18 Year Old Girl Facing Felony for Dating 15 Year Old Girl

[Cosara]

The utility of statutory rape laws is extremely obvious to anyone not caught up in "gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want" beliefs.

The flaw of a statutory rape law which treats a rapist or a pedophile the same as an 18 year old engaging in consensual behavior with someone they are dating who is 2 years and some months younger than them should be obvious. This isn't a "gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want" thing. This is a "you know, that girl didn't really do anything wrong, yet her whole life could be ruined" thing.

Yes. The only thing she did wrong was committing Statutory Rape!

[Mirkana]

I'm talking about the younger person initiating things. What if it was the 15-year-old that asked the 18-year-old out? What if she was the one who initiated the sex?

It doesn't matter.

It matters because if the younger girl initiated it, then she was clearly consenting.

[Cosara]

It doesn't matter.

It matters because if the younger girl initiated it, then she was clearly consenting.

(-: <---------- Girl 1

_________________ <------------ Age of Consent


(-: <--------- Girl 2



If girl 1 has sex with girl 2 (who is below the age of consent) that is statutory rape because Girl 2 is below the age of consent and therefor cannot legally give consent.

She can't.

[Grave_n_idle]

What if?

I don't see how that changes anything.

I think it's at least a different matter than a teacher pressuring his student into sex. Unless it can be proven that the older girl manipulated the younger girl, then I don't support ruining the older girl's life.

Why?

Just because the 15 year old instigated it, doesn't mean the 18 year old has to do it.

I certainly wouldn't have sex with a 15 year old, even if she instigated it, so it's certainly a choice that can be made. It's not unassailable, or beyond our capacity to refuse.

So, in this case, the real problem is that - no matter who asked whom - an adult had sex with a kid. And that's bad.

[Evraim]

The utility of statutory rape laws is extremely obvious to anyone not caught up in "gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want" beliefs.

The flaw of a statutory rape law which treats a rapist or a pedophile the same as an 18 year old engaging in consensual behavior with someone they are dating who is 2 years and some months younger than them should be obvious. This isn't a "gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want" thing. This is a "you know, that girl didn't really do anything wrong, yet her whole life could be ruined" thing.

Not when one considers Romeo and Juliet Laws. The fact of the matter remains that statutory rape law do exist for a reason, and that certain principles support them.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well played, Grave.

Or we should, y'know, talk to the kids about sex? And not in a "tut-tut no no bash you over the head with moral indignity and a holy book while forcing you to look at images of STDs" way either, more like "these are the ins and outs (giggle), what could happen, what you can do to prevent it, you don't have to put up with sexual harassment or rape and here's where you can get help etc. etc.".

Oh silly me, that's crazy talk.

Teaching kids about sex is not an alternative to a legal age of consent.

[Wisconsin9]

I think it's at least a different matter than a teacher pressuring his student into sex. Unless it can be proven that the older girl manipulated the younger girl, then I don't support ruining the older girl's life.

Why?

Just because the 15 year old instigated it, doesn't mean the 18 year old has to do it.

I certainly wouldn't have sex with a 15 year old, even if she instigated it, so it's certainly a choice that can be made. It's not unassailable, or beyond our capacity to refuse.

So, in this case, the real problem is that - no matter who asked whom - an adult had sex with a kid. And that's bad.

Kids and teenagers are not the same.

[Mirkana]

It matters because if the younger girl initiated it, then she was clearly consenting.

(-: <---------- Girl 1

_________________ <------------ Age of Consent


(-: <--------- Girl 2



If girl 1 has sex with girl 2 (who is below the age of consent) that is statutory rape because Girl 2 is below the age of consent and therefor cannot legally give consent.

She can't.

OK. Just to clarify, I agree that legally it was statutory rape. What I am arguing about is whether the law as is is just, or should it be changed.

Legally, I see only one way out for the accused - if both she and her girlfriend deny that they ever had sex.

[Dakini]

In principle she can avoid the sex offender registry through the Romeo and Juliet laws.

But being a felon is still pretty life-ending in many ways.

We shouldn't opt out of trying her for Statutory Rape just because it will hurt her in the future.

