Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[VendettaNola]

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'.

 

[FOXGEAR]

I am completely with you every step of the way, OP. I am always flabbergasted at these idiots who try to make every single issue black and white like this is a public school kindergarten class or something. Stalking a woman and beating her and forcefully raping her is completely different from having sex with a consenting teen. Whilst it is still not good, the teen knows what she is doing and doing so willingly.

@Realitycrash: No, when you have sex with a consenting minor in the states it's counted as "Statutory Rape". Go US of A. woo.

EDIT: And women are not the only ones who can be raped, whatever the hell the ignorant feminists want to spout off. If a woman came up to me and hit me and tore my pants off, I would not like it one bit. I would yell for help and try to fight her off. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't work because I am a complete weakling, and I don't even pretend to try and act macho. I am a bi-sexual man, and I don't care whether it is a woman or man being raped, it is STILL RAPE.

 

[RoonMian]

I personally like very much how that sort of stuff is handled in my country. As long as it is in consent the law here kinda "scales" with age. Turning 14 you "get" the "right" to have sex. Turning 18 then you "lose" the "right" to have sex with people below the age of 16. That means:

You are 14 or 15 -> Sex with people from 14 to 17 is not a problem.

You are 16 or 17 -> Sex with people from 14 to 110 is not a problem (110 is chosen at random).

You are 18 or older -> Sex with people 16 or older is not a problem.

Sticking to these rules is a guarantee that you won't be bothered by the justice system sticking its nose into your sex life. But even if you don't follow those rules it's not automatically rape or illegal sex with a minor. Then a court "just" investigates if the younger person actually is in charge of her own sexuality, you didn't exploit her etc. (it gets complicated there). So let's imagine you're 18 and your girlfriend is 15 (i've read somewhere that the acceptable agerange is supposed to be half your age plus eight which would fit there) and she is mature and confident about it just like any 16-year-old you'll be okay even if your relationship gets an investigation.

Something we have to thank the sexual revolution in my country in the 60ies and 70ies for.

 

[FOXGEAR]

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'.

I believe the US court system would count that as "Assault". Once again, woohoo US of A.

 

[razer17]

Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging,

A 16 year old who has sex with a 15 year old, is technically a rapist and a child abuser (16 being the age of consent here). Thing is, 15 year olds usually know what they are doing. People don't suddenly, on their 16th birthday, wake up and discover a new ability to judge whether or not they should have sex.

My point being that it probably isn't coercing. In fact, from what I've seen I'd suggest a lot of the time 14 or 15 year old girls coerce older guys to sleep with them. In some countries, Spain being the one I can think of, the legal age is as low as 13. I'd say 15 year olds know how to handle themselves, barring any psychological or developmental issues.

OT: Personally, I think rape is rape. Ignoring the issue of child abuse, which is different to standard rape, so not really relevant, I think any rape is a rape. Yes, some may be more violent or whatever, but any rapist should get the same time, because they are awful, horrible people.

(Also, it isn't just women who get raped. Men can be raped by other men and by women.)

Edit - Actually, maybe rape isn't just rape. There are different circumstances, I retract that statement.

 

[Gigano]

How utterly pathetic that these people who attack him not only have no ability to step back and look rationally at a subject, but lash out at those who do.

 

[Chris^^]

thank fuck someone has the balls to say it, I'm behind him all the way, its about time society stopped pussy-footing around the issue and actually bothered to take the reality of the situation into account.

 

[razer17]

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'.

I believe the US court system would count that as "Assault". Once again, woohoo US of A.

I think you'll find that the American penal code counts rape as being able to happen to both males and females, and can be both hetero and homosexual. In fact, something like 10% convicted rapists are convicted for raping males.

 

[VendettaNola]

EDIT: And women are not the only ones who can be raped, whatever the hell the ignorant feminists want to spout off. If a woman came up to me and hit me and tore my pants off, I would not like it one bit. I would yell for help and try to fight her off. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't work because I am a complete weakling, and I don't even pretend to try and act macho. I am a bi-sexual man, and I don't care whether it is a woman or man being raped, it is STILL RAPE.

