side-effects, but because children (and teens) aren't always capable of making informed decisions. Yes, some can. And yes, education and parental guidance can affect this. But there are also very real differences in a young person's brain than in an adult's, and these differences contribute to a lowered ability to care about long-term consequences.
It's the same problem with sex. The differences between lust and love, between attraction and action, between casual sex and commitment aren't always clear, and they are even less clear to someone with no experience and a hormonally induced tendency to react based on emotions.
There are certainly special cases, and the laws in many places do take those cases into account, which is the reason for close in age exceptions and similar, but in general laws are made for the average person, not the exceptions. In this case, age of consent laws are intended to protect teens and children from predators.
While it's certainly nice to read a story about a fictional genius-level teen-aged girl throwing herself at an older guy, the reality is that there are a lot of guys out there who are already lying their way into the hearts and pants of college and working women; would you really want them to be legally free to lie to younger girls?
Now, there are certainly arguments to be made about the actual age of consent, about the exceptions, about criminal versus civil cases, about what defences are allowable, and so on, but the theory behind the laws is fairly reasonable.
Yeah, leave the lying to the girls saying, "I swear I'm 18," before the fact, and "I turned 14 last week" after.
Oh and another consideration on those hormones you mentioned distorting young adults (post pubescent) perceptions, some are saying "Make babies NOW."
In the good old days you had to be over 18 to qualify to homestead property. Underage kids would put a piece of paper in their shoe under their foot that said 18. Then they could swear they were over 18.
I guess my term "minor" was too vague. Sorry for that. It's age of consent that determines if the person was able to consent to sex.
Change "able," above, to "allowed." Abel is about psychology and knowledge, law is about allowed.
There's an age "difference" that comes into play in some states. So if the age of consent is 18, a 19-yo isn't guilty of statutory rape if the girl is only 17. But if the guy was 30, he would be.
Different in the UK. If one party (which could be the female)is a single day over the age of consent and the other is one day under then it is legally rape. In practice they usually wouldn't prosecute in such a case but the courts would get increasingly nasty as the age difference increases. I wrote "usually" because if the older party is a teacher, guardian or some other person whose function it is to guide or influence the child then heaven help them (usually - there have been exceptions)
Different in the UK. If one party (which could be the female)is a single day over the age of consent and the other is one day under then it is legally rape.
A couple of decades ago it was even worse than that in the US. Statutory rape laws across all 50 states make it illegal for anyone to have sex with a partner under the age of consent, but do not require that the perpetrator is above the age of consent. This meant that theoretically if a 14 year old boy had consensual sex with a 14 year old girl, both could be prosecuted for statutory rape.
However, a number of high profile prosecutions for statutory rape where the defendant was also a minor resulted in a public backlash that led to the creation of "Romeo and Juliet" laws.
The "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which don't yet exist in all fifty states, carve out exceptions to statutory rape for close in age cases and/or minor on minor cases
If one party (which could be the female)is a single day over the age of consent and the other is one day under then it is legally rape.
That's what the law is in California as well.
The aim of elected legislators is not to make sensible laws, it is to get re-elected. It would make for better laws if it became harder to get elected for passing and/or failing to repeal nonsense. Unfortunately it seems to be politically expedient to be against all forms of "crime" and harder to get elected or re-elected if the candidate can be criticized for being soft on "crime." Or statutory rape. Our citizens deserve credit or blame for who they send to office. I hate to think I am getting the government I deserve. But what do I do, other than criticize, to make things better? Not much.
That's what the law is in California as well.
There is a Romeo and Juliet law in California, though the California version is relatively weak. Instead of providing a complete exception, if the age difference is less than 3 years it reduces the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Instead of providing a complete exception,
I much prefer Al Steiner's laws for use on Mars (the Greenies stories). Quite simply the laws were simple and without exceptions. Break one and there was a set down punishment which had to be applied. Oh, and the equivalent of senators and congressmen were appointed for a specific period with only a short possible period of power
It's age of consent that determines if the person was able to consent to sex.
And the most interesting part is that Mother Nature's age of consent is not matched by any of the governmental age of consent laws.
And when you get to the legal age for making other decisions what we have today is many years past what societies have used in the past. Often it's half as many years again. In most cases the issue with teens and the like not being able to make good decisions, it's a case of modern society not allowing them to have any decision making practice until they're in their twenties.
In most cases the issue with teens and the like not being able to make good decisions, it's a case of modern society not allowing them to have any decision making practice until they're in their twenties.
Not twenties but nineties. Every risk, however slight, is being banned. Chemistry pupils are now banned from doing any experiments ( like boiling water) until they are in university. As for things like canoeing, walking on the moors - it is almost like don't allow kids there because it is too dangerous.
In France the selling of matches is a state monopoly - why,
Chemistry pupils are now banned from doing any experiments
Yeah, and they wonder why young new mothers are accidentally killing themselves with chlorine gas because they didn't know not to use certain cleaning materials in the toilet bowl at the same time. The idiots that be with power don't think we should teach high school students not to mix such chemicals any more, so they do it by accident and die.