1. I think it's ridiculous that this is statutory rape. In my country, this would not be. In many ways, the age limits are totally arbitrary.
2. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a non-felony (misdemeanor) version that she could be charged with if Florida is going to insist on having such stupid laws. Being branded a felon in the US has a lot of terrible implications (e.g. you don't get to vote in Florida if you're a convicted felon) and you can pretty much kiss convenient international travel goodbye with a felony on your record. Plus whatever job opportunities.

[Grave_n_idle]

fuck law let the parents trust in prayer and see if "he who is greater then all" decide. problem solved

Sounds like a terrible idea. And one unlikely to lower the age of consent, anytime soon.

and yes god is my argument, ive tried logic but apparently you are immune.

On the contrary, your arguments just haven't been very good.

It's not about her being a lesbian, or the age gap. Those are bad arguments. Those are irrelevant.

[Cosara]

She can't.

OK. Just to clarify, I agree that legally it was statutory rape. What I am arguing about is whether the law as is is just, or should it be changed.

Legally, I see only one way out for the accused - if both she and her girlfriend deny that they ever had sex.

It is just.

[Grave_n_idle]

Kids and teenagers are not the same.

A 15 year old kid is a kid.

[Farnhamia]

Why?

Just because the 15 year old instigated it, doesn't mean the 18 year old has to do it.

I certainly wouldn't have sex with a 15 year old, even if she instigated it, so it's certainly a choice that can be made. It's not unassailable, or beyond our capacity to refuse.

So, in this case, the real problem is that - no matter who asked whom - an adult had sex with a kid. And that's bad.

Kids and teenagers are not the same.

You're right. You can talk to kids.

[Cosara]

We shouldn't opt out of trying her for Statutory Rape just because it will hurt her in the future.

1. I think it's ridiculous that this is statutory rape. In my country, this would not be. In many ways, the age limits are totally arbitrary.
2. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a non-felony (misdemeanor) version that she could be charged with if Florida is going to insist on having such stupid laws. Being branded a felon in the US has a lot of terrible implications (e.g. you don't get to vote in Florida if you're a convicted felon) and you can pretty much kiss convenient international travel goodbye with a felony on your record. Plus whatever job opportunities.

If you're convicted of a felony, you cannot own a firearm or vote. That's Federal Law.

[Evraim]

if our bodies didn't think we were old enough then we would go threw puberty at that age would we?

If our bodies thought murder was wrong, people wouldn't brutally murder others in fits of rage. Do you see the problem with this argument? The fact that one's body is beginning to develop into an adult body does not mean that the mind has developed at the same time. There is a threshold at which society says you become capable of giving informed consent, and that threshold is at eighteen.

You're right. You can talk to kids.

Not all teenagers are brick walls, Farn.

[Ibwa]

I think it's at least a different matter than a teacher pressuring his student into sex. Unless it can be proven that the older girl manipulated the younger girl, then I don't support ruining the older girl's life.

Why?

Just because the 15 year old instigated it, doesn't mean the 18 year old has to do it.

I certainly wouldn't have sex with a 15 year old, even if she instigated it, so it's certainly a choice that can be made. It's not unassailable, or beyond our capacity to refuse.

So, in this case, the real problem is that - no matter who asked whom - an adult had sex with a kid. And that's bad.

200-500 years ago, most diddnt live to be 30. compared to today 15 now would be about 50 back then. so now that we live longer younger people are less capable of making their own decisions?

[Dakini]

The flaw of a statutory rape law which treats a rapist or a pedophile the same as an 18 year old engaging in consensual behavior with someone they are dating who is 2 years and some months younger than them should be obvious. This isn't a "gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want" thing. This is a "you know, that girl didn't really do anything wrong, yet her whole life could be ruined" thing.

Not when one considers Romeo and Juliet Laws. The fact of the matter remains that statutory rape law do exist for a reason, and that certain principles support them.

The Romeo and Juliet laws just keep a person from having to register as a sex offender. It doesn't prevent felony charges and it still results in a punishment that is in excess of the "crime". Why not just allow a close in age exception for 14 and 15 year olds too? I mean, Florida allows 23 year olds to have sex with 16 year olds who are below the age of consent.

[Wisconsin9]

Kids and teenagers are not the same.

A 15 year old kid is a kid.

A 50 year old kid is a kid too.

[Grave_n_idle]

OK. Just to clarify, I agree that legally it was statutory rape. What I am arguing about is whether the law as is is just, or should it be changed.

It's just - the rule is fairly applied, and we've even erred on the side of permissiveness, considering we know brains aren't fully developed at the point where we set our age of consent.

