In response to my earlier remark that “I suspect that sex between an adult woman and a 17-year-old boy is much less likely to be emotionally or physically damaging than sex between an adult man and a 17-year-old girl,” some commenters asked why I thought this. To give one example, from Guest101:
Why? Not trying to be overly PC here, but I really don’t share the intuition that it would make a difference (assuming of course that no pregnancy resulted). Indeed, if the common perception that girls mature faster than boys is correct, wouldn’t one expect the opposite to be true?
I am pretty confident that that sex is more likely to be physically harmful for girls than for boys: Obviously, only girls can get pregnant (something that isn’t strictly a physical harm, but that is often harmful when unintended, and harmful because of the physical consequences of the sex). Also, unless I’m mistaken, females are more likely to get HIV from males than vice versa; females are more likely to suffer directly from the effects of HPV, such as death, illness, or infertility caused by cervical cancer; and females are more likely to become infertile as a result of various sexually transmitted diseases than are males.
I’m less confident (hence the “I suspect”) about the emotional matter, but my sense is that at least in our society today females are still more likely to feel used and degraded as a result of a sexual relationship that has not gone as they had hoped, and in particular that involved less emotional commitment from the other person than they had hoped. Perhaps this is something that is innate; I can see why it might be, though I don’t know if there is any serious evidence of that. Still, whether this stems from nature or nurture, my sense is that this is indeed the case today in America.
But perhaps I’m wrong; again, note the “I suspect.” I certainly haven’t done much research on the subject. (If I had been making the assertion in an academic article on the subject, and certainly if I were in a position to actually sentence someone based on this subject, I would have of course felt obligated to do more such research.) So let me ask you folks this: Is there some serious research on the subject that does shed light on the question, and that either confirms or controverts my intuition?
This is a separate question from the issue whether it is morally proper, and whether it should be constitutionally permissible, to take such sex differences — if they exist — into account at sentencing (a matter I also noted in my original post).
The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Female Teacher’s Having Sex with 17-Year-Old Male Student/Teacher’s Aide = 12 Years in Prison (But Was More Involved?) says:
[...] disagree with my suspicion, or have further thoughts about it, please post it in the comments to this other post, which is specifically aimed at dealing with that question.] But even if the judge was ignoring [...]
Moda says:
Everything you listed in your second paragraph is a reason sex would be more harmful to females than males, regardless of age. It doesn’t make a strong argument that a 17-year-old boy is less likely to be harmed than a 17-year-old girl, insofar as the 17-year-old aspect is relevant; unless you’re interested in making an argument that sex is more harmful to a 27-year-old woman than a 27-year-old man. While certainly it might be statistically true (more “bad outcomes” for 27-year-old women than men), it isn’t really a very interesting argument, and it doesn’t have many compelling policy implications I can think of. This whole thing turns on the 17-year-old aspect because it affects our approach to statutory rape and marriage. But nothing in your second paragraph turns on the 17-year-old aspect.
As for the emotional aspect, I think the whole idea that sex is more harmful to girls is no longer true, but people older than a certain age are unlikely to adjust their perceptions about relationships between the sexes. I searched around a little for an article that might investigate the topic but a cursory search revealed nothing.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:15 pmGuy says:
My offhand jokes on the Bert Chapman thread are actually relevant here: the disease transmission angle makes the gender of the rapist relevant, not the gender of the victim. I don’t know if this sounds overly liberal, but when it comes to statutory rape, the emotional and psychological harm seems like it should generally be more significant than the physical harm, even greivous physical harm is most significant for the psychological impact that results from it. Psychological harm is one of the main reasons we generally consider offenses against children to be worse than those against adults, isn’t it?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:31 pmYankev says:
Moda, there has been research purporting to find that sex triggers a hormone in females that promotes emotional bonding. I barely passed 9th grade biology, so I venture no opinion as to whether the studies were sound science and whether the results were sound.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:38 pmGuy says:
Constitutionally speaking, I don’t know if making a distinction would be permissable, I’m inclined to say no, though. Punishing more severely when the victim is a woman sends two undesirable messages, (1) Women are weak and fragile creatures, who need more protection than men.
(2) Rape (statutory or otherwise) is not as serious when the victim is male.
In regard to the second message, I suspect people who might be inclined to agree might change their mind if they imagine a male rapist, and I’m really not at all convinced that the psychological harm is less even in the case of a female rapist. I am sure that males are more likely to feel social pressures not to report the abuse, and that they are less likely to be believed if/when they do.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:39 pmShelbyC says:
“but my sense is that at least in our society today females are still more likely to feel used and degraded as a result of a sexual relationship that has not gone as they had hoped, ”
I’d imagine where a girl would go “rats, he dumped me! And I had sex with him!” a guy would say “rats, she dumped me! But hey, at least I had set with her”
IIRC, it’s lack of sex that’s emotionally traumatizing for a 17-yo boy.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:39 pmLN says:
Yeah, but what if it was a fat chick? That could cause emotional trauma amirite guys?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:45 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
From Inside Higher Ed:
Here is the article IHE links to, in which it is claimed that the FU(!!!) article is “satire” (of course).
I think there is some messed-up thinking out there. For people who share this kind of thinking, it is worse for a 17-year-old girl, because she is now a slut, whereas the boy scored. Ignored totally is that fact that girls have a sex drive too (thousands of years of evolution pushing us toward making babies saw to that) and that if girls truly internalized this way of thinking then premarital sex would dry up, which I doubt the boys want.
As to whether it really is worse for 17-yr-old girls than boys, I’d venture to suggest that there is so much difference between individual girls, and individual boys, that it’s not possible to make a meaningful distinction. Some girls just like sex. Some boys get their hearts broken. Best to avoid the stereotypes, IMO.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:51 pmJoe says:
Having raised both boys and girls I think the entire notion that sex is emotional harmful in general for any kid 16 or older to be nonsense. (There are, of course, exceptions. My youngest son is 16 and definitely not ready for sex, though I don’t think it has anything to do with emotionally harmful per se.)
One thing that disturbs me about these cases is when the younger person is already sexual active. We have a local case where the 17-year-old “victim” was about as slutty as you can find. Of course, she’s now portraying herself as an angel who was taken advantage of.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:59 pmChrisIowa says:
It has been mumble mumble years, pretty close to forever, since I was 17, but it seems to this old fart that conventional missionary position sex would be difficult to accomplish without some significant voluntary component by the male. That voluntary component would make it much less psychologically damaging to a male.
That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be rape, just that it would depend on the mechanics of the situation as to whether it would be psychologically damaging to an underage male.
It’s easier for this old fart to infer mostly involuntary circumstances for male on young female sex or male on young male sex.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:00 pmGuy says:
I agree, rather than making sweeping statements that one gender is categorically more harmed than the other, why not just punish all offenses of statutory rape without regard to gender? I think the sentencing judge would ordinarily be qualified to take how much that particular defendant was harmed into account without making sexist generalizations. I certainly don’t see any convincing policy reason for letting statutory rapists off lightly just because they’re female. She’s still an adult, and she still knew she was having sex with a minor. Surely she’s just as culpable as a man.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:00 pmyankee says:
What is this, the old “sluts can’t be raped” defense?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:04 pmJoe says:
Having raised both boys and girls I think the entire notion that sex is emotional harmful in general for any kid 16 or older to be nonsense. I think this assertion is simply a further infantilization of society as a whole. There are kids that aren’t ready for even a deep personal relationship at 20, but that doesn’t mean we have to insist EVERYONE wait until that age.
One thing that disturbs me about these cases is when the younger person is already sexual active. We have a local case where the 17-year-old “victim” was about as slutty as you can find. Of course, she’s now portraying herself as an angel who was taken advantage of. What a load of crap–she wanted her 35-year-old teacher and got him. (Plus, I wonder how it makes any sense, both logically and legally, that under the law she could have had sex with a 21-year-old but not a 35-year-old.)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:08 pmJoe says:
Sorry for the double post, the way WordPress was displaying my edit, I assumed that my former post was bad. (WordPress is pretty bad software.)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:09 pmNowMDJD says:
In addition to what Prof. Volokh already has said, women get more precancerous and cancerous disease (mostly cervix) from HPV, which is sexually transmitted. Gonorrhea and chlamydia are more likely to cause infertility and chronic pain in females than in males.
In terms of physical harm, there is no question that women of any age are more likely to suffer serious harm from sexually transmitted illness.
I’m not commenting on his thesis– just supplying some facts which bear on it.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:10 pmGuy says:
er, I meant that particular victim, not defendant, obviously.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:10 pmJoe says:
“What is this, the old “sluts can’t be raped” defense?”
There is, and should be, a distinction between rape and statutory rape. I maintain that common sense dictates that a sexually active 17-year-old cannot be a victim of statutory rape.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:10 pmGuy says:
Um, do you mean sexually active with other minors? Otherwise no one could be guilty of statutory rape, if an adult is having consensual sex with them, they’re sexually active by definition, so the adult has a defense, by this rule.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:14 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I disagree.
Looks to me like you’re saying that a 17-yr-old who is having sex is spoiled goods now, free for anyone to exploit as cynically as they wish, and only virgins deserve to be valued and protected.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:16 pmptt says:
I’d be careful putting out the idea that underage sex might not of necessity be harmful. You might incur the wrath of Congress.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/adultchildsex.htm
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:19 pmJoe says:
I’m saying that it is ludicrous for a 17-year-old who is sexually active and who then has sex with someone more than five years older than him or her (in my state) to make a claim of statutory rape.
Furthermore, I find the entire construct that it is legal for a 16-year-old to have sex with a 20-year-old but not a 22-year-old to be so absurd as to make these specific statutory rape laws highly questionable in terms of fairness if not constitutionality. (To make it even more absurd, in my state a 16-year-old cannot have sex outside of marriage with a 35-year-old, but could if they were married with parental consent. How does that make sense?)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:20 pmptt says:
You’d think that in the case of a prosecution someone would be able to evaluate the existence and degree of harm to the child(ren) in question instead of resorting to “common sense” or societal biases.
Mind you, I’m not suggesting a get-out-of-jail-free card if the child is found to be unharmed. The adult is still responsible for having done something that might have harmed the child.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:24 pmyankee says:
Maybe it seems like “common sense” to you, but not to me. The concept of statutory rape is based on the idea that a minor cannot meaningfully consent to sex with an adult. And if someone cannot provide (meaningful) consent to sex, what difference does it make that they previously consented to sex with someone else?
As far as the age of consent goes, I think 18 is too high, though a high school teacher has no business having sex with the students regardless of age.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:24 pmJoe says:
Laura, why do you assume that a 17-year-old who has sex is being exploited? Isn’t it absurd to say that if they have sex with another 17-year-old it’s voluntary, but with a 24-year-old, they are victims? That flies in the face of common sense.
Besides, couldn’t I argue that all the brainwashing I got as a 17-year-old from my religious leaders about remaining a virgin was cynical exploitation?
(For the record, I believe the age of consent should be 16 universally. Of course, I also think 18 year olds should be able to drink and high school should end at 16. I really do believe that if we have created a weird cult-of-teens and, as a result, are artificially postponing adulthood for far too many people.)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:26 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
You can argue whatever you want, Joe.
The law assumes that the 17-yr-old (if below the age of consent) is being exploited — that is the purpose of statutory rape laws, is it not? What if the girl is “sexually active” because her mama’s boyfriend is messing with her, and if she’s got to have sex, she’d like to have at least some of it by choice? Would you still have the same opinion? What if the girl in question were 14? What if the girl in question were a boy?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:33 pmGuy says:
Joe,
I personally think any adult who would choose to have sex with someone who is still in high school and still living with their parents, and dependent on their parents’ financial support (as is generally the case for people under 18) probably has questionable judgment, to say the least. Your complaint essentially amounts to you thinking that the age of consent is 2 years too high, which seems a little nitpicky considering that the age of consent is necessarily an arbitrary line drawn at some point. I don’t see how “common sense” dictates that a 15-year-old can’t meaningfully consent, but a 17-year-old can, that’s awfully specific common sense you got there.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:40 pmFantasiaWHT says:
“Constitutionally speaking, I don’t know if making a distinction would be permissable, I’m inclined to say no, though. Punishing more severely when the victim is a woman sends two undesirable messages, (1) Women are weak and fragile creatures, who need more protection than men. (2) Rape (statutory or otherwise) is not as serious when the victim is male.”
Well, considering the undesirable messages are identical for affirmative action ((1) blacks are weak and stupid creatures who need more protection than whites, and (2) discrimination is not as serious when the victim is white), and that is somehow constitutionally permissible, I don’t think this would suffer any serious challenge.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:43 pmSC Public Defender says:
Co-incidentally, I observed this sentencing today. IMO this judge would have more than doubled the sentence if it were a man (I have appeared before her numerous times.)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:45 pmJoe says:
Laura, I thought I was being specific, but I will be more so. I am using the age of 17. Sexually active in the colloquial definition means voluntary. (If we want to twist this further, we can say that person lives in a state where the age of consent is 16 with no relative age clause, who then moves to a state where the age of consent is 16 with a relative age clause and who then violates that clause.) I have also intentionally left the sex neutral since I don’t think it matters.
that is the purpose of statutory rape laws, is it not?
No, I think that at 16 and 17 the purpose is for puritanical society to impose extended childhood on teenagers. I think it’s paternalism at its worse and has nothing to do with the assumption of exploitation; the latter being an ex post facto excuse when convenient.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:45 pmGuy says:
Also, I could be wrong, but I believe there still are some jurisdictions where if two underaged people sleep with each other, then they can both be charged with statutory rape. One theory for not criminalizing the case with two minors isn’t that there is no harm done, but that neither party is culpable. Another reason is that if there is a significant age difference, the probability that the older person is intentionally taking advantage of the younger’s poor judgment and vulnerable lack of maturity dramatically increases.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:47 pmJoe says:
I don’t see how “common sense” dictates that a 15-year-old can’t meaningfully consent, but a 17-year-old can, that’s awfully specific common sense you got there.
The maturity difference between a 15 and 17-year-old is huge. I would estimate that less than 10% of 15-year-olds are ready to have sex let alone a serious one-on-one relationship, but over 90% of 17-year-olds are.