I'm a SUPER feminist, and I'm not going to tell you men can't be raped. That's stupid, provably untrue and, again, crazy sexist. Anyone who purports to be a feminist and has that opinion is a whack job. Real feminists believe in EQUALITY, which, sometimes irritatingly, is a two way street.

I just checked the law in Louisiana (current personal residence), and you guys are ok. In no way does the statue exclude you from prosecuting rape (though check out number 3, weird)
http://www.babcockpartners.com/resources/statutes/louisiana-simple-rape-law

 

[trigger1992]

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.

Yeah, this isnt quite right.
Going by the ages you used im assuming this is UK law you're talking about, under which a 16yo having 'consensual' sex with a 15yo would NEVER be found guilty of rape. Sex with a child maybe, but not rape. And if he had a reasonable reason to believe she was 16, hes fine anyway. I wish the news would get its facts straight sometimes...

 

[Katana314]

Breaking news! Breaking news!
Man Who Stole Potato Chips from Vending Machine in Bank Lobby tried for Bank Robbery!


Yeah, they're still criminals, but the 15-year-old thing is definitely right.

Heck, there are a few cases of what we normally think of as rape that I think should have a lightened penalty; ie, it could be determined the rapist had a fair reason to think the victim was consenting, but something didn't get across in dialog.

 

[Worgen]

awhile ago we had a guy who everyone was sure was going to win the race for governor here against ann richards and no one thought she had a chance since she was kinda libral for this stupid state but a couple days before the election in a radio interview he was asked about rape and his response was along the lines of, its a bad thing but sometimes the lady should just lay back and accept it, needless to say he lost the election and we ended up with a good governor who wasnt as effective as would have been good since the house hated her

 

[ArtanisCreed]

rape is rape. but stat. rape isnt the same thing as regular rape. And stat. rape is bs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape If it isnt forced what is the problem? Minors(~12 an up) have sex(course not all of them do). There is no disputing this fact. The courts making a big deal out of this is what causes alot of problems. The entire legal system needs reworked imo.

 

[razer17]

People don't suddenly, on their 16th birthday, wake up and discover a new ability to judge whether or not they should have sex.

There has to be a line in the sand. Period.

Actually, in an ideal world there wouldn't, because it would be judged on mental readiness. Sadly that's just a completely unfeasible solution to the problem. Point is, a 16 year old and a 15 year old could literally be a day apart, and one is a rapist. Line in the sand is bollocks, there has to be some sort of flexibility.

 

[Quellist]

At the moment i would say the laws defining rape could use some work and thats the reason for the sort of ambiguous comments Clark came up with. Generally this is gotten around by rape having no fixed sentencing tariff which one would hope allows judges to use their discretion.

One the one hand rape is rape but on the other stranger rape is usually less about sex and more about power and humiliation whereas date-rape is more about some guy who cant control himself and respect a woman's right to say no. Both are heinous crimes but i would say very different, with the latter offender much more likely to be able to be rehabilitated (not that he shouldn't also be punished).

In the UK sex between a 15 and a 17 year old afaik isn't defined as rape so on that point at least Clark got it 100% wrong.

 

[thetruefallen]

In a perfect world criminals go to trial where a respected members of the community/legal system decide the length of a sentence based of the severity of the act. It doesn't always work like that but here in a Australia it attempts to flounder in that general direction. Even if rape wasn't the issue discussed, i would still like to see more politicians try to tackle every aspect of every issue. In times of old a Naysayer was a paid member of (royal) court and there whole job was to intelligently argue the negative side of every issue so nothing was missed.
I don't honestly care what the legal definition of what "rape" is. as i will never commit rape and until i have a child i probably wont be overly concerned with it and everybody being a potential rapist.

 

[MercurySteam]

What I've always wanted to know is why sex why a minor is called statutory rape. I always thought that rape was defined by having sex with someone without their permission, so therefore if you're 18 and you're girlfriend's 17 and she gives you permission or not you're still a rapist.

I think the law calls sex with a minor rape due to the fact that lawyers and politicians assume that anyone under the age of 18 lacks the mental capacity to make the decision the have sex or not. This is true for some but definitely not all.