[Wisconsin9]

Kids and teenagers are not the same.

You're right. You can talk to kids.

And you accuse us of being immature.

[Sophian]

if our bodies didn't think we were old enough then we would go threw puberty at that age would we?

I don't really appreciate that you attributed me to saying something that I never said.

[Mirkana]

OK. Just to clarify, I agree that legally it was statutory rape. What I am arguing about is whether the law as is is just, or should it be changed.

Legally, I see only one way out for the accused - if both she and her girlfriend deny that they ever had sex.

It is just.

I disagree. Because a 15-year-old is entirely capable of initiating sexual activity. Whether he or she is capable of making an informed decision is a different matter, but a 15-year-old - hell, even a 13-year-old - is capable of knowing what sex is AND that they want to have sex with a given person all on their own. And I maintain that if any adult finds themselves the object of the kid's sexual desires, that giving in is not the same sort of crime as them forcing themselves on a child, or even just manipulating said child.

I would support making sex with a teenager a lesser crime, one that doesn't automatically land you on the sex offender registry.

[Dakini]

1. I think it's ridiculous that this is statutory rape. In my country, this would not be. In many ways, the age limits are totally arbitrary.
2. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a non-felony (misdemeanor) version that she could be charged with if Florida is going to insist on having such stupid laws. Being branded a felon in the US has a lot of terrible implications (e.g. you don't get to vote in Florida if you're a convicted felon) and you can pretty much kiss convenient international travel goodbye with a felony on your record. Plus whatever job opportunities.

If you're convicted of a felony, you cannot own a firearm or vote. That's Federal Law.

....uh... no. That's state-by-state. Federally, there's nothing that prevents felons from voting. Florida prohibits them from voting though.

Also, this isn't really helping your cause here.

[Grave_n_idle]

200-500 years ago, most diddnt live to be 30. compared to today 15 now would be about 50 back then. so now that we live longer younger people are less capable of making their own decisions?

500 years ago, most children died, and these kids wouldn't have been in school - they'd probably have been already been working for more than a decade.

I'm not sure that the 1500's are a model for how we want our society to work.

[Northern Dominus]

Or we should, y'know, talk to the kids about sex? And not in a "tut-tut no no bash you over the head with moral indignity and a holy book while forcing you to look at images of STDs" way either, more like "these are the ins and outs (giggle), what could happen, what you can do to prevent it, you don't have to put up with sexual harassment or rape and here's where you can get help etc. etc.".

Oh silly me, that's crazy talk.

Separate issues.

Not totally. It goes back to my original point that teenagers are treated in schizophrenic ways, and this case is rather indicative of that. Again as we've seen in 70 plus pages so far, there are two kinds of moral panic being generated by this story if NSG is any indication. One is of course the bigoted anti-LGBT kind, which is pretty much expected at this point, no surprises there.
Then there's the "teenagers gone wild" panic which has endured since at least the 1950s if not before then (likely), and of course teenage sexual activity is the centerpiece of that as well.

I have to wonder, the people generating that sort of panic...how fucking boring were they as teenagers? And now? And now they want to force their boring worldview onto everyone else?

Or we should, y'know, talk to the kids about sex? And not in a "tut-tut no no bash you over the head with moral indignity and a holy book while forcing you to look at images of STDs" way either, more like "these are the ins and outs (giggle), what could happen, what you can do to prevent it, you don't have to put up with sexual harassment or rape and here's where you can get help etc. etc.".

Oh silly me, that's crazy talk.

Teaching kids about sex is not an alternative to a legal age of consent.

Not fully no, but information's better than "No sex ever". I think we've seen just what abstinence-only sex ed does in the long run...

Again, as I referenced earlier there needs to be some goddamn perspective in the statutory laws. Three years of high school does not automatically an adult make. Moreover, aside from that what evidence did those parents have that what the girls were doing was awful or abusive in some way shape or form, other than what their malformed moral compasses told them? Would it have been an issue if the 18 year old were a boy instead of a girl?

I'd believe statutory rape laws were actually a thing and effective if the same people who said that was a good thing were so vehement about Hugh Heffner being a lascivious manipulative old creep in the same breath. Broadly speaking, any young woman who consents to be his girlfriend is probably more subject to manipulation through promises of fortune and fame if she bangs him, given the kind of pull he has.