Using your straw-man argument, why assume a 19-year-old can meaningfully consent to sex? Or a 21-year-old? Or a 35-year-old?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:52 pmresh says:
Seems to me, you might begin your inquiry by better defining “adult” male/female. If a 17 year old girl has sex with an “adult” 22 year old male, contra a 17 year old male having sex with an adult 34 year old female, the prospects of emotional or psychic harm to the former would seem intuitively less than the latter, ceteris paribus.
Sex, being as much about the mind as about the body, often becomes a signpost of one’s ego and self-image; thus, the age difference of the respective partners becomes the imperative, rather than gender, such that 17 years in age difference dwarfs five years in terms of defining and impacting the scope of the sexual experience.
Or might I just have said, “And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson...”
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:52 pmGuy says:
Some get those messages, but I think part of the issue is that discrimination against blacks is more pervasive and rooted in society and history. Punishing rape more severely when the victim is female doesn’t have its roots in a desire to “fix” a past time when such rape was endorsed by society, but rather it’s rooted in a sexist paradigm in which a women who has been raped is “damaged goods”, and her family and husband are as much victims as she is.
That having been said, the current Supreme Court is pretty skeptical of affirmative action anyway, so I’m not sure it is as clear as you suggest.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:55 pmrb1971 says:
Joe–
Putting aside the teacher/student aspect of this particular case, which I think takes it outside the bounds of ‘normal’ statutory rape, I have some sympathy in general for your point that someone who as a teenager has already made the decision to have voluntary sex in general could be argued to have less protection from the state vis a vis statutory rape laws, but don’t you think the practicalities of proving up this prior consent to sex would be difficult? And who are we really protecting here? I think reading into your argument that you may really be at the end of the day arguing that the Romeo-and-Juliet laws are a good idea and that you disagree with some of the numbers that have been set (and I also agree that (i) 17 is hardly the right age for statutory rape laws — seems more like 15 or 16 to me if we are going to have them at all and (ii) RaJ exceptions should be relatively broader than they are now).
Presumably you agree that in this particular case with the student/teacher relationship these factors are less critical.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:55 pmAnother Steve says:
I’m curious that the arguments concerning the relative impact of sexual activity on seventeen-year-olds have yet to address the possibility that a seventeen-year old-might have sex with a person of the same sex. I’m not sure that it makes a difference but I wouldn’t assume that it didn’t.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:57 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Joe, in my scenario the girl is voluntarily having sex with her agemates b/c her mother’s boyfriend has been messing with her. If you think think this never happens, I suggest you talk to some teenagers. But, you’ll say, the man is guilty of rape, (rape-rape as Whoopi would say?) not statutory rape. And if he claims it’s consensual, then what? Well, she’s a slut anyway, so no harm done — is that what the court should say?
You can argue a lower age for consent, but to say that a person’s voluntary sexual activity has anything — anything at all — to do with whether it is possible to rape that person; well, I don’t think that dog will hunt. I hope it won’t.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:57 pmDave N says:
Two thoughts:
1) The bigger issue than the age spread or the gender of the victim is the violation of trust between someone in authority and someone “under” that person. In that regard, I don’t care if the teacher/coach/pastor is 22 or 42, male or female — and the same is true of the student.
2) I have seen no discussion regarding the impact on males versus females with respect to homosexual relationships. Even if consentual because the minor is experimenting, I think there is the potential in some cases for there to be more damage for males than females since it is my observation (though I could be wrong) that older adolescent males are more homophobic than older adolescent females.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:58 pmGuy says:
Joe, I don’t deny that 17-year-olds are more likely to be ready to have sex than 15-year-olds, obviously they are. I’m just saying it’s a continuum, and it’s not clear exactly where to draw the line. And if you think only 10% of 15-year-olds are ready to have sex, don’t you think 16 is a bit early to declare open season?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:59 pmEMB says:
This is all getting pretty off-topic, but I had the impression that the statutory rape laws in a few states have the rather amusing property that it is possible for a couple who had been having lawful sex to suddenly be unable to for a while due to someone turning 18 (whereas some other states would say that both partners had been committing statutory rape before, which is perhaps worse).
As for when dating someone younger is excessively creepy (rather than actually illegal) the “n/2+7″ rule seems to work pretty well, at least when n isn’t too large.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:05 pmGuy says:
Dave N,
Although homophobic attitudes might cause increased harm, I don’t think it would be appropriate to factor those in, at least not at the “closest to truly consensual as possible for a minor” extreme. This is because the minor is going to be subjected to that harm whether he has sex or not, it’s just part and parcel of growing up gay in our society. Whether you come out or stay closeted (in fact, probably more so if you stay closeted), you are going to suffer psychological harm if you grow up gay in this culture.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:14 pmMalvolio says:
“B/c” means “because”? How would that work?
There’s sort of a problem here. If we presume that a 17-year-old cannot consent to sex with a 21-year-old, don’t we have to assume that she cannot to sex with another 17-year-old?
I think the problem is insolvable. I cannot imagine anyone thinks that a 10-year-old can consent, and while there are probably 21-year-old (and 50-year-olds) who are too immature, the government really cannot interfere. So the law has to draw a line and inevitably, a lot of people are going to be on the wrong side of the law (immature 18-year-olds and precocious 16-year-olds in this case).
I feel a little bad for people who are genuinely in love but because of the (unavoidably) rigid law, cannot consummate their relationship, or cannot for some time anyway. I have no sympathy for this woman. You likes sport-fucking teen-age boys? Tough luck, lady, your hobby’s illegal. Take up hang-gliding or something.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:15 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
That is a problem. I think the Romeo and Juliet exemptions are due to the problem with accusing each party of exploiting the other. Ideally, people would wait until they are adults to have sex. This would be cool for many reasons, not least of which being that biologically, sex is for making babies, and babies need adult parents who can adequately care and provide for them. But sexual maturity is the first kind we get — before physical, emotional, intellectual, or any other kind — and I think that’s the cruelest joke that nature plays on parents.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:22 pmASlyJD says:
Laura,
I think Joe’s point is that if a 17 year old is old enough to consent to sex with a 17 year old partner, he/she is also old enough to consent to an 18/24/35 year old partner. As such, a statutory rape charge for the older partner seems inappropriate, given that an underage partner is not likely to be so punished. Obviously, anyone engaging in relations with that 17 year old without his/her consent is rape, no “statutory” qualifier needed.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:23 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Yes, b/c is because. I don’t know where I picked that up, probably wherever I picked up w/ = with and I type it w/o realizing I am doing it. Bad habit I shd probly drop.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:23 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
ASlyJD, I don’t really think that’s Joe’s point. Earlier he said this:
So I’m not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. You may, of course.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:26 pmDave Hardy says:
A 17 year old male who winds up in bed with an older woman isn’t a victim — he’s lucky. Someone claims he has emotional damage, they haven’t been male and 17. Or 16 or 15. Or 14. Line the guys up and ask ... who wants to be emotionally damaged? You’ll get 100% volunteers. Most of them seeking repeated emotional damage, several times a day, for years in the future. Even the knowledge that this may ruin their standing as a marriage partner, they not being virginal at 35 and all that, will not deter them.
This may not be logical, but who ever said that sex drives were logical? And which is the more powerful force?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:27 pmKazinski says:
That is just not natural, normal, or healthy, or ideal. Lets not lose sight of the fact that humans are animals, sex, besides being normal, natural, and healthy is a biological imperative. For all the postulated harm to having sex at, gasp, 17, gasp, I think there is a lot more harm in suppressing and criminalizing normal biological urges. Maybe Spain’s age of consent of 13, British Columbia and Brazil’s 14 are a little too young, but 18 is ridiculous.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:37 pmGuy says:
Kazinski,
You make a compelling argument for why we shouldn’t criminalize sex between minors, which is why I agree. But I’m not about to shed a tear for a, say, 35-year-old predator who swings by school when it lets out to pick up 15-year-olds to have sex with, such a relationship would almost certainly be asymmetrical and abusive. And I’m certainly not about to shed a tear for a teacher who abuses her position of power and authority to have sex with one of her students.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:43 pmASlyJD says:
Well Laura, we each have our biases. I took the comment to refer to a situation where said girl was protesting that she was too innocent to know what she was consenting too, this being the purpose of statutory rape laws.
I know absolutely nothing about her or the case, but I will say, based on my experience teaching in an inner city high school and having been a teenager in the last decade, it is not unreasonable that she knew exactly what consenting entailed. This knowledge is highly suggested by her previous sexual history. Of course, that knowledge of what consenting entails does not answer the real question in a rape, i.e. whether she did consent or not. Identifying someone as a non-virgin doesn’t mean they are immune from being raped; however, a promiscuous and precocious seventeen year old should need to prove something more than birth dates to put her partner in jail.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:45 pmLN says:
You guys are ridiculous. So 15-year-old boys are willing to have sex with ANY woman or girl? No boy would ever turn down sex? Every sexual experience for a 15-year-old boy is an unquestionable status-boost and gift from God that is cause for great celebration? Give me a break.
Yeah sure, teenage boys fantasize about sex all the time. So? Even if we take this fantasy realm seriously — a ridiculous basis for discussion — Fantasy World doesn’t generally contain sexual encounters with ugly women, or fat women, or loser girls, or whatever. Meanwhile in the real world, there area plenty of girls who have unrequited crushes, who get rejected, etc.
Grow up.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:49 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
ASlyJD, we’ll have to disagree here.
I think it’s not too much to ask that adults who want to have sex outside of marriage, be aware of statutory rape laws, and confine their activity within legal parameters. Even if a 17-yr-old girl is a “slut” as Joe says, that doesn’t compel a grown man to have sex with her.
Kazinski, you are happy with having your tax dollars go to support the offspring of children who can’t support them? I’m not thrilled with that, myself.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:52 pmvic says:
perhaps the law needs to get away from abstract lawyer Bs and start thinking in terms of biology as it looks to answers. biology and evolutionary biology( is there any difference?) makes us what we are, it is the substrate on which we are based.
so here are some points to ponder:
1. the AVerage human female makes around 400 ova( eggs) during her life time, the male makes billions of spermatozoa. The evolutionary behavioral consequence of this is that males across species are more conditionally polygamous than are females. In cruder terms from an evolutionary psyvhology perspective males are much more likely to F*** opportunistically and relatively indiscrimately than are females. they have a lot more sperms to waste than do the females.
think this may have a bearing on eugene’s question ??
2. Till the early 20th century, the avg life expectancy at birth was around 30 years for most of human history. if people delayed child bearing till after they got their Phd’s, homo sapiens would have gone the way of the dodo’s and the neanderthals.
when people talk about a higher rate of adverse pregnacy outcomes in teenage pregnancies, they forget that this is not because biology selects against teen preg, but in modern western societies the fact that a young lady gets herself pregnat at say 15 is a epidemiologic marker for an array of social and psychological maladies ( poverty, illicit drugs etc) that contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Biologically the late teen is a lot more fertile, than a 30 year old post doc — who is trying desperately to concive using the plethora of fertility treatments modern medicine has to offer.
With all due apologies to those who belive that gender differences are a just a social construct– they most definitely are not.
on the other hand i do sincerely feel that typing skills and spelling are truly a social construct!
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:54 pmJoe says:
Even if a 17-yr-old girl is a “slut” as Joe says, that doesn’t compel a grown man to have sex with her.
Again, why the insistence that she is the victim–that he is the one doing the compelling? Why avoid the obvious; that an awful lot of 17-year-old girls are extremely sexually aggressive. The fact is, an attractive 17-year-old girl can quite easily get a 35-year-old man into bed. (The opposite is not true; few 17-year-old boys can get an older woman, even an 18-year-old, into bed.) And most 17-year-old girls have reached enough physical maturity that most men of any age can’t tell how young they are.
Like it or not, in our society, when it comes to consensual sex, women are in control. (I’d argue that in any society where sex was consensual, women are in control and usually they have been 16, sometimes younger.)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:05 pmGuy says:
ASlyJD,
I think you and I have different conceptions of the modern rationale for statutory rape. Obviously just about anyone over the age of 13 knows what sex is, but that doesn’t mean they are mature enough to have a sexual relationship with an adult. If an adult has sex with a minor, that’s not a crime because they “tricked” the child into having sex with them, it’s a crime because they took advantage of their poor judgment and relatively undeveloped ego, because a teenager isn’t likely to be as able to stand up to an adult as another adult would be, and also because adults shouldn’t be sleeping with children anyway. If an adult knowingly has sex with a minor, that’s a crime. is it the same as an “actual” rape? No, not in the case a relatively mature teenager. But it’s still an adult taking advantage of a minor, and that doesn’t change based on the minors sexual experience. I do agree that the age component shouldn’t be strict liability (even though it is), but I don’t think the idea is that we assume the minor didn’t consent based solely on age, it’s that the consent doesn’t make everything ok, because they’re not mature enough to make an intelligent judgment.
vic,
Wouldn’t that argument cut the other way too? “Well yeah, he had sex with an underage girl, but he couldn’t help it! he’s a man! But this woman, why she doesn’t even have the same drives, and she still chose to sleep with this boy!”
Just because one gender might have a biological tendency to be one way doesn’t mean we should build our laws around that. People are people.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:05 pmA. says:
No more than, biologically, sex is for pleasure. Or are women just life-support systems for uteri?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:09 pmvic says:
“No more than, biologically, sex is for pleasure. Or are women just life-support systems for uteri?”
sexual reproduction evolved among multicellular organisms most likely as a machamism to provide infinite variation in the constant and unremmitting battle against parasites and pathogens.
i dont know about women but We are most likely just vessels or containers to allow for the perpetuation of our dna
sex is for having babies — the pleasure just makes it more likely that we will indulge and have the aforementioned babies
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:31 pmLN says:
sex is for having babies — the pleasure just makes it more likely that we will indulge and have the aforementioned babies
And what’s the point of these words you’re writing? Are you trying to “explain the truth” or something?
Commenting on the Volokh Conspiracy is for having babies too.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:35 pmDave N says:
I would agree with you with respect to gay youths. However, if sexuality is a spectrum, then someone who otherwise considers him or herself heterosexual might engage in homosexual sexual experimentation, enjoy it at the time, and then have trouble dealing with it psychologically.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:39 pmLN says:
However, if sexuality is a spectrum, then someone who otherwise considers him or herself heterosexual might engage in homosexual sexual experimentation, enjoy it at the time, and then have trouble dealing with it psychologically.
