Statutory Rape Laws

I just finished writing a long paper that was rigorously logical, entirely practical, and not likely to spark much casual debate.

Naturally, the first thing that I want to do now that it’s done is write a (relatively) short post that is entirely emotional, subjective, and likely to infuriate everyone’s sense of morality.

To give myself a tiny chance of being taken seriously, I’d like you to test your own objectivity by asking you to answer the following questions, silently, in the back of your own mind. “Is it ever ok to have sex with a fifteen year old?” Now that you’ve answered that question, answer me this: “Is it ever not a big deal to have sex with a fifteen year old?”

This post is not being written for anyone who found either of those questions arousing. I’m going to generally assume that most or all of the people reading this instinctively answered “No.” to the first question and either “No.” or “Well, maybe, but probably not.” to the second one.

Now please read the following news article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/06/teen.sex.case.ap/index.html

In a nutshell, a bunch of people – including the Republican author of a statutory rape law and jury members who convicted a guy who had sex with a fifteen year old – are getting suspiciously close to answering “Yes.” To one or both of those thought exercises I posed.

Now I’m sure everyone has cleverly become upset with me for pulling a “bait and switch” just now. When I asked you to think about those questions before reading the article, I didn’t say anything about how the guy who got convicted was basically the same age as the girl who was “raped.”

That’s true, I didn’t. But I’m not going to apologize for that, because I’m going to continue ramping up the controversy. (I will apologize for suggesting that the two groups I mentioned are taking an almost pro-fifteen-year-old-sex stance. That’s misleading. They seem to be advocating that the guy get a spanking and be grounded instead.)

I’m going to argue that no one was raped at all, and no one needs to be punished.

I’ll say this before I begin: I am going to assume that no one got the fifteen year old drunk or high for the purpose of having sex with her. I am assuming she made those choices entirely on her own, and that they did not completely rewrite her morals for the period while she was drunk/high. I also assume she was not forced or coerced in any way. To be clear, if the girl was drugged or coerced, then my position in all of this would be very different. But if none of those things are true…

I say that absolutely no real, moral crime was committed. Hold on, reread. I am aware that the law was broken. But I’m going to let the Republican and the jury members do all the fighting about how good the law is. I want to talk about morality and ethics, which are another matter entirely.

The fact that everyone agrees that the girl who was giving head at that party decided to do so several times in a row tells me that she did not find the experience distressing or unpleasant. I also can’t help but notice that no one has even considered the fact that (legally) that girl raped several “helpless” boys one after another and is FAR more guilty of child rape than any of the single-offender guys. That interpretation of events is much less instinctive, but is it any less true? Those boys were all underage. Total children. Who she had sex with.

Here’s where I lay my cards down on the table. I challenge anyone to show me why the following point of view is fundamentally wrong. “Children can (and are) raped. This is morally untenable. Forcing sex on someone who does not want to have sex is ethically wrong, especially if the people raped are children (who are generally helpless to defend themselves). However, it is both possible and common for people who are legally children to want to have sex. It is therefore no more morally wrong for them to do so – with whoever they wish – than it is for people who are legally adults to do the same thing with each other.”

I have heard it argued that statutory rape laws create a “line” which defines the point when a person is mentally capable of deciding if he or she is willing to have sex. It wasn’t that long ago when I knew many fifteen year olds. I used to be one. I can think of exactly two who I have ever met who I feel were unqualified to answer if they wanted to have sex at any given time. Both of them were special needs children who would have had no idea what I was talking about. The question of whether or not you want to have sex is not difficult.

Again, I invite debate on this subject. In fact, I’ll even make concessions up front. I believe all of the following are true:
--People who want to have sex with people much younger than they are generally do not have the interests of the younger person in mind.
--There is definitely a point before which a child is not qualified to know if he or she wants to have sex. I believe it is the point before which he or she knows what sex is and what it can lead to, and before which he or she becomes aroused by erotic situations.
--Children should not be actively encouraged to have sex. However, this is almost irrelevant because a person’s sex drive starts out high and generally trends lower as age progresses. (In other words, most teens don’t NEED any encouragement to want to have sex.)

However, I want to remind people who are inclined to argue with me what my point is: “Statutory rape laws are really disturbing because they don’t do anything that couldn’t be covered by normal rape laws, kidnapping laws, and other laws – except occasionally destroy the lives of genuinely nice people (like that honors student on CNN).”