Yeah, and they wonder why young new mothers are accidentally killing themselves with chlorine gas because they didn't know not to use certain cleaning materials in the toilet bowl at the same time. The idiots that be with power don't think we should teach high school students not to mix such chemicals any more, so they do it by accident and die.
But we put a warning label on it! http://www.dumbwarnings.com/
Yeah, and they wonder why young new mothers are accidentally killing themselves with chlorine gas because they didn't know not to use certain cleaning materials in the toilet bowl at the same time. The idiots that be with power don't think we should teach high school students not to mix such chemicals any more, so they do it by accident and die.
The subject was that kids are not allowed to take risks any longer.
Image a class of 12 pairs of 16 year olds entrusted with 30N Sodium Hydroxide. That chemical has the destructive power of most acids you have heard of and we were using it hot to make aniline dye. Nobody was playing around but a flask of boiling chemicals exploded and three pupils were soaked; every single pupil in the room reacted immediately to soak the three victims who had their clothes burnt off them but only suffered the equivalent of mild sunburn. (Oh, and the master was out of the room when the accident occurred). That is how youngsters CAN behave if they are shown trust.
My uniform coat at that time was thick wool and it alone weighed 22lbs or 10kg which indicates the danger of NaOH
Another situation: six 15 and 16 year old walking in the snow covered hills came across someone suffering from hypothermia and delirious. Four of them got the victim back to consciousness whilst two went for help which arrived eight hours later. Those six received the Chief Constable's Commendation for their actions. Kids Can be responsible if allowed to be trusted.
The subject was that kids are not allowed to take risks any longer.
When I was in high school in the 1960s the kids weren't entrusted with dangerous chemicals (mainly because of the costs involved) but the teacher did tell us and demonstrate what happened with many dangerous chemicals in a experiment with small amounts out in a large open area. Today, the teachers aren't allowed to even do that. They're not allowed to tell the kids what the risks are. The old home volcano trick isn't allowed to be demonstrated in many schools now.
Kids can be responsible is, as you say, trusted and allowed to be, but they also need to be properly taught what to do as well.
They're not allowed to tell the kids what the risks are. The old home volcano trick isn't allowed to be demonstrated in many schools now.
We knew how to make explosives from common household materials, worse/stronger ones from workshop and garage materials. OK so we made Dihydrogen Iodide and watched the preparation of an explosive which could be heard a mile away but did any of us ever use such materials? No way
watched the preparation of an explosive which could be heard a mile away but did any of us ever use such materials? No way
True, mainly because we knew the dangers, and also because we felt trusted. Today the system is set to not trust the kids with anything more dangerous than a soft plastic building block.
typo edit
Today the system is set to not trust the kids with anything more dangerous than a soft plastic building block.
We get written warnings that these are dangerous (could choke if ingested)
We get written warnings that these are dangerous (could choke if ingested)
only an issue with the smaller ones. But that emphasises the point. No warnings on the building blocks I had as a kid - made from hardwood, or the metal toys that hurt when they got thrown at you. But we managed OK.
I grew up in a state just like this. Limited consent from 16-17 (within 5 years), full consent at 18
i have also wondered why we have age of consent laws for sex if it is still against the law to have consensual sex with a person under 18?if the state says age of consent is 15 then why does a person over 18 go to jail for something the state says is legal?
The federal age of consent is 18, but that only applies to pornography (photographs of actual people), which is presumed to have, at some point, crossed a state line, crossing state lines, or entering the country.
so by that you mean all those women that are popping out 5-6 kids by 5-6 different daddies and no job that can barely breathe on their own are better suited for sex then the 15yr old that wants to be married to the guy she wants and wants her that has job and good money?
yeah a warning label for the dumbest of us all.like the 1 on a blow dryer that says not for use in the shower.the reason it is there is because some dumbass did it.just like here in the states we have a kid that was drinking and driving at 16 and killed 4 people.the judge gave him probation because his mommy never told him not to drink and drive.nevermind the drinking age is 21,but other then that what fucking moron as never heard drinking and driving was not only stupid but illegal?
his mommy never told him not to drink and drive
It's amazing how almost everyone reads more into a statement than is actually there. Take the key part of this which is not to drink and drive while what they add in makes it read not to drink alcohol and drive. I drink and drive almost every time I take the car out, but the can of cola hasn't caused me to have poor judgement, well, not yet, anyway.