Oh please. The little slut was asking for it. Everyone knows that younger people have all the power when it comes to sexual relationships.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:41 pmOff Kilter says:
To put statutory rape laws in some context:
Were an adult male to have consensual sex today with a 13-year-old girl in the modern, democratic, industrialized nations of Japan, South Korea, or Spain, it would be perfectly legal according to those countries’ codes. In more than 30 other countries, including Austria, Italy, and Lichtenstein, the age of consent is 14 (in many cases even younger if both partners are close in age). In France, it is 15. Americans don’t agree on the question. In 27 states, it is legal for an adult of any age to have sex with a 16-year-old, while the rest place the legal age at 17 or 18.
[modified from an article about Roman Polanski written by Prof. Thaddeus Russell for The Daily Beast]
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:24 amRandy says:
“In addition to what Prof. Volokh already has said, women get more precancerous and cancerous disease (mostly cervix) from HPV, which is sexually transmitted. ”
I know a certain librarian at Purdue U. that would be very interested in learning more.
“perhaps the law needs to get away from abstract lawyer Bs and start thinking in terms of biology as it looks to answers.” Sounds good, Vic, but we can’t do that. Didn’t you know that we are Christian country, and all our laws are based on Biblical values? Science need not apply.
Dave N. “However, if sexuality is a spectrum, then someone who otherwise considers him or herself heterosexual might engage in homosexual sexual experimentation, enjoy it at the time, and then have trouble dealing with it psychologically.”
These people grow up and go by the name Ted Haggard, or Larry Craig. They deal with their problems by voting against any gay rights.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:35 amRicardo says:
The idea is that a minor cannot meaningfully consent to sex — full stop. Logically, it does not matter in terms of consent whether the other person is also a minor or not.
But in terms of punishment, it’s reasonable to say that punishment should be in line with the harm done by the act. That’s not the only consideration of course, but it ought to be a major one. If a boy or girl has a history of promiscuity, it seems fair to say that the additional harm caused by having sex with an adult is probably minimal, provided it was not forced or coerced or due to abuse of authority.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:38 amOrder of the Coif says:
No. There is no possibility of harm to a seventeen year old boy. Not unless the basic model for boys has been completely redesigned since the 1960’s.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:57 amvic says:
No. There is no possibility of harm to a seventeen year old boy. Not unless the basic model for boys has been completely redesigned since the 1960’s.
right on
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:12 amRandom Commenter says:
“A 17 year old male who winds up in bed with an older woman isn’t a victim — he’s lucky. Someone claims he has emotional damage, they haven’t been male and 17. Or 16 or 15. Or 14.”
How true. I’d have given a lot to feel really used and degraded when I was 14. Was not to be, alas.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:13 amGuy says:
Biologically, sex isn’t for anything. Stop anthropomorphizing statistical laws. Evolution happens, and although it contributes to the long term stability of a biological system (Through the virtual tautology that a “stable” system is one that tends to survive), it doesn’t have a purpose.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:15 amGuy says:
What about a 12-year-old boy? I seem to recall being pretty horny all the time when I was 12, does that mean if a 25-year-old had had sex with me they shouldn’t have faced prosecution?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:17 amMalvolio says:
I’m here to tell you it hasn’t.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say absolutely no possibility of harm, but I feel very secure saying it is worth the risk.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:31 amtheobromophile says:
Biological disparity in harms aside (as that’s already been discussed), there are also socialisation differences as well. While girls may be more mature at a given age, they are also more likely to go along with things, be peace-makers, and want to do things to please other people. Even strong girls take a while to learn to really assert themselves. Some girls are inherently good at wrapping men around their fingers; some are incredibly naive. Chances are that grown men would be pursuing the latter group.
Furthermore, grown men who would want to have sex with a girl in high school are probably not in love (as they would do the decent thing and wait for her to grow up); they are probably targeting what they perceive to be easy prey.
The end result is that a relationship between a 16-year-old girl and a grown man is more likely to be initiated because he wants to prey on her and consummated because she doesn’t want to rock the boat or upset him; yet, unless she said no, it would be considered consensual sex absent a statutory rape law.
The imperfect law may be designed to do what laws do — apply to the bulk of situations to prevent a great injustice (e.g. preying on underage women) and hope that the negative side is a small injustice (e.g. preventing truly consensual sex between the May-December lovers).
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:43 amObserver says:
Straight guys don’t get it. I wish there were more women or even gay men commenting. There are two elements here: the age difference and the male/female difference. Immature people — 15 or 50 depending on the individual — aren’t ready for sex and can be easily manipulated by sexually aggressive people, and the law draws the line at 15–18 (depending on where you live). But men have an advantage over women. Not all, but many women have some emotional expectations with sex. Even if they don’t, sex is a bit riskier for them. Regardless of how sexually aggressive a woman is, the guy is in control during the actual sex act. He controls to a large extent the speed, duration, and intensity. Men have greater physical strength. In a heterosexual context, he cannot be physically raped to the extent that a woman can be. And psychologically getting ****ed is not equivalent to “scoring”. Penetrating/being penetrated have very different emotional consequences, that’s part of why a woman is more likely to feel used or degraded if the guy doesn’t call back. Being on the receiving end of male sexuality (which forms a continuum with male sexual aggression) is not like being the object of female desire. Even for a woman who just wants to “score” (like the middle aged female sex tourists in Mediterranean countries) there is always the risk of physical pain or losing some consent (not to speak of the added risk of infections that has already been mentioned). For gay men it is similar in many ways. Guys can be very insistent and very good at talking you into things and if they are hot it can be very hard to resist especially if you are young and naive and wine is involved.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:48 amLN says:
Yeah, but Observer, guys spend a lot of their teen years masturbating while fantasizing about scoring with super-hot chicks, so it’s really 16-year-old sexpots who have all the power. Teenage boys are just helpless pawns who desperately long to have sex with any girl (the definition of “any girl” of course excludes ugly girls or fat chicks, whose very existence is an evolutionary puzzle).
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:11 amOrder of the Coif says:
Minnesota has a relative age scheme that starts at 14.
It follows biology, sociology, and reason (ASTONISHING).
Mostly, it follows nature. And women legislators out it in place.
The only problem is that ex ante no one can figure it out
in the back seat of a car. The state needs to distribute cards
with the grid on it and a reminder to get photo ID before f***ing.
High Schoolers are basically all in the safe zone for sex with each other.
Collegians are also basically in the safe zone for sex with each other.
There is, additionally, a tough “position of authority” prohibition in the Crim Sex law.
My University, moreover, has capitol punishment for faculty
re students of any age. And they DO exercise the power.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:13 amOrder of the Coif says:
QUOTE: Ideally, people would wait until they are adults to have sex.
My mother told me that. She lied about other things too.
I’ve got 4 or 5 years I’ll never get back. Oh yes, avoid
same sex schools like a plague factory. Are there any left?
;-)
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:26 amKazinski says:
Observer,
I get it, women (and gay men) are just natural victims and can’t take of themselves thus should be perpetual sexual wards of the state.
On the other hand I find that women are a lot harder to seduce than I would like them to be, and the vast majority seem to be able to figure out when they want sex or not. But maybe that is because I treat them as adults, maybe if I treated them like children I’d have better luck.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:38 amAndrew_Ess says:
Are you ready for sex !, Caeser has spoken and written into statutary law an age of emancipation. It is not up for debate ! Nor to mitigate the circumstances. Legal consent can only be given only if you are emancipated otherwise you are practicing and condoning exploitation, worse corruption of minors. While I do understand the need to get everyone into mainstream consumerism as efficiently and quickly as possible for a better return on investment. This lax legal latitute on what mitigates the act is rather sad and an argument for moral midgets.
I have thoughts of Guy’s hypothetical 12 year old male whose horny thoughts of m&milfing. With which I assume personal relief was obtained and remained within the scope of bashing and honing his little bishop for future activities. Just as a teen female in Spain I believe was caught on national TV some years ago. Whom it would appear creatively found an ingenious use for Jelly and a dog. All the same stuff, just simply the inquisitive sexual nature of the developing and adaptive young human mind. Keeping the two aforementioned not untypical examples apart and to never meet is problematic until the age of consent. One of the better controls for population growth in terms of the quality of it’s citizenary was formerly the institution of marriage. Perhaps now a lost but well tried and tested art of providing the future workforce adaptable or even personally stable enough to cater for needs of yesteryear thinking and no longer a need in our now accelerated industrialization.
Previously the elevation of any competent person of either gender to become matched parent material, through both community and cultural approval was both an honored and protected position. After all carnal 12 year thinking was not the intent of providing that specialized institution nor are we to assume that the sexual machinations or future mentality of a male 12 year old are any less than that of a 12 year old female when exposed to sexual exploitation or rape by an adult of either gender. What is obviously missed is that the innocence of childhood or that of the legally required not to have sex adolescent class of individuals is the one that apparently loses a prima facia piece of prized possession, yup the old cherry. Yet the males by a majority gave that up by genital mutilation in honor of king david, and their no longer prized frenula is accepted as given away to the Christus corpus or whatever anti cheese or fungus crowd of cleanliness nazi’s. If the cultural and legal perspective is to retain us in these medieaval traditions. Then females shall forever legally be patronized and continue to be imbeciles or chattel despite their popular feminist position. The legal systems promotion of sexism guarantees it.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 3:04 amyankee says:
I think you may be confusing reality with your wet dreams.
Speak for yourself, Joe.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 3:17 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I’d like it better if, in our society, men were assumed to have control of their own bodies and to be able to take responsibility for what they do.
Sure, evolution happens. Sex evolved because it turned out to have the best option, among whatever options evolved along with it, for passing genetic material forward into the next generation. As noted, it feels good and we are driven to it so that we will engage in it and continue to have babies.
In addition to that, there are other considerations, of course. The race won’t continue if most people have babies they can’t care for, which is why the pressure used to be on to wait for marriage before sex (before Daddy Government said we didn’t have to, he’d provide anyway). Children need to be raised by mature people who can direct their development, not children who are still growing up, themselves. Another consideration is that we aren’t the only organisms being pushed by evolution; it’s not ideal to turn oneself into a petri dish for every microorganism that can use sex as a vector. And then there are all the psychological components that we humans insist on overwriting everything we do with — bonding and so forth. All good reasons to wait for maturity and a committed relationship.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:13 amPorkchop says:
LN wrote:
Not to pile on here, but, yes, 15-year-old boys are pretty much willing to have sex with ANY woman or girl. An informal poll of former 15-year-old boys here on the Volokh Conspiracy supports that. Not ridiculous, realistic.
Separate the fact of having sex from the status boost issue.
Boys may not be willing to acknowledge publicly that they have had sex with some women or girls after the fact, but that usually is not an impediment to the act itself. Most 15-year-old boys, given the chance to have sex, do not say to themselves, “But what would the other guys say if they found out that I had sex with this undesirable girl?” They are more likely to say, “Well, I just won’t say anything about it.”
Degrading to the girl? Sure, but that’s not what we are discussing here.
Sex with the hot teacher? Form a line on the left. (Er, since it is the Volokh Conspiracy, maybe the line should be on the right.) There may be reasons to criminalize that act, but protecting 15-year-old boys is not one of them.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:18 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Porkchop, to say that (some) 15-year-old boys think they want to have sex with any willing female is not the same as saying they shouldn’t be protected from sexual predators. Immature people want to do all kinds of things they shouldn’t. Even mature people do, but we are assumed to know better.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:54 amegd says:
I don’t really have much to comment on this issue, except to ask how different punishments based on the gender of the sexual predator would survive under equal protection. At first guess, I would say that they do not.
Are there any other criminal codes out there that distinguish based on the gender of the offender? Have they survived Constitutional challenge?
FYI, women don’t release eggs during intercourse. Eggs are released 1 (or 2, or even up to 3) at a time on a regular cycle. Therefore, the amount of sex a woman is likely to have isn’t linked to her supply of eggs.
Most other mammalian species follow an estrous cycle, rather than a menstrual cycle, and some of these (particularly cats and rabbits) require copulation to induce ovulation. Males of these species, despite producing sperm much like humans, do not tend to be sexually aggressive (in terms of copulation, although sex-based aggression is more common). However, females, when in heat, have much higher sex drives, because of their limited ability to conceive.
Long story short, in purely biological situations, females are more sexually aggressive due to limited reproductive capabilities. Perhaps this explains cougars as well.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:47 amYankev says:
If that happens, we look for a trusted adult who encouraged the under-age boy, and appoint him as the president’s safe schools czar.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:50 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Well, look here:
According to the CDC, STDs are increasing among teenagers, and this is b/c we don’t talk about sex. Presumably in the past, when STDs were not as prevalent, sex was talked about more???
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:56 amDaily Pundit » What World Do They Live In? says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is Sex More Likely To Be Emotionally Traumatizing for 17-Ye... In response to my earlier remark that “I suspect that sex between an adult woman and a 17-year-old boy is much less likely to be emotionally or physically damaging than sex between an adult man and a 17-year-old girl,” some commenters asked why I thought this. [...]
JMA says:
Yeah, I’m going with the idea that the differences between individual members of the two groups in question are apt to be more significant than the difference between the averages of the two groups–which strikes me as odd, because I’m normally not in favor of some kind of near-religious notion of gender equality (I’m a bad person).
Also, I question physical power as a basis for comparison because we’re talking about statutory rape here or, more to the point, what seems to the 17-year-old in question to be consensual sex, at least at first (leaving aside the question of whether or not a person of 17 can tell the difference); I think it’s safe to say that direct physical coercion is not a factor in most of the cases being discussed here.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 10:52 amToysoldier says:
There is plenty of research demonstrating that your intuition is incorrect, ranging from various studies to explanations from those who deal with female perpetrators or male victims to accounts from male victims themselves. The notion that female rape is rare and harmless is a purely cultural phenomena and it is largely based on the false assertions that all males, regardless of their age, want sex at anytime and that females are inherently incapable or less capable of committing harm.
