Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[world_of_dragons]

I'm not really sure what to make of this guy's argument since some of his wording threw me. But I'll say this; if a fifteen year old consents to a sexual act, then it shouldn't be met with as much force as the fifteen year old being forced into a sexual act.

 

[LuckyClover95]

He was saying though, that date rape is worse than normal rape. Which is different, and in that case, rape is rape.
I agree with the 15 year old consenting though.

 

[zehydra]

They're completely arbitrary, legally important no doubt, but still arbitrary. This applies to many things besides consentual sex however, my mother is part of our local Rotary Club and had an exchange student (aged 18, legally allowed to drink in Australia) sent home in disgrace from America because he was caught doing exactly what he does with his friends here.

The doctors and psychologists of different places will always have differing views and it is them who advise us and our elected government of the ideal age when one is ready for certain things. They are no more arbitrary than the age at which we reach puberty - there is simply less debate about the latter.

I lol'd at this. It's an absurdity to say that girls require a longer wait time for consent than guys. IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.

 

[irani_che]

17 year old having consented sex with a 15 year old in the UK is considered unlawfull sexual conduct, not rape. He SHOULD have known that.

but srsly, this government could not walk down downing street without accidentally curbstomping a puppy in front of cameras. thats how badly the coalition screw up

 

[XHolySmokesX]

I really hate some people sometimes, especially politicians.

Ed milliband, is a complete whimp who's just trying to win votes by agreeing with everyone who opposed the opposition.

To me there are two types of rape;
-having sex with someone who did not concent and is unaware (e.g. druging someone)
-Forecfully having sex with someone who is fully conscious and did no conscent, possibly with violence

that applies to both guys and girls of all ages

having sex, with someone below the age of 16, who conscents, is not nearly rape it's just the same as adults who conscent.

 

[maturin]

Oh, he's British. If it's in the news cycle over here (is it?), it's because of the attack on women's rights in general that Tea Party House of Reps launched, what with trying rename rape victims 'rape accusers,' talking about forcible and non-forcible rape (if you drug her drink, it's not at bad) and trying to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

I'm inclined to agree with you OP.

I'm not sure if it's the same in other countries, but here if two consenting under-age people have sex it's considered rape, and the boy is automatically assumed to be in the wrong and the girl is perfectly innocent (not sure what would happen for a gay couple). And I find this disgusting... assuming they are both consenting and clearly know what they are doing there shouldn't be anything wrong, (admittedly they are under-age, but it shouldn't be considered rape at least). And it's horrible that the boy is accused of raping the girl and she is treated like she had no idea what he was doing or something.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

You are tried and convicted under the law of the same crime as pinning down a woman and brutally forcing yourself on her.

Noooot so much. Unless the law over there has changed since I last checked, a violent rapist and a statutory rape are not treated the same. In fact, there is no such conviction as "Rape." That might be used on TV, but only because inch think legal terms don't roll off the tongue.

Then again, the law may be different from my remembering.

A statutory "rapist" will not receive as severe a prison sentence as a violent rapist, but he will still land on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life. And therein lies the problem.

 

[Alorxico]

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.

It's the way the law is written; you simply cannot be convicted of raping a man, as rape is legally "Penetrating a woman against her will." It's not a joke. It's sad, yes. But true.

And hold on, seriously? So in you're terrifying country men can't be raped by other men? Have your legislators seen, say, Pulp Fiction? Cause you might want to send them a copy of that with a note reading, 'this should probably be illegal'.

Until recently, the legal definition of rape was defined as "unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will", but in the early 2000 most states changed the wording to "forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will". HOWEVER, just because the definition has changed, doesn't mean people's attitudes towards it has changed with it. You will still encounter judges and juries that don't believe men can be raped and treat the whole trial with an air of "Really? You are expecting me to believe this?"

Definitions of "rape" taken from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

 

[kayisking]

As a politician, Justice minister at that, he should really have chosen his words better.