One of my favourite saying for decades has been:
Don't drink beer and drive because swerving the car to avoid something may cause you to spill your beer.
typo edit
I drink and drive almost every time I take the car out, but the can of cola hasn't caused me to have poor judgement, well, not yet, anyway.
but reaching for the can could conceivably and perhaps momentarily take your attention away from the road - you can be prosecuted for using a phone for that reason
Don't drink beer and drive because something may cause you to spill your beer.
and that is criminal
but reaching for the can could conceivably and perhaps momentarily take your attention away from the road - you can be prosecuted for using a phone for that reason
The can holder is easier to reach than the bloody windscreen wiper switch and half the other controls in the car. The issue with using mobile phones comes from taking your eyes off the road for a long enough period to punch a number or the answer button along with needing both hands for the task. Removing one hand from the wheel, for any purpose, has never been a problem with most traffic legislation. The blanket ban on phones is to make the field handling easy, because if they allowed talking but no dialling everyone will claim they were only talking, even when there's video of them dialling. So no mobile phone in the hand is easier to enforce. And with hands-free kits being so cheap and easy to use, there's no excuse to use a phone by hand while driving. It's not the talking that's the issue but the fact most phones require two hands to answer or dial a number and one hand must always be on the wheel.
An 18 yo can get married,vote,enter a contract, lead men in combat ,but can not buy a beer . Makes sences to me
An 18 yo can get married,vote,
Voting age used to be 21 in the US. Then, in the 1970s, 18 year olds were being drafted and dying in the Vietnam War and demanded the right to vote against the politicians sending them there so it was lowered.
I don't know what age it is now, but when I lived in NY we could drink at 18.
I don't know what age it is now, but when I lived in NY we could drink at 18.
From some research I did a couple of years back most US states had 18 for drinking alcohol, but then some wankers lobbied congress to make it 21, and the congress made certain federal road funding to the states dependent on the law being 21 in the state, so they changed the law to get the money. Last I heard serving military can drink on base at 18.
Voting age used to be 21 in the US. Then, in the 1970s, 18 year olds were being drafted and dying in the Vietnam War and demanded the right to vote against the politicians sending them there so it was lowered.
I think it useful to note that way back when the voting age was first set to 21, 21 was the age of majority. I'm not sure when the age of majority was lowered to 18.
I'm not sure when the age of majority was lowered to 18.
Many years decades after it was raised from 14.
I'm not sure when the age of majority was lowered to 18
For me it happened when I was 20. Very annoying to miss out on the party completely.
Voting age used to be 21 in the US. Then, in the 1970s, 18 year olds were being drafted and dying in the Vietnam War and demanded the right to vote against the politicians sending them there so it was lowered.
I don't know what age it is now, but when I lived in NY we could drink at 18.
And then Nixon got reelected with an electoral landslide of 49 states, largely on the youth vote (I'm ashamed to say, including me).
Drinking age here, in California, is 21
though there's a proposal to lower it back to 18.
With parental consent, a girl can get married when she's under the age of consent for sex. If her husband is an adult, is it rape if he has sex with her?
If her husband is an adult, is it rape if he has sex with her?
In some legal jurisdictions, yes, there is no exception for marriage - in others, not, because they have an exception for it.
In some legal jurisdictions, yes, there is no exception for marriage - in others, not, because they have an exception for it.
Most states in the US make an exception for marriage. My first wife was 16 when we married and I was 20. The state we married in (Missouri) has an AOC of 17. Surprisingly, many states allow marriage at a remarkably young age with parental permission. Some states require the approval of a judge in addition to parental consent if the girl is below a certain minimum. If the law has not changed in the last few years to correct it, California did not have a minimum marriage age on the books, meaning in theory a prepubescent child could get married with parental consent if a judge could be found to approve. I'm unaware of such a thing ever happening, but it was on the books.
In some of oyster50's stories he mentions some of the statutes, he may have researched it. For instance, marriage licenses didn't become prevalent until the late 1800's when the non-Mormons were incensed about the Mormons' polygamous ways. It was one way to control people. Likewise the Temperance movement busybodies wanted to outlaw liquor, but couldn't until the Income Tax was created as most of the Federal Government at that time was funded by alcohol excise taxes. The religious hypocrites want to control people so that everybody thinks and acts their way, God forbid if anybody is different.
For instance, marriage licenses didn't become prevalent until the late 1800's when the non-Mormons were incensed about the Mormons' polygamous ways.
Actually in much of the US, marriage licenses didn't become mandatory until after the Civil War (late 1800s). The driving factor wasn't Mormon polygamy, the driver was preventing interracial marriages.
US law with differences in age of majority vs age of consent are nuts. I live in Kansas where the age of consent is 16 with no 'age gap' provision. A 16 yr old in Kansas is free to fuck anyone of any age over 16. If I had a 16 yr old lover, I could screw her bowlegged, (assuming the Viagra did its job) knock her up, and gaze on her naked charms all day. I have not broken any laws. BUT, take one picture or a short video of us having sex and I'm guilty of child pornography. :/
Shouldn't this be in a different discussion area and not the "Lost Stories" section?
Most definitely, but it's been here for almost three years now. You want to make a "New Feature Suggestion" that a thread can be moved to a different section if obviously totally misplaced?
I agree you opened a can of worms, with no clear answer.
The best quote I can remembe is from Dorothy in the golden girls " just because the plumbing is in doesn't make the house livable"