In regards to the second question, no it is not morally proper to take sex differences into account at sentencing as doing so implies that it is less criminal to rape and abuse one group of people than it is another. However, doing so is permissible under the law because in many instances the sentences are at judges’ discretion and whatever biases or opinions they hold will effect their sentencing choices.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 11:43 amNRWO says:
Strange discussion: I’m a father of a son and daughter, both under 10 years. If, when my daughter was a teenager (13–17), I learned that a male teacher (18+) and my daughter had consensual sex, my inclination would be to punch the teacher in the face – regardless of context. Sure, my inclination would be irrational and, sure, mitigating events might reduce the punch in the face to a punch in the gut, but so be it.
On the other hand, if, when my son was a teenager, I learned that a female teacher and my son had sex, my inclination would be to … do nothing at first, but investigate the context. I might ask if my son could be moved to a different classroom, or to a different school, but I wouldn’t be inclined – as an initial reaction – to want the teacher to face 14+ years of jailtime. Conversely, the man who had sex with my daughter can go to jail – and then to hell – no matter what the circumstances.
I’d bet that most fathers – certainly most in my orbit – would have the same initial reaction after hearing about their daughters having sex, yet have a much more context-dependent response after hearing about their sons have sex.
I guess I’m living in an alternative universe, filled with dads with weird views about the way things are. I’d probably justify my views by stating that sons can’t get pregnant but daughters can, and noting that the consequences of the latter are more severe than the former. But the justification would be a post-hoc rationalization, having no bearing on my reaction to the events.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:02 pmyankee says:
Speak for yourself. I didn’t fit this description and I knew lots of other boys who didn’t either—because they believed in traditional morality, because they wanted sex to be part of some kind of meaningful relationship, or just because they had standards.
The fact that male VC commenters were so desperate that they’d have slept with anything that moves says more about their lack of social skills than it does about 15 year-old boys in general.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:04 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Even if the teacher accused your son of rape in order to save her sorry hide?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:16 pmmischief says:
That’s exactly why it should be illegal to have sex with them. Obvious lack of judgment.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:26 pmmischief says:
That’s true only because the judiciary feels itself above reason, sense, and the Constitution. If any of these things prevailed, there would be no affirmative action.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:27 pmyankee says:
Indeed. This “all teenage boys are eager and willing to have sex with any female” stuff is way overblown but I agree that teenage boys are lacking in judgment.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:33 pmNRWO says:
Laura: No; I’d vote for jailtime in such an instance. But, as my post makes clear, I wasn’t talking about a false rape charge; I was talking about a female teacher and my underage son having consensual sex. In addition, I made clear that I would want to investigate the circumstances of the tryst before deciding how to proceed.
My primary (rational) arguement is, to repeat, that sons can’t get pregnant and daughters can, and that the consequences of the latter event are more severe than the former. Such differences would be predicted to engender different reactions, although I argued from a father’s perspective. Mothers may have a different view (and I’d be interested to see if my wife’s perspective is different from my own).
As noted in my post, I’d bet that most fathers would be inclined to respond differently to hearing about their sons and daughthers having sex. But that is an empirical question that cannot be adequately addressed by referencing my small circle of friends and acquaintences.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:36 pmDavid Chesler says:
1. egd — the female puts a lot more time and energy into a pregnancy. If I’m male (which I am) and someone says “May I reproduce copies of half your genes at no cost to you?” my genes are very happy to comply. If I’m female, I’m giving up a lot of opportunity and expending that energy — I want something in return, like genes that will give my genes better chances of making into the future generations, or an indication that I’ll get help in bringing the combined genes to maturity.
2. Love hurts. But it’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. As a former 15-year-old boy I think I’d trade the shame and degradation of being used for the sex. (There are those disease issues, many of which can be cured; there’s also the paternity support issue.)
3. Still on the books in Massachusetts is an old statutory rape law referring to girls up to 18 of “chaste character”.
4. Joe, I’ve wondered the same thing. If rape can exist within a marriage, why can’t statutory rape? (The answer is no doubt within a marriage, the groundwork decisions have already been considered, and the exploitation issues are somewhat covered. But the issue is more complex than some of the slogans.)
5. Theobromophile, agreed the chance of harmful exploitation is greater with an older man. The law sometimes recognizes these differences and other times insists we act as though they don’t exist. But the harm of being labeled a child-raping sex offender is far from slight.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:47 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
There is the paternity support issue, you’re right. NRWO, if your son fathers a child, he’s on the hook for child support for eighteen years at least. Yes, even if your son is a minor and the child’s mother is not. This will affect his finances during the time when he should be focusing on establishing his own household. Also, there would be a grandchild who would carry your genes and who possibly would resemble you, your wife, mother, other family members, and to whom you would have only the most tenuous relationship. Would this not concern you?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:56 pmA.C. says:
I’m with the folks who think the big difference isn’t the sex of the teenager, but what the sex act is. Being on the receiving end of an act involving penetration is both physically and psychologically risky. That would tend to suggest that girls in the heterosexual scenario and boys who are on the bottom in the homosexual scenario are in the most risky position. These positions would be made riskier by a big difference in age, power, or physical strength. In either case, the person doing the penetrating is male, assuming only biological equipment is used. A female imposing sex most likely wouldn’t be doing any serious penetrating, whether she was imposing herself on a boy or a girl.
Unless props are involved. Once objects are in the picture, women have the potential to do just as much damage as men. And many adult women are physically stronger than smallish teenage boys. So it’s quite possible to imagine a female-on-male situation that’s just as exploitative as the worst male-on-female situations. It’s just statistically less likely to come about.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:07 pmmischief says:
Paternity support — Hmm, do laws letting the parental rights of rapists to children thus conceived be terminated on that grounds online apply to statutory rape too? They should. Then the baby can be placed for adoption and the kid be let off the hook.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:09 pmTwirlip says:
The large number of teenage women and girls having sex with older men tends to refute your position.
That would seem to be statistically impossible.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:12 pmTwirlip says:
The concept is flawed. How can a person be said to be unable to give consent to have sex with an “adult”, but still be considered capable of giving consent to having sex with somebody slightly younger, say one year younger? Or perhaps even one week younger?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:22 pmTwirlip says:
Yes, the underlying assumption of all statutory rape laws is that teenage girls (and the laws do exist for the sole purpose of protecting teenage girls) are “chaste” unless manipulated into bed by unsavory older men.
There may have been a time when this was true, but it’s not been true for some decades now. You have a large class of sexually active people of both sexes and all (sexually mature) ages, and these laws which arbitrarily make criminal distinctions between some of them based on age and sex regardless of the wishes of the people involved.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:31 pmPubliusFL says:
How so? Teenagers are capable of engaging in emotionally damaging behavior in large numbers.
Nope. It’s quite possible for transmission to be easier in one direction than in the other.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:31 pmPorkchop says:
Well, the exception tests the rule, as they say. Clearly we didn’t grow up around the same group of boys.
I think it is a mistake to generalize about the “social skills” of 15-year-old (or 50-year-old) males based upon the number and/or qualities of their sex partners, but I think that there is a certain “social skill” involved in persuading a female to have sex with you. We can argue whether and under what circumstances the exercise of that skill is good or bad, but I don’t think that one can incontestibly classify a 15-year-old with multiple sexual experiences as a desperate loser. Certainly most of his peers won’t do that, although there may be some who sniff that they could do that, if they wanted to, but won’t because they have traditional morals and high standards. In my day, most people would have classified such a statement as sour grapes, but to each his own. Granted that there were certain girls, that, well, if you went there, you must have been pretty desperate at the time.
I, for one, cannot recall ever hearing a conversation as a teenager in which one of my peers indicated that he was really, really concerned about having a meaningful relationship and would forgo sex until he found one. Perhaps they saved that discussion (or was it a line?) for their conversations with young women. Such a statement potentially be effective — a sincere-sounding delivery might almost be called a “social skill,” leading to sex(see above). In the ’60’s, though, there was the whole free love, sexual revolution thing going on, too. What young guy was going to argue about that? You didn’t necessarily need to worry about meaningful relationships back then.
One thing I am certain of, though, is that if there had been a hot young female teacher in my high school (there weren’t any), none of my peers would have turned her down, and none would have felt “damaged” by the experience. The town elders might not have approved, but at worst, the offending hottie would have been encouraged to leave town. No one would have stood up and said, “My boy has been irreparably harmed by that insatiable vixen. His life is ruined, and he’ll never be able to have a meaningful relationship. That harlot must be punished.” Well, maybe a couple older ladies at the Lutheran Ladies Aid meeting might have said that, but their husbands wouldn’t be pushing that very hard outside the home. The father’s reaction would have been more along the lines of, “Don’t do that again, and here are some condoms just in case.”
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:38 pmMarcopohlo says:
Well, your model of boys in the 1960’s is incomplete. I seem to have gone through a different sixties than you, at least. Sex in any form was not on my agenda when I was 14. Sex with an older woman in my teens would have traumatized me.
Given that the risks of physical damage and financial damage are lower than the risks of emotional damage, I think this discussion should focus on emotional damage. And I can tell you that in the sixties, not all of us were waiting for a Summer of ’42. (Some of us had _lives_, believe it or no. We weren’t all just sitting around our parents’ basements, reading comic books and waiting to get laid by the twenty-five-year-old in the house next store.)
And having a manipulative older woman use a young boy for these ends is a betrayal of trust by a person who is in all likelihood and authority figure — let’s remember that women are ministers, doctors, teachers, and coaches — and certainly should know better.
Mandatory jail time. No question.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:44 pmTwirlip says:
Then you assume that young women are incapable of determining their own best interests?
Yes, to themselves and to others. So?
In some sort of abstract theoretical sense, perhaps. In practice STD’s exist because they travel fairly easily from person to person. If men were so unlikely to pick up STD’s from women then women would be unlikely to ever get them from men, because the men would not have them to begin with.
The typical man with gonorrhea got it from a woman, who got it from a man, who got it from a woman, who got it ......
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:44 pmTwirlip says:
I think we can classify such a person as living in a broken down society, probably one of Americas festering inner cities. Is he a “loser”? More then likely, he is. For reasons that go beyond his sex life.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:53 pmFat Man says:
“Speak for yourself. I didn’t fit this description and I knew lots of other boys who didn’t either—because they believed in traditional morality, because they wanted sex to be part of some kind of meaningful relationship, or just because they had standards.”
His friends all thought he was a sanctimonious dweeb, and they were right.
I disclaim having any knowledge about women, not my wife of 30 years nor my 2 daughters. They will have to speak for themselves.
But, it is inconceivable to me that a boy of 15, 16, or 17, would not say yes to a older woman, be better off for the experience, and think kind thoughts about her for the rest of his life.
And, no, she should not be punished for doing it.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:07 pmLN says:
And maybe there are certain people who have a large number of partners and are able to infect many people by themselves. Have you ever heard of prostitution?
Differential transmission rates are a fact. Try to let some facts in sometime.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:12 pmRichard of Oregon says:
Has anyone proven that sex between a 17 year old and an older adult is in itself harmful to the youngster? Also, how realistic is it to impose harsh criminal penalities on a practice that has been the norm in most places for thousands of years, going back to our species origins. Teens may well be harmed by these interactions. I don’t know, but does anyone else? Looking back to my own teen years, if I had had sex with an adult, it would have stimulated me vigorously, but I’m not sure of the long term consequences.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:12 pmLetalis Maximus, Esq. says:
I was that barely 18 year old boy back in the summer of 1983. She was 28. It was great for the whole summer. Then she moved away. I wonder where she is now. I have nothing but kind thoughts for her. I hope she is well.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:14 pmSplunge says:
Professor Volt, the essential problem with your question is that you expect the one answer you can get, for the average boy or girl, to be useful. This is nonsense. You might as well point out that most women enjoy sexual intercourse most of the time — so why do we have rape laws? Or that the probability that a young black man commits a crime is higher than average — so what’s wrong with institutionalized racism? Or that the most probable use of a handgun is to commit suicide, not defend against assault — so handguns should be banned.
There are certainly situations in which knowledge of an average is useful. This is not one of them, just as knowing that on average women enjoy sexual intercourse tells you nothing about whether in a particular situation a woman was raped or not. People are unique individuals, life situations are often unique, and you are talking about something (1) of enormous psychological impact, and (2) the exact meaning of which varies tremendously from individual to individual. It doesn’t matter what the average answer to your question is. It might be an amusing topic for debate, like whether there is truth in beauty or vice versa, but a man — a father, judge, or lawmaker — who used the average answer to your question as any serious guide to the answer for any individual in any particular circumstances would be a fool.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:14 pmTwirlip says:
Arguably, she should not. The question here is, should an older man be punished for having sex with a 15, 16, or 17 year old girl. What say you?
Then you have a very limited imagination. I can think of women I’ve had sex with who I don’t think kindly of, and who who I’m not “better off” for having slept with. In any sense of “better off”. I expect that any VC commenters who actually had sex with more than two women would agree with me.
I guess that excludes you.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:14 pmASlyJD says:
Since we’re hearing mostly the male side of the equation, I’ll put my cards on the table — at 16, I was involved in a sexual experience that the state of Missouri would classify as statutory rape. I was not traumatized by the experience per se, but rather by my parent’s reaction to the relationship. (This reaction was based more on our consanguinity than his age of 20.) The physical aspect of the relationship was instigated by me; as he put it, I was “as subtle as a thrown brick.”
I remember wondering at the time why the state of Missouri trusted my judgment in the front seat of a car but not the back.
Personally, I would be for an age of consent around 15 or 16, but to have a rebuttable presumption of rape whenever a teacher, coach, or other authority figure is in a relationship with a teenager.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:17 pmTwirlip says:
Says the jackass who thinks most men have sex with prostitues.
Differential transmission rates are not a “fact”. And that’s a fact.
The typical woman with gonorrhea got it from a man. A man who DID NOT get it from a prostitute. There’a fact for you, squire.
Why are commenters who sign themselves as “Esq” always such pretentious blowhards?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:20 pmLN says:
So no teenage girl has ever been sexually rejected. Good to know.
I was once a 15-year-old boy as well. I find it remarkable how many people find it so inconceivable that a 15-year-old boy could regret a sexual encounter with an older woman — and are basing this absolute certainty on fond memories of looking at porn. And not, you know, any actual experiences with older women at that age.