He's absolutely right of course. There are many degrees of severity for not only rape but every other crime. This is why penalties for almost all crimes are given in a range. Breaking into someone's house at raping them at knifepoint is worse than sex on a date where both parties were drunk, consent was implicit rather than explicit... actually I don't really know were I am going with this. I find it pretty difficult to illustrate an example of a "better" rape. Seriously it is an awful crime, and I pity the poor judges who have to sit down and decide exactly how one crime is more horrific than another crime and try to quantify human suffering and turn the result into a number of years in jail for the offender. I am glad I am neither a judge or a Justice Minister.

It is a sad state of affairs when the leaders of a country need to be carefull to not tell the truth to people, don't you agree?

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

A statutory "rapist" will not receive as severe a prison sentence as a violent rapist, but he will still land on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life. And therein lies the problem.

Statutory rape (and it is rape) is a very serious offense. I see no problem with someone being forced onto the sex offenders registry for committing a sex crime.

If you truly believe that being unable to keep it in one's pants while making out with one's girlfriend when both are teenagers is deserving of the same life-long stigma as a fucking rapist, we have no more to discuss, as you're clearly blinded by your harsh black and white world view. Kids making stupid mistakes, because they're stupid kids, is NOT the same as traumatizing another human through rape.

 

[magnuslion]

A statutory "rapist" will not receive as severe a prison sentence as a violent rapist, but he will still land on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life. And therein lies the problem.

Statutory rape (and it is rape) is a very serious offense. I see no problem with someone being forced onto the sex offenders registry for committing a sex crime.

"He said, putting forth only his personal opinion, not backing it with anything remotely related to research or fact."

Luckily for you, the internet exists and you can put your uninformed, highly egocentric opinion out there without being humiliated in front of dozens of people. enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

It is a sad state of affairs when the leaders of a country need to be carefull to not tell the truth to people, don't you agree?

Finally, someone who has got right down to my main gripe about this. The article itself was simply an example to highlight how people in the public eye (especially politicians) are forced to lie about their own opinions in fear of people jumping on them.

*applaudes*

 

[Soylent Dave]

Theres sometimes no Coercing. If you have sex with a 15 year old and you are 16 years old you are a rapist. End of story. You are tried and convicted under the law of the same crime as pinning down a woman and brutally forcing yourself on her. Even if she agreed, initiated it or even forced the issue you are seen under the law as a violent rapist. This is obviously wrong and this man made a very valid point. That woman should be punched in her stupid face for thinking these two are THE EXACT SAME.

Except in British Law those offences aren't the same.

Sex with a willing minor over the age of 13 but under the age of 16 isn't rape, and is a lesser offence with a lower sentence; that's the other thing Ken Clarke got confused about (yes, he's meant to be justice secretary so you'd think he knew our laws but hey, he doesn't).

Minors under the age of 13 are legally unable to consent, so any sex with them is rape.

A statutory "rapist" will not receive as severe a prison sentence as a violent rapist, but he will still land on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life. And therein lies the problem.

[snip]

If you truly believe that being unable to keep it in one's pants while making out with one's girlfriend when both are teenagers is deserving of the same life-long stigma as a fucking rapist, we have no more to discuss, as you're clearly blinded by your harsh black and white world view. Kids making stupid mistakes, because they're stupid kids, is NOT the same as traumatizing another human through rape.

Which isn't a problem because teenagers don't stay on the sex offenders register for life, they stay on it until they become adults.
So if you're an 18 year old who just has to sleep with his 15 year old girlfriend, then you'll end up on the register - but you're already a bit too creepy for me to want you working with vulnerable kids anyway, so that's probably a good thing.

-

The other thing Ken Clarke claimed on the radio was that 'date rape' and 'serious rape' were different crimes; because 'serious rape' is a 'violent attack' and 'that's what we're really talking about when we talk about rape'.

Anyone going to weigh in on that one?

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

The other thing Ken Clarke claimed on the radio was that 'date rape' and 'serious rape' were different crimes; because 'serious rape' is a 'violent attack' and 'that's what we're really talking about when we talk about rape'.

Anyone going to weigh in on that one?

If she says 'No', it's rape, period.