And teenage boys have no emotional concerns about intimacy. Oh no sir, that’s just girlie stuff. Teenage boys have no emotions at all, just pure unadulterated unfulfilled lust! They are never moody or angry or feel disrespected or lonely or sad. Nope, they just pine for the hot girl next door and wait patiently for other people to find them attractive enough to sleep with. And that’s a purely physical process, not an emotional one at all.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:21 pmRandy says:
Yankev: “If that happens, we look for a trusted adult who encouraged the under-age boy, and appoint him as the president’s safe schools czar.”
Really? The facts are the president’s safe schools czar counseled a 16 year old boy, and Fox News even issued this retraction on the accusation. When you don’t even have them for support, it’s time to hang it up.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:29 pmGabriel Hanna says:
As recently as my grandfather’s generation a teenager was an adult, and was expected to work and marry, even though they didn’t get the right to vote until twenty-one or hold Federal office until twenty-five. I think this modern notion that children are helpless infants until the age of 18, at which they magically become adults, is nonsense.
Ever read the Constitution? Note the age qualifications; twenty-five for Congressmen, thirty-five for the Presidency, etc. There’s no notion of some magical age at which all of sudden you have all the rights and duties of a citizen, and before which you are but an infant unable to give meaningful consent to anything.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:30 pmLN says:
You have serious reading comprehension problems, so I don’t know if it’s worth replying. Please point out where I said that most men have sex with prostitutes. After you do that, please point out where I signed myself as “Esq.” K thx.
There are studies indicating differential rates of transmission. But let’s put that aside. Let’s say that there’s a disease that jumps male to female with prob 20% but female to male with prob 10%. Are you saying that this is logically impossible? Please explain your proof. Will this disease not get passed around from man to woman to man to woman? Is it doomed to die out?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:31 pmJaytee says:
Come on. A teen boy can’t be raped-raped by a woman. Erection anyone? That said, when I was 16 I was somewhat selective. True, I would have leapt at my sultry foreign language teacher, but not just any girl would do. I think we underestimate teen boys. Don’t confuse fantasy life with reality. How many teen boys want to do it with any 30-year-old, 200 lb woman with a mustache? Perverts do, but not the majority.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:33 pmRandy says:
I’ve never met a man, gay or straight, who said that they wish they had waited longer before they first had sex.
I’ve never met any man who said that they had too much or even enough sex when they were young and hot and opportunities abounded everywhere.
That isn’t to say that sex at an early age is appropriate for every man, or that there isn’t such a thing as too much sex. Each person must judge for themselves when they are ready for sex, and for some it’s it the teen years, and for some it’s later.
I have no idea what sex is like for women, but I’m sure they would have a different view.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:35 pmPorkchop says:
There, fixed it for you.
I grew up in a very small, rural town surrounded by ranches, not a “festering inner city” but still surrounded by horndog peers. I’ve raised my children in a suburb of a large city, though.
Teenage boys are pretty much the same at the end of the day, regardless of where they are raised. Suburban boys are horndogs; small-town boys are horndogs; inner-city boys are horndogs. The one difference is that there is more and better birth control in the suburbs. In the inner cities, too many people don’t care, and, in small towns, too many people are in denial about teen sexuality.
And, FYI, all my kids are girls, so I make it my business to know what boys are like in the ‘burbs.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:40 pmjay-w says:
I think the whole concept of “statutory rape” is absurd if the younger partner is over the age of 14 — regardless of the gender permutations and regardless of the other person’s age.
Biologically speaking, human children turn into adults somewhere around age 13, give or take a year. As recently as 50 or 60 years ago, age 13 was legal age for women to marry in many parts of the USA, and if I’m not mistaken it still is legal age in many parts of Latin America.
The idea that 14 year olds (and up) are still “children” is patently ridiculous and a self-fulfilling prophecy: They (sometimes) act like children because Society insists on treating them like children.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:53 pmnrwo says:
Laura: I think you and I are going to have to disagree here.
I would not welcome any of the hypotheticals that you advance with respect to my son and a teacher having sex. But that’s not the issue: The issue is whether the consequences of teens having consensual sex with teachers are equal for sons and daughters.
You seem to be starting with the premise that “The consequences are equal for underage sons or daughters who have sex with a teacher, and so the law should treat them equally”. I would begin with the premise that “The consequences are not equal for underage sons or daughters who have sex with a teacher (they’re worse for daughters).”
In order to convince me that your position is correct, you’re going to need to provide me with evidence that consequences are equal for males and females. And, I suspect, you’re going to demand evidence from me before you consider my position correct. We’re at a stalemate.
I still think your position is incorrect on logistical grounds for most unintended pregnancies in statutory rape: My sense is that underage daughters who get pregnant likely impose higher demands on parents compared to similarly situated sons. In the aggregate, parents with daughters who get pregnant are more likely to absorb the costs of pregnancies at home (and later rearing at home) and, in addition, absorb other costs (e.g., dealing with legal and psychological issues). Parents with sons who get teachers pregnant are less likely to have to deal with pregnancies at home or raising the newborn.
My sense, too, is that the psychological costs of unintended pregnancies are greater for girls than boys. Differential rates of birth control usage for girls and boys would be consistent with my position, no?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:56 pmsubmandave says:
Re the apocryphal 15 y-o male: yes, they (frequently) fantisize about about having sex with nearly anything remotely female, but, then again, they may also fantisize about driving 150+ mph, cutting bad guys in half with their broadswords, gunning down mobsters (or cops, as the local mores dictate)... In short, I find it less then illustrative to conjecture as to the efficacy of actual practice based upon one’s fantasies.
Re the “slut defense”: I recall a case that happened long ago when I lived in Orlando, in which a judge dismissed a charge of statutory rape brought by the parents of a 15 y-o girl. This was based upon her testimony that the sex was consentual and the proof that she was in no danger of being “ruined” since her parents had already had two other men convicted of the same charge on previous occasions. Discuss among yourselves if justice was done.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 3:10 pmptt says:
One might assume that you counsel your children to stick to homosexual relationships to avoid pregnancy, child support, etc.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 3:12 pmDON says:
As a 16 year old newspaper boy back in the very early 70’s I had a crush on two wives (both in their 30’s) on my newspaper route. Lucky me, one of them wanted me too. 90% of the 16 year old friends I had would have had sex with almost any female who let them and loved every minute of it. Just my 2 cents.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 3:16 pmPaul says:
A young person, male or female, is far more likely to fall in love (or at least think so) than an older person due to not being mature. And when they find out the other is not in love with them the emotional damage can be huge. Some even commit suicide over such damage. They simply do not have the emotional maturity to handle the hurt as well as an older person.
As to which, male or female is harmed more, I think that depends more on the person than the gender, and more how society views this since societies values are reflected in the individual.
Physical harm? In general, females have more chance of being harmed, no doubt about that.
But none of that means the protection for young male and females should be different. Harm is harm and even if one is harmed more, they both are still harmed.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 3:38 pmShelbyC says:
And those of us that were 15 yo boys know exactly how to translate this. :-)
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:12 pmTwirlip says:
I don’t think you can state that. For some girls the psychological costs are greater than for some boys. But plenty of boys saddled with child suport for the next twenty years will pay a big psychological cost. And plenty of women take a rather lackadaisical view to getting pregnant.
I think you’re imagining a certain idealized teenage pregnant daughter. If you switch her out for one of those teenage daughters who’s gotten pregnant repeatedly, does the picture change?
In any case your argument completely misses the topic — statutory rape laws. Plenty of teenage girls have sex with older men without getting pregnant. Plenty of teenage girls do get pregnant, but with boys their own age. The logic of your position is that no male should be allowed to have sex with a teenage girl, ever.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:19 pmTwirlip says:
Why do I get the impression that the typical male commenter to this site spends way too much time watching reruns of American Pie?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:21 pmTwirlip says:
What makes you think so, Porkchop?
Typical teenage male desires run to violence as well as sex. Were the Columbine shooters a little more lucky than their peers?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:25 pmnrwo says:
I’m not sure what to make of this: If it could be shown that, in the aggregate, statutory rape involving underage females had more pernicious consequences than statutory rape involving underage males, you would not want to consider laws that provided harsher penalties for the former? Why not?
Law is often used to deter undesirable consequences: If certain classes of people (e.g., children / underage females) are more vulnerable than other classes of people (e.g., adults / underage males), why not consider laws providing greater penalties for vulnerable people, so long as the costs of doing so don’t exceed the expected benefits?
Your “Harm is harm…” statement is framed at such a high level of abstraction that it is rendered meaningless.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:27 pmSuzy says:
The concept of statutory rape seems to be confused in much of the discussion above. Having sex against your will is a serious harm in and of itself, regardless of whether you are male or female, experienced or inexperienced, or more or less capable of becoming pregnant or contracting an STD. Even if we disagree about the precise age at which a line should be drawn, I hope we all agree that there is some age at which you are too young to have developed anything like a “will” to have or not have sex that could be violated. So, we assume for legal purposes that any time you have sex, it is against your will. This is precisely why we don’t punish two twelve year olds who have sex as mutual rapists; we merely lament that they are senselessly engaging something that could harm them, and that we think normally should follow a conscious, free choice. Children cannot choose to have or not have sex for the same reason that Aristotle says they cannot be fully virtuous: they do not yet have the capacity for judgment that is required for free action.
At some point, they grow older and gain this capacity. Some gain it at 15, others at 18, others at 28 or maybe never. The ability to judge whether to have sex is not directly connected to biological capacities. I can’t even believe I have to say that, in response to a post above. The person who compared the choice to driving a car was closer to the target, though the situations differ insofar as the danger of other people coercing you to drive when you don’t want to is lower. Nevertheless, I accept this as a rough guideline myself: being old enough to take life-and-death responsibilities of driving a car into your hands is probably roughly when you should be old enough to give free, informed consent to having sex. Another way of thinking about it is like a medical procedure: when you are mature enough to make your own judgments about how your body is treated medically, rather than relying on the judgment of parents or guardians, then you should be mature enough to consent to sex.
The issue in statutory rape is merely whether the parties are capable of consent, legally speaking. It should not have anything to do with divining the individual’s desires, knowledge, or capacities, which will differ widely in maturing teenagers. Because it unreasonable to expect the law or even judges to decide each case as a unique set of such circumstances, some general line must be drawn that best reflects a consensus about when people attain the relevant capacities. That age might be different in 2009 than it was in 1009, and whether that is fortunate or unfortunate is not to the point.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:29 pmTim McD says:
It’s a damn good thing you are not president of Harvard or you would be resigning by the end of next week!
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:34 pmNickM says:
I had a minor level of professional involvement with a matter several years ago where an adult female (40ish, married with kids) was criminally prosecuted for sexual activity with 2 high-school boys (sex acts took place over a period of time, when the boys were 15 and 16). Neither boy would have been considered a loser to his peers (they were athletes with girlfriends their own ages). The sexual activity came to light as a result of the boys telling friends, one of whose parents found out and contacted the police.
The woman did not have a position of authority with regard to either boy, but would have been more like a family friend to both (and engaged in an activity that put her in frequent contact with both).
One boy suffered no known psychological distress. The other suffered some psychological distress due to the relationship ending — he persisted in calling the woman, even when she was on trial and subject to a no-contact restraining order.
The woman is question was not ugly, but would be considered overweight by most people.
FWIW, for the people who suggest teenage boys are picky about looks in terms of sexual attractiveness, the woman was charged with, among other counts, oral copulation with minors. Does that affect your opinion?
Nick
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:35 pmTwirlip says:
Let’s not put that aside. Here is what you said.
You certainly appear to be saying that men who get STD’s get them from prostitutes and not from “normal” women. But ignore that for now. The “fact” is that “certain people who have a large number of partners and are able to infect many people by themselves” have zero bearing on differential transmission rates. Unless you think that (female) prostitutes don’t count as female.
You opened proceedings in a snotty and arrogant fashion. Don’t complain if you get the same attitude in return.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:40 pmTwirlip says:
I think you’re missing the points being discussed. One is whether, assuming the existence of statutory rape laws, they should be applied differently depending on the sex of the “victim” and the perp.
The other big one is whether such laws should exist.
I think we all agree that pedophila should be outlawed. The question is at what age people cease to be chldren.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:45 pmmischief says:
How do you know that doesn’t mean they just kept their mouths shut? Especially given your — probable reaction.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:49 pmTwirlip says:
I would not, and I’m curious as to why you would. If it could be shown that female victims of, say, burglary, suffered more than male victims of the same crime, would it mean that those who burgled women should be subject to special laws? And it is special laws, not “harsher penalties”.
Because it’s incompatible with the ideals of our society and probably unconstitutional.
Incidentally, chldren are frequently victimized, and by women. Who wins that battle of the victims? There are very good reasons why justice is supposed to be blind. That is, impartial.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:56 pmnrwo says:
See my post above in response to Paul.
Your italicized “some” leads me to the conclusion that you would be leery of a law that protects an entire class of vulnerable people (e.g., children) even though some individuals in the class differ materially from the average person in the class (e.g., children who are more mature than adults).
Your dispute with me may be primarily philosophical rather than substantive, in which case we’re not going to get anywhere. The question I pose above is pertinent here: If it could be shown that, in the aggregate, statutory rape involving underage females had more pernicious consequences than statutory rape involving underage males, you would not want to consider laws that provided harsher penalties for the former?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:56 pmloki13 says:
I think there are a few issues I’ve seen here that have been conflated that I want to tease out:
1. Regarding the appropriate age for statutory rape, it’s an exercise in line-drawing. I agree with other posters (and disagree with some scolds) that 18 is a little too high. I also think there needs to be some limit. Any limit is going to be arbitrary, and will allow some individuals to make poor choices, while restricting others who are mature from making choices they should be allowed to make. I think 16 is reasonable.
2. Regarding the difference between men and women, I can speak as a father of both a son and a daughter that both my wife and I are more worried about our daughter’s possible sexual activities than our sons. Not out of any gender stereotyping, but for two more salient reasons: 1) the physical consequences (mainly pregnancy) and 2) the emotional consequences. The views that the two of them have, and the reactions that the two of them have, over relationships is very different, and my daughter is much more emotionally invested; perhaps it is individual, perhaps not. Then again, I’m a father, and you know how dads are.
3. I think a major issue that has not been addressed enough is that this is a teacher. I think adults in positions of authority with regards to children, teens, and young adults should be held to a higher standard... like not having sex with them. Whether it’s a college professor, or a high school coach, they are put in positions of trust and authority that shouldn’t be abused. I think this is a separate issue from statutory rape.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:58 pmAnatid says:
Differences between boys and girls?
If you look at incidence of trauma among those who have been sexually abused or assaulted, of any age, there is a clear and consistent pattern that penetration seems to cause the worst trauma. Girl raped by a man, boy raped by a man, either of them raped by a woman with a tool. Whether it’s your straight daughter or gay son who feels exploited by their teacher, they’re likely to feel equally exploited.
Biological differences in attachment hormones? Women have sevenfold more oxytocin receptors than men in certain areas, while men have more vasopressin receptors than women in certain areas. Both hormones are released in both genders during orgasm, with women receiving more oxytocin, men more vasopressin. Oxytocin seems to promote love, trust, and pair-bonding in humans. The data are still out on vasopressin in humans, although rodent studies correlate vasopressin receptor expression with pair-bonding in males. I must emphasize strongly that these correlations have huge individual variation, and there are counterstudies for each. Don’t take too much home from them until the data are more conclusive. However, the general patterns are clear. Humans are a species that practices fragile monogamy — mates do occasionally stray, but will return to a mate and are largely faithful. Over 95% of world cultures practice monogamy. It’s advantageous for our vulnerable offspring to be raised by two parents, not one. In order for this process to work, both genders must have the hormonal capacity to pair-bond.
These processes, of course, are ontological. Across all species that practice childrearing, an older mother is more protective of her young than a younger mother. She has less time left to try again if she makes mistakes. You can see this reflected in the fact that many humans as adolescents become sexually active years before they develop the capacity for a long-term, committed relationship. If a 35-year-old is dating a 16-year-old, not only should his own maturity be brought into question, but we should also worry that the two are in completely different stages of life. One is just starting to explore the adult world, the other is likely getting ready to settle down for something serious.
And there’s more. In teenagers, the prefrontal cortex (involved in long-term planning, judgment, decisionmaking, and in downregulating the emotional centers) is still developing, as is the orbitofrontal cortex (involved in social judgment). There’s a ton of new neural connections being formed, none of which have stabilized. Overactivity of the OFC, before the PFC is able to regulate it, is why your 13-year-old daughter is so easily embarrassed by your activities. The capacity for complex reasoning also increases. This process begins around ~12 and starts to taper off around ~17, becoming mostly stable by ~25. If you separate by gender, IIRC, girls start the process about two years before boys do.
From an evolutionary sense, an average couple would have to have six children in order to get two adults in the next generation. With the male lifespan of 45 and the female lifespan of 35, in order for her to raise her children to ~15 before dying, she had to start having children at the age of ~14. The male, on the other hand, had no real reason to start until 20 or 25. All over the world, this has produced social models where girls are married off as soon as they’re fertile, while boys have a period of pseudo-adulthood where they are socially and professionally trained for a few years before marrying.
Important thing to remember about natural selection: it is a force, not an intent. There are functions, not purposes. A molecule, system or organ that evolves for one function may wind up co-opted for others, and eventually lose its original use entirely while the more recent one proliferates in the population. Contrary to popular belief, humans have been continually evolving for the last 10,000 years, mostly immune and behavioral shifts in response to greater population density and shifting demographics.
Like gulls that have learned it is more efficient to drop clams on the road so cars may crush them, rather than dropping them onto the rocks over and over, humans too have adapted to changing conditions. Women no longer die at 35 in this country and we don’t have 2/3 infant and child mortality.
Meaning, the biological imperative to start reproducing young is now outweighed by the social imperative to allow our kids’ brains to mature a bit more before we start asking them to make big decisions.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:01 pmSuzy says:
There are several factual inaccuracies and other confused points above that I would like to address briefly. I’m not sure whether people will receive this with an open mind, but I feel like it’s important to put some of this down “for the record”.
First, absolutely yes, HIV and other STD’s are more easily transmitted from men to women, because of the surface areas of cells involved, the transmission of semen, and the types of cells that are impacted. That’s worth knowing in informed consent to sex, btw!
Second, the way that people feel about the relative impacts of statutory rape on boys and girls’ feelings should be meaningless, legally speaking. It’s a giant ouroboros: fathers with sexist feelings about the relative merits of their sons and daughters having sex, trying to judge how the sons and daughters themselves feel about it, having internalized the sexist ideas about purity from their communities, and so on... All of it is totally irrelevant. The harm is in being assaulted against one’s will, period. Is a rape worse or better, or more or less punishable, when it results in different feelings in respective victims? No; we don’t try to plumb the subtleties of the victim’s personal feeling. Instead, we ask whether a gun or knife was used, or whether lasting physical injury was caused, and so on. We assume it as a given that being violated against your will is harmful, regardless of degree, and that having sex with someone who is too young to consent is legally equivalent to violating that person against their will.
The fact that you were once a boy of fifteen does not, alas, mean that your speculations about what such a boy would and wouldn’t enjoy have anything to do with whether an older person can rape him, even in the absence of violent force and a clear refusal. Both girls and boys can exhibit physical, sexual behavior that in no way indicates “voluntary” choice. Can a 15 year old boy have an erection that he finds involuntary, embarrassing, and certainly not something he wants to act on? I think all of you who were once boys that age must know that this is true.
The person who raised the question about statutory rape and marriage has a good point, but it doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with statutory rape laws. It just means that being able to consent to marriage and sex should go hand in hand, without a disparity in ages. The many comments about other age disparities (such as why one can consent at 18 but not at 17, and so on...) are missing the point. Nothing magical changes at one age any more than something magical makes you incapable of driving at 15 but suddenly responsible and functional at 16. It’s just that we have to pick an age! We aren’t mind readers; we don’t know what each individual is capable of. People don’t usually complain so ferociously about the inconveniences of those loose guidelines, but wow, do you hear about it when it comes to adults being punished for sex with teenagers. What’s the motive for that, one wonders?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:01 pmSteve2 says:
The only way sex can be emotionally traumatizing to anyone, male or female, is if it’s rape — and not the legal fiction “statutory rape of a teenager” kind — “adolescence” is a modern myth. Rape excepted, it’s not having sex that’s emotionally traumatizing. It’s impossible to be happy without sexual promiscuity, and prolonged involuntary abstinence causes major depressive disorder and other psychological damage.
Physically, though, Professor Volokh’s right across the board. Diseases are more transmittable male-to-female, symptoms tend to be worse for females, and then there’s pregnancy.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:03 pmLN says:
Twirlip, you’re misreading me. Differences in transmission rates are based on biology and chemistry, not sexual behavior. The transmission rate is a rate, defined per act of sex. It has nothing to do with the frequency of the act. But you were the person who felt that differences in transmission rates were impossible because STDs go man -> woman -> man -> woman... That doesn’t make any sense.
Go ahead and try to answer my question. What would happen if transmission rates were different — say it was easier for a man to infect a woman than vice versa. In round 1, the disease is evenly spread between the genders. After a round of sex, it is now more common among women. And from there? It just depends on the behavior of people.
Your hostility to the notion that prostitutes couldn’t possibly be relevant to how STDs travel within a population is frankly bizarre. Are you embarrassed about something?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:04 pmPorkchop says:
Non sequitur, but nice try at changing the subject.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:05 pmTwirlip says:
I don’t believe that the law has any damn busness in creating “classes” of people who are subject to different laws. And I’m disgusted that people who presumably are Americans can suggest such things.
What you are suggesting here is far more pernicious than any mere physical crime. That’s the philosophical response.
Practically speaking, you’re talking nonsense. What are these supposed “pernicious consequences” that compel you to abandon hundreds of years of Western legal progress? Some teen girl gets pregnant? But they get pregnant all the time from boys their own age. If their getting pregant requires us to punish men (itslelf logically incoherent) then we need to expand out list of men. And you’re verging on Dworkin territory and “all sex between men and women is assault”.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:06 pmTwirlip says:
It is the subject, but nice try at evading the question. I guess you picked that skill up in between banging those older women.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:09 pmjay-w says:
” .. I think we all agree that pedophila should be outlawed. The question is at what age people cease to be chldren. ...”
Exactly. And in the case of females in particular, Mother Nature has already answered that question for us: It is known as puberty.
Now one could certainly make a good argument that modern diets, etc. have caused puberty to occur at a slightly unnaturally young age and therefore the legal age of consent ought to be delayed by maybe a year or so. But a five or six year delay is absurd.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:11 pmSuzy says:
Twirlip: several people were debating precisely those points above. Meanwhile, you are arguing that there is no differential STD transmission rate, am I right?
Loki13: I respect your feelings about your children, but not all parents feel this way. I am equally upset about the prospect of a 15 year old son or daughter having sex with an adult. I think it could harm each very much, even if specifics will differ for each child, as the result of several unique circumstances. Gender is only one of those conditions.
Anatid: even if all of the biological differences you mention were uncontroversial and their relevance to sexual choice and emotional impact clear, it still would make no difference: the harm is being violated against your will. It doesn’t matter whether one feels it more strongly than another, or with different physical processes involved.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:11 pmPorkchop says:
Actually, I’ve never seen “American Pie.” I take it that you have. I think that “Summer of ’42,” would be more like it for my age cohort, although I haven’t seen it since it was in theaters in 1971. But, then, maybe I’m dating myself. Well, no, not “maybe.”
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:16 pmTwirlip says:
You go ahead and find some studies which show that, and then we can discuss it. I see no reason to enage your silly hypotheticals any further.
Why doesn’t it make any sense? Did you ever take any sex ed classes? That is how STD’s spread among hetrosexuals. It’s a fact, as you might say.
Why? You have shown not one iota of evidence to back up any of your claims so far. The only bizarre thing here is your reluctance to admit that women can spread STD’s to men. Except for prostitutes, who you imagine infecting men all over the place. For some reason they can spread STD’s to men quite easily. As is usual with you, the contradicton is not explained or even admitted.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:18 pmSuzy says:
jay-w: how do the physiological changes associated with puberty result in the capacity for judgment required to consent to sex?
Do you think there is any significant difference, with respect to the ability to consent to have sex, between a 12 year old who is menstruating and showing physical changes in puberty, and an adult female? Can the adult female be raped? I assume yes, but I don’t want to put any words in your mouth.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:18 pmKurmudge says:
There certainly is a lot of verbiage above, obfuscating the fundamental truth– which is: Professor Volokh is, of course, correct. His statement was not absolute, it was about the preponderant response in the normal probability distributions of all males and all females.
If he was wrong, there would be as much pornography directed at women as there is at men, and there would be as many heterosexual male prostitutes as there are female sex workers, sophomoric HBO show notwithstanding.
It is positively amazing how much that is obvious to any sentient observer can be twisted by latter-day politically-correct “the sexes are just alike” philosophy.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:19 pmTwirlip says:
Which points? Your point that people should not have sex with children? I don’t see anybody debating that point.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:21 pmSuzy says:
Twirlip, here’s an OLD article, and there are tons more with the same findings. Seriously, you need to read more about this before attacking someone.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n14_v140/ai_11489577/
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:23 pmTwirlip says:
This has what to do with the topic of statutory rape, or making it a crime for consensual people to have sex?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:24 pmLN says:
Whoa, this just keeps getting weirder and weirder. How many voices are in your head?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:24 pmTwirlip says:
You must be referring to your inablity to figure out what it is you want to say.
Perhaps if you put a small fraction of your effort into constructing coherent arguments and less into making comments such as “this just keeps getting weirder and weirder”, you would not be making such a fool of yourself.
You sure seemed to be saying that men get STD’s from hookers and then spread them to other women, but perhaps the problem here is that you can’t express yourself properly.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:27 pmLN says:
Dude, you’re completely insane. I started interacting with you because you came in and insisted that it was statistically impossible that women are more likely to get AIDS from men than vice versa. You have yet to explain how this is a statistical impossibility. It is not only a statistical possibility, it is actually true. Even if you want to cast doubt on some of the studies, there is no way you can come up with a logical proof that asymmetric transmission rates are impossible.
Moreover, during our “conversation” you have accused me of signing off as an “Esq,” of saying that all men visit prostitutes, and of saying that it is impossible for women to transmit STDs. And of course I have not come close to doing any of these things.
I have no idea why you are so crazy about this topic. Maybe you are embarassed about something?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:33 pmSuzy says:
Kurmudge: I accept the idea that the sexes are different, and that the capacities for pregnancy or more ready transmission of STDs are relevant physical differences. However, I don’t see any evidence that there is a difference in the emotional trauma involved. Indeed, the very fact that people would expect a difference could contribute to the trauma! Can you imagine being one of the 15 year old boys who not only is ashamed at having been coerced into sex with an older person, but then has to hear all the reasons why in our society, and because of his being male, it shouldn’t be as big a deal to him? What matters is how the individual is impacted. Even so, the evidence for psychological differences here is pretty minimal. Both sexes experience trauma, shame, and regret when they are coerced into sex that they didn’t clearly choose for themselves.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:34 pmSteve2 says:
I’m not Jay, but I see two questions, so I’ll answer them. To your first question, no, I don’t think there is any substantial difference between the two. To your second question, yes, an adult female can be raped. I’ve known several who it happened to. It’s bad stuff. Like I said, the only thing worse than not being allowed to have sex when you do want to is being made to have sex when you don’t want to.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:37 pmLN says:
Like I said, the only thing worse than not being allowed to have sex when you do want to is being made to have sex when you don’t want to.
The only thing? Really?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:40 pmnrwo says:
And you have not mentioned, at any level of specificity, any such reasons as they relate to this topic.
Laws don’t cut people into groups with the precision of a scalpel; they cut people into groups with the precision of a meat cleaver.
If you object philosophically to laws that put people into groups (age, sex, race), when some people in those groups clearly are different from the “mean” person, you’ve got your work cut out for you:
Drinking age (some underage folks might be able to consume responsibly)
- Age of consent (some underage folks might be able to have sex responsibly)
- Concealed carry age (some underage folks might be able to carry responsibly)
- Driving age (some underage folks might be able to drive responsibly)
- Laws that allow females to be excluded in occupations (some females might make good artillery commanders)
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:44 pmnrwo says:
Who argued that their feelings should trump current laws on statutory rape?
Please cut and paste the factual inaccuracies to which you refer. I’ve read and reread your post, which seems partly (mostly?) like a screed against the tenor of the discussion than an attempt to identify inaccuracies.
Here’s a tip: The discussion has addressed whether current law is reasonable in light people’s experiences, science, and logic.
Here’s another tip:
- Laws are made by people. There’s nothing magical about the current age of consent (which could be changed by legislation, if people thought a vulnerable group deserved special protection);
- There’s no inherent problem in adjusting laws (statutory rape) in light of new evidence or compelling arguments; and
- People often rely on their own experiences in shaping laws in referendums or through their legislators.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:51 pmjay-w says:
“... how do the physiological changes associated with puberty result in the capacity for judgment required to consent to sex? ...”
Because the alternative makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint. A species in which the females were biologically ready to reproduce at, say, 14; but not mature enough to care for the offspring until, say, 21 would become extinct — especially a species in which there is a high risk of dying in childbirth.
If human females in the 14 to 18 age bracket were really such immature airheads, our species would not have survived the Ice age.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:56 pmD says:
lotsa interesting arguments, but I never noticed this one...
everyone says a teen boy will make it with anything that moves...
and apparently that a teen girl wont.
In their brains, they probably DO feel the same about what’s going on with them biologically. Perhaps our hypothetical girl just wants MORE from the interaction, while out boy wants MORE interactions.
However.
Neither one of them is really mature enough to consent to that. True, in our earlier days, we might’ve been MARRIED shortly after 18, but that also doesn’t mean we were old enough to figure it out. That was a social construct and rather rigid, where neither one could change it. Maturity wasn’t as important in such a situation.
Current consent, even though informed by some prety old laws, does try to take into account. That outside of that marriage, and it’s social construct, you don’t really want immature people making such decisions. But regardless of the dreams of young men, they cannot be treated differently under the law than young women. No matter how hot Mrs. Robinson is.
This is a place where we certainly need to start seeing the equality of law, so that those equality issues can extend to other gender situations.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:57 pmtioedong says:
In my day, some of my classmates married at 16, boys at 18.
Nowadays 17 is too “young” for sex?
I’m a doc, and have been for nearly 40 years.
The problem is not age of consent (which should be 16 for boys and 15 for girls) but who is doing the seduction/rape.
Teachers shouldn’t be having sex with pupils, professors shouldn’t be having sex with their students, and physicians shouldn’t be having sex with their patients.
On the other hand, I’m also old enough to remember “the good old days” when it was considered “normal” for businessmen to be having sex with their secretaries, physicians with their nurses, and professors with any nubile girl they wanted, and when I was in high school, such romances with teachers were considered “cute”.
I’m not sure which is better. Take sex outside of marriage/commitment and it degrades a young person’s ability to form mature relationships, and leaves a lot of kids brought up with poverty or young women emotionally scarred by aborting their children.
Whether this is better than the “good old days” of shotgun weddings and couples living together miserably is another question I hesitate to answer.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 6:02 pmGeorge says:
Who is more emotionally scarred consensual by sex with an adult, an average 17 year old male or female? Please tell me this is a joke post. Contrary to myth the tooth fairy doesn’t appear at the stroke of midnight on your 18th birthday and dole out wisdom and experience. By the age of 17 years any normal male or female at that age should be able to navigate such a relationship regardless of any difference.
It wasn’t that long ago that men and women of that age were enlisting in the military and getting married; oh wait a moment that still happens.
The only “scarring” that I can think of would come from the societal reaction as the as both feminists and right wingers fight over who is going to persecute the couple for daring to exist. Nothing brings out the real predators like a slabs of fresh meet.
One day people will see the irrational and hate filled logic behind the question for what it is, until then
sex is so oppressive, degrading, and evil we can only do it with the ones we truly love.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 6:11 pmASlyJD says:
And while 18 may be the age at which one may be old enough to marry, I can say from experience that most people think one is certifiably crazy for doing so.
Normal conversation when I meet someone:
Them: So you’re married?
Me: Yeah.
Them: How long have you been married?
Me: Seven years and a bit.
Them: Wow, and you’re what, 28, 29?
Me: 26, actually.
Them: So you got married young. Were you pregnant?
The idea that an 18 year old would be smart enough to use birth control, driven enough to get two bachelor’s degrees and a JD, and feel mature enough to want to get married blows people’s minds.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 6:36 pmPorkchop says:
Umm, who said anythin about coercion? We have been talking about consensual sex and whether there was a difference between teenage girls’ and boys’ likelihood of traumatization. Dave Hardy had it right at the beginning of this thread. Teenage boys would be lining up to be “traumatized.” The real trauma, from a 15-year-old boy’s perspective, would be having this fairy tale experience end. Worse, having his mom get all upset and in his face about it — don’t confuse that reaction with shame and embarrassment.
There are some interesting gender and generational differences here, I suspect. I referred to “Summer of ’42″ in a comment above. I don’t recall anything remotely like a controversy about the movie at the time.
According to the Wikipedia article about the movie, the author of the book it was based upon stated that:
Summer of ’42
A couple of observations — first, apparently there were a lot of older women having sex with teenagers at the beach in 1942. Second, while the woman was worried about having traumatized the kid, he was fine — she wasted her guilt.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:05 pmTwirlip says:
You’re “completely insane” if you think I ever said any such thing. I said nothing at all about HIV or womens “statistically impossible” odds of getting it or not getting it. No. Thing. At. All.
I will say something now, so you’re so anxious to talk about. In Africa the primary mechanism for the spread of AIDs is hetrosexual sex. Men get it from women and women get it from men. Just like any other STD.
EV’s basic argument here remains absurd, as was pointed out in the very first comment on this thread. STD’s, AIDs, pregnancy, etc are doubtless all very bad things. Or at least can be sometimes very bad things as in the case of pregnancy. But they have not one blessed thing to do with statutory rape. I’m frankly surprised that Eugene offered such a threadbare argument to support his case.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:22 pmLN says:
In this comment Twirlip writes:
in response to the quoted comment:
Then later he writes:
Are there two Twirlips? This one is getting a bit tedious.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:29 pmTwirlip says:
I most certainly did. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote.
Laws ought not cut people into groups at all. Law is supposed to be uniform and impartial. You sound like an avid cheerleader for “hate crimes laws”.
When you propose different punishments for different drunk drivers based on their sex or race, you will have a point. Or even when you propose different punishments for drunk drivers based on their age. Until then, you don’t. For an analogy to be useful it must have some passing familiarity to to the thing being analogized.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:32 pmRandy says:
mischief: “How do you know that doesn’t mean they just kept their mouths shut?”
I don’t. But that doesn’t invalidate my comment. But anyhoo, if you know any men that regret that they didn’t wait until later to have sex, please share, even if that man is you.
As for my possible reaction, what do you think I’m going to do? Hit them in the mouth for saying they regret doing something in the past? That’s absurd. I’m a true follower of Bette Midler, who said that Edith Piaf is wrong — I regret *everything*!
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:46 pmTwirlip says:
I’m not crazy about your silly topic, in any sense of crazy. You’re the one who seems anxious to talk about it. My basic point was and continues to be that EV’s argument is a mess. If we assume for the sake of argument the 100% truth of all the things EV said about STD’s, sex, men, and women, it gets us exactly nowhere on the question of whether statutory rape laws are defensible.
This is because these things are features of ALL sex, not just that sex which is classified as statutory rape.
Since you are so axious to talk about it, your own position contradicts itself. You claim both that men get STD’s from prostitutes, and by implication at a non-trivial rate, and also that women do not tend to spread STD’s to men. Assuming the prostitutes in queston are women, your argument falls apart.
Perhaps you are envisaging a scenario in which men have sex with gay male prostitutes and then later spread STD’s to female partners. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but you’re not most pellucid writer I’ve ever come across.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:49 pmTrauma says:
Gotta agree with Suzy. One of the points of statutory rape, is that the younger partner has been coerced (even if they thought it consensual) due to the maturity differences represented by the ages.
Just a woman may have rape fantasies, that doesn’t mean she wants raped, nor would not find being raped hugely traumatic. Just because 15 year old boys thought in their immaturity that would like to have sex with any female within sight...that’s quite different from actually doing the deed. Faced with reality, our illusions soon crumble. The 15 year old boy would soon realize the uneven nature of the act, recognize the manipulation, and would indeed be just as traumatized as a girl. He’d never mention it, and make statements of pride as compensating behavior...for deep down he’d realize he was totally at the disadvantage...and that is emasculating to a man, just as being “spoilt” is to a woman’s sense of self.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:01 pmLN says:
I do claim that yes, some non-trivial percentage of STD transmissions occur when men have sex with prostitutes. No where have I said that women do not tend to spread STD’s to men; this is something your own imagination cooked up, and the vehemence with which you have attacked this is just plain nutso.
By the way, are you ever going to address the comment where I point out that although you claim that you never said anything about the statistical impossibility of asymmetric HIV transmission rates between the genders, you actually did say exactly that as a simple search on this very webpage proves?
Although I think I understand where your confusion comes from. You think that the male-to-female tranmission rate is defined as the percentage of women who acquired HIV from men. Then your ignorance caused you to misread what I wrote in response. You’re not crazy, just one of those folks who’s just too dumb to understand how dumb you are.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:02 pmmethodact says:
No.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:13 pmDave Hardy says:
“Can you imagine being one of the 15 year old boys who not only is ashamed at having been coerced into sex with an older person...”
No. At 15 I’d have done Maggie Thatcher if she gave me a sultry look, and felt good about it. Elizabeth II would have had to buy me a few drinks.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:18 pmStoneHead says:
I wish to preface this by stating that I do not believe there can be any doubt that the physical consequences of sex are potentially far more devastating for women than men. Pregnancy alone would see to that being true.
Speaking only to the emotional aspects, I believe it is accepted science that females mature both physically and emotionally earlier than males. There is also a long literary and historical tradition of younger women begin attracted to older men (and vice versa). This is considered normal to such an extent that in many cultures, it is not commented on. This is not to say that a seventeen old girl ought to form an attachment with a thirty-year old male. However, it is not unheard of. On the male side, it is quite true that most teenage boys’ hormones are working overtime. It is also true that very few seventeen year old boys would refuse the chance to sleep with an attractive twenty-something (or even thirty-something)woman. That being said, the emotional implications are way beyond most boys’ ability to handle, especially if the relationship is deeper than the proverbial one-night stand type.
Seventeen is a very difficult age for both sexes and I would assume that the emotional results of sex with a much older person would vary depending on the personality of the younger partner. However, I do not believe that saying girls automatically would suffer more emotionally is true. I think that on average, the seventeen year old girl would be better equipped, if only by reason of her more advanced maturation. However, i would never deny that in both cases, there is a serious possibility for emotional damage. And as I said at the top, in the case of the girl, the potential for physical damage is far higher.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:36 pmloki13 says:
Suzy,
Appreciated, but I think I made a few points, some explicit, some implict.
1. I would have the age of consent be 16, not 15.
2. It would be the same for boys and girls (or men and women, if you prefer).
3. I think there’s a difference in parental worry about the children, because of the adverse consequences, but there shouldn’t be a difference in the “morality” of the act; it’s a inherently “good” or “bad” for the boy as the girl.
4. I think there’s a difference between what’s illegal as opposed to what’s bad. As I mentioned, I think that people in positions of authority and trust with teens and young adults (teachers, coaches, professors) should be held, legally, to a higher standard (the no-sex standard) than the general population, because of their position. In the same way that pilots are held to a higher standard (alcohol and drug testing) because of their job, I think people in these positions should be as well. As a parent, I don’t want my 16/17 year old involved with someone that’s 30. I think there’s something wrong with the 30-year old that does that — not pedophilia, but a lack of maturity on their part. But that’s an issue for parenting and community, not for the law.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:42 pmnrwo says:
Well, my list was meant to illustrate problems with your apparent allergy to laws that classify people into different groups. Such laws are quite common and are not going away. If you have philosphical objections to such laws, good luck changing them. It would be more productive to argue why, on a case-by-case basis, we should not classify people into groups (e.g., old versus young), or why, in the case of age-based classifications, we should shift the threshold age.
You’re right that none of my examples are apt with respect to the issue sex differences in punishments — but so what? If it could be shown that providing harsher penalities for particular crimes (statuatory rape involving girls but not boys) would reduce misconduct against a target group with no obvious cost, what’s the problem? (I think the problem is that such laws offend your sensibilities.)
A low blow, and conduct unbecoming of commenter. Where’s Posner when I need him?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:50 pmSuzy says:
Right, and I’m saying that when a teenager has sex with an adult, he or she can experience trauma, shame, and regret. Not all teenagers will experience this, of course. But some will, because they are not yet capable of exercising their judgment in the matter, just like they aren’t ready to take responsibility for driving a car or consenting to chemotherapy. We try to pick an age when we think most of them are, or are not, to help draw these lines.
Males and females have all sorts of differences, but the differences for which we have actual evidence aren’t relevant to judging who would experience what degree of emotional trauma. The very fact that there are such strong cultural stereotypes about this is telling. First, it would make it very hard to get good data about people’s reactions. Are boys even likely to report such a thing or seek help dealing with the fallout? I mean, look at all the people who would be laughing them out of the room, on the assumption that every young boy dreams of this experience? And they may be extremely ashamed of their own feelings about what has happened, as a result. The bottom line is that it’s not the sort of thing you could weigh in the manner suggested in the original post.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:59 pmShelbyC says:
Of course it has to be fairly easy, but not equally easy. IIRC pitcher -> catcher transmission is about 4 times as likely as the other way around, which is why it spread faster among gay men, since they both pitch and catch.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:01 pmAnatid says:
I remember when my brother was 19, a sophomore in college. A girl from one of his classes started stalking him. She’d show up at his dorm room, call him at all hours. When she stepped into the shower with him naked was about the time that he started sleeping in the library to get away from her. Sounds like a scene from a teen movie — except if we’d reversed the genders, and it was a boy stalking a chaste girl, people would’ve been horrified. Fun double standard for late bloomers.
Oh, come on. There are plenty of ways that the highly complicated human mind can have issues with sex short of all-out rape, that have nothing to do with statutory consent. Be realistic.
Arguments like Suzy’s seem to rest on the notion that minors are more likely to be vulnerable to these complications than an older, more mature mind, and that combined with a reduced ability to understand complexity and long-term outcomes, renders minors less competent to give consent than adults. (Suzy, correct me if I’m wrong.)
Firearm carry for prisoners versus nonprisoners. Tax benefits for those with dependent children versus those without dependent children. Fines for reckless drivers versus cautious drivers.
Problem?
The evidence suggests that while men are more stimulated by visual imagery, women are more stimulated by fantasy. How many romance novels are directed at men? I find romance novels to be as sexist and degrading to men as porn is arguably to women, but hey. And if you extend the inference to chick flicks, pardon me, romantic comedies ...
The difference really isn’t that notable when you consider romantic fantasy to be the female version of porn. Just comes in a different form for women.
Read my above post. Evolution doesn’t take any function and perfect it; all it has to do is get the function functional, just barely, to the point where it confers benefit.
Under previous human conditions, the cost of delaying childrearing was too high. Now, that cost has dropped, because our adaptive conditions have changed. A mother today doesn’t just need to worry about leopards and where dinner comes from, she also has to think about her baby’s MMR vaccine, and the mortgage payment coming up, and when she can schedule the babysitter to take care of the kids while she gets the car repaired before the transmission finally gives out ...
The data are overwhelming that teenagers, in our country at least, tend to make shitty parents. The teen parents themselves have higher rates of divorce, unemployment, and substance abuse, and so do their kids when they grow up. Older parents can and do, on average, provide a higher quality of care for their children. Of course, past ~30, the quality of genetic material starts to decline, which becomes a rapid decline by ~40. But it’s really not unreasonable to say that the environmental conditions for a modern human in a first-world country now find it more adaptive to begin childrearing at 20–25 instead of 14–17.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:07 pmDave says:
!) If a 16 year old male hires a 35 year old hooker, is she guilty of statutory rape? The answer is yes, but the odds of prosecution for “rape” are about .0001%
2) If a female begins having consensual sex with an 35 year old male at age 16 years 364 days, can the male be charged with statutory rape? Again the answer is yes, but the odds of the male being prosecuted approach 100%.
By the way, back in the 50’s, in some states the age of consent was different for the two sexes. If memory serves, there were at least two cases (N.Y.? and possibly KY or TN) where younger “adult” females were charged with having sex with an older but still “under age” male.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:48 pmPorkchop says:
And a sizable number of male posters are telling you that you are wrong with respect to teenage boys. I assume that you are female from your handle; maybe you should listen to the voice of experience.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 10:56 pmMartha says:
Hey, don’t diss the romance novels! :) Nowadays, at least, they’re not degrading to men or women; they’re more like mainstream chick flicks than the heaving bosoms rape fantasy stereotype. Depending on the author, they can get quite steamy, though, so you’re probably right that they can help appease female urges. I’m more of an SF fan myself, but I have been known to read the occasional Jennifer Crusie or Kay Hooper (and it seems you haven’t).
Quote
November 17, 2009, 10:56 pmSteve2 says:
Sorry, I’ll correct myself: The only way sex can be emotionally traumatizing to any participant, male or female, is if it’s non-consensual or they have a pre-existing mental health condition.
Only one human society I know of has ever had the right approach to sex, and that society was fictional: Brave New World. It had a lot of unrelated flaws, but it had the encouragement of promiscuity right.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 11:03 pmAnatid says:
Hey, I’m for porn and romance novels alike! :)
I still don’t believe that every single case can fall under one of those two umbrellas. Why is it so important to speak in extremes, anyway? What is the point you’re trying to make here, rather than allowing for a wide range of human variation?
Does this mean we have to include the overwhelming stigma that Brave New World placed on folks who wanted to be monogamous?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 11:21 pmSuzy says:
Loki: I agree with all of your listed points, and we definitely have to keep in mind, as you say, that there’s a difference between illegal and bad. People in positions of authority definitely have to be held to a higher standard ethically, even if it’s not a legal distinction. There is simply no reason for a teacher/coach/etc to have sex with a high school student, much less a younger one.
Porkchop: Yes, I’m female, but that doesn’t prevent me from having better evidence for my claims than is found in the personal testimony of this group of self-selected blog commenters with shared interests. It’s simply true that teenaged boys are sometimes sexually assaulted, and it can be very hard for them to seek assistance in a world that understands why a girl can be assaulted, but thinks that boys must have been consenting just because they were physiologically capable. Or that the boys actually want this because, after all, what boy wouldn’t? Or that they are simply less emotionally traumatized by it because they’re boys.
All of this is a terrible disservice to boys. Of course they’re usually just as interested in sex as you and others have been saying; but it’s a very different thing when the experience is on someone else’s terms and you’re uncomfortable about whether you should be agreeing to it. Of the men in my life I know well enough to have this personal information, two waited until they were in their twenties to have sex for the first time (one until marriage), and both are very glad it worked out this way, though sure, it wasn’t always easy to wait. Two others had sex for the first time when they were 12 and 13, respectively, and both of them regret it and wish it had never happened at that age. With the 13 year old the girl was an older highschool girl, and he definitely felt ashamed and taken advantage of. But that’s not something he could tell to anyone until he was an adult. That’s unfortunate. I think if we care about our young boys in this society as much as the girls, we have to respect that they do deserve this consideration, and not just assume they’re fitting the stereotype taken for granted.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 12:13 amAnatid says:
Also: Since when do 15-year-old girls not fantasize about their young, attractive male teachers?
Quote
November 18, 2009, 1:19 amPorkchop says:
Suzy,
You are assuming your conclusion. Essentially, you take the position that teenage sex with an older woman is by definition non-consensual and coerced. No one here thinks nonconsensual sex is good. Your evidence is the feelings of two people outside the age range we have been discussing. No one here advocates that 12-year-olds should have sex (we are talking about teenagers, not 12-year-olds). Thirteen is a teenager, but barely. I will grant your point with respect to those ages.
The original post, however, was about a 17-year-old. The major discussion here has been about 15-to-17-year-olds. However one may draw the line, there is a difference. The question is whether those older teen boys are more likely than girls of similar age to be traumatized by engaging in consensual sex with an older person of the opposite sex.
I don’t understand why you describe the posts of people who disagree with you as “the personal testimony of this group of self-selected blog commenters with shared interests.” Posting a comment on a blog is by definition, “self-selection.” What “shared interests” are you talking about? Being male and formerly 17? (Way formerly for many of us. I doubt that we have many 17-year-old commenters on this site looking for sex with older women.) Being male and formerly 17, by the way, means that we probably have had more interaction with the group under discussion than you have, because boys and girls tend to self-segregate during the teenage years. Being married and 58 years old, I’m not looking for a relationship with an older woman, but, if I were, it would be perfectly legal to do so. So clearly that “interest” is irrelevant to any discussion of trauma to a 17-year-old.
What “interest” am I furthering by stating that in my experience, most boys at 17 would jump at the chance to have sex with some older women and be none the worse for the experience? None, as far as I can tell.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 8:09 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Word.
Steve2 is forgetting the plot of “Fatal Attraction”, methinks. Casual sex isn’t only problematic for the person who has a pre-existing mental condition. It can be for the person who hooks up with a person who has a pre-existing mental condition. As I’ve said before, a woman who can have sex with grown men without risking prison, would risk prison to have sex with a teenager only b/c he can do something for her that the grown man can’t — not something physical, obviously, but something emotional. And she must need this emotional whatever-it-is pretty bad to risk everything — profession, family, liberty — for it. The kid thinks he’s getting a roll in the hay, the woman is working out her pathology on him. But per Steve2, it’s all good.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 8:39 amDavid Chesler says:
Anatid: From an evolutionary sense, an average couple would have to have six children in order to get two adults in the next generation. With the male lifespan of 45 and the female lifespan of 35, in order for her to raise her children to ~15 before dying, she had to start having children at the age of ~14. The male, on the other hand, had no real reason to start until 20 or 25.
When was it that women who had made it to puberty had a lifespan of 35? (And so forth.) Most of those numbers are means, with a lot of zeros and ones thrown in.
Of course transmission rates can be different.
I did a lot of things when I was a teenager I wouldn’t do now, probably wouldn’t enjoy now, some of which the fond memory is mixed with regret, sometimes it’s all regret. (And don’t forget, the reason the little sparrow regreted nothing was car ma vie, car mes joies, aujourd’hui ça commence avec toi — if you get out of it alive and end up in a good place, it’s all good.) I’m sure there was sex I didn’t have that if I’d had it that’s how I’d feel about, given that’s how I feel about most of the sex I did have.
IMNSHO the most important thing is equal expectations. Two people who believe in casual sex and who believe they are having casual sex can have casual sex with much more benefit and much less harm than if there are differing expectations.
We weren’t in love oh no far from it
We weren’t searching for some pie in the sky summit
We were just young and restless and bored
Living by the sword
And we’d steal away every chance we could
To the backroom, the alley, the trusty woods
I used her she used me
But neither one cared
We were getting our share
...
Ain’t it funny how the night moves
When you just don’t seem to have as much to lose
Of course it’s very different if there is actual coercion, or a significant power/authority difference.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 10:58 amLoboSolo says:
Joe, you must be my alter ego today. I agree!
Furthermore, I was under 18 and having sex with older women and I don’t consider myself emotionally damaged ... just darn lucky! And I have no regrets.
TN is like Joe’s state ... the age of consent is a moving target which defies all logic and common sense. Let’s pick an age and stick to it.
Answer me this: Why is that an adult woman can have sex with an underage male, be guilty of statutory rape, but if she gets pregnant, he is still on the hook for child support? How can the victim of a crime be liable to the perp? ... Yea, yea ... It’s “for the child” and “the child is innocent”. BS ...
It used to be that it was the father’s choice whether to acknowledge an out-of-wedlock child ... Now he has no choice what so ever after conception. If she wants to abort and he doesn’t ... too bad; if he wants to put the child up for adoption and she doesn’t ... too bad. If she wants to drop off the child at a fire station within the first 72 hours and walk away with no parental responsibilities ... she can do so ... he cannot.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 12:40 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
This is all sincerely a tragedy, since women control sex and men have no control whatsoever about where their seed goes. If only men could refrain from inappropriate sexual activity when it is available to them. If only someone would invent a condom, or something. If only a man could look at a woman and formulate a thought like “I’d like some of that, but what if she should get pregnant?” Alas.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 1:53 pmLoboSolo says:
Yes it is a tragedy since women can control their fertility and should know when they ovulating. If women could only could refrain from inappropriate sexual activity when it is available to them. If only someone would invent a Pill or an IUD. If only a woman could look at a man and formulate a thought like “I’d like some of that, but what if I should get pregnant?” ... But then the predatory female says to herself, “Aw, who cares. If I get pregnant, I can abort, give the child up for adoption, drop it off at the fire station, or make him pay me. Poor guy will never know what hit him.”
If a woman can drop a newborn off at a fire station and walk away with not parental responsibilities, why can’t the man?
Quote
November 18, 2009, 2:10 pmLoboSolo says:
... If only someone would invent a condom, or something. ...
PS:
1. Condoms are not a reliable form of birth control.
2. Scenario:
Man pulls out a condom.
Woman, “What are you going to do with that?”
Man, “Put it on!”
W, “What? You think I’m some skanky ho with a disease? Is that what you think of me?”
M, “No, no ... I just want to make sure you don’t get pregnant.”
W, “Oh, so you think I’m stupid now. You think I’m stupid enough to have sex while I’m ovulating. You think I’m a stupid, skanky, ho who doesn’t use birth control. You know I’m on the Pill I told you that at dinner!”
M, “I just being safe.”
W, “Have you been messing around with other women? Is that it? You think you might have some disease from some ho?”
M, “No, really. I ...”
W, “I take precautions. I hate condoms. If you don’t trust me, then just go leave.”
Only she is lying ...
Quote
November 18, 2009, 2:23 pmLoboSolo says:
... If only someone would invent a condom, or something. ...
PS:
1. Condoms are not a reliable form of birth control.
2. Scenario:
Man pulls out a condom.
Woman, “What are you going to do with that?”
Man, “Put it on!”
W, “What? You think I’m some skanky ho with a disease? Is that what you think of me?”
M, “No, no ... I just want to make sure you don’t get pregnant.”
W, “Oh, so you think I’m stupid now. You think I’m stupid enough to have sex while I’m ovulating. You think I’m a stupid, skanky, ho who doesn’t use birth control. You know I’m on the Pill I told you that at dinner!”
M, “I just being safe.”
W, “Have you been messing around with other women? Is that it? You think you might have some disease from some ho?”
M, “No, really. I ...”
W, “I take precautions. I hate condoms. If you don’t trust me, then just go leave.”
Only she is lying ...
Quote
November 18, 2009, 2:23 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
...
LMAO.
You seriously think we know when we are ovulating? Maybe for the small subset of women whose periods arrive like clockwork every month — and even for them, ovulation can happen at odd times. For the rest of us, we have no freakin clue. Anybody who has told you that women have a “reponsibility” for knowing when we ovulate is full of crap. It’s one more made-up off-the-wall excuse for you to put the responsibility for your welfare off onto another person. From Mommy to girlfriend, you never had to step up to the plate.
Also, per your imaginary conversation: why in the world would you let yourself be bullied by a woman who doesn’t want you to protect yourself? Are you really incapable of saying no to sex with such a person? Really? I find that horrifying, if true.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 2:42 pmAnatid says:
Who is this ‘predatory female’ and why the heck does she seem to think that abortion isn’t an expensive, painful, and stressful procedure, like most women do?
As we discussed before, it can be problematic to have sex with people who are suffering from mental illness, like the bipolar woman in your example. :)
Quote
November 18, 2009, 2:46 pmTrauma says:
As a male poster I still side with Suzy, with the ability to separate fantasy from reality. While the original post was about 17 year-olds, many of the assertions were regarding 15 year-olds. I’d say there’s very little “voice of experience” being expressed regarding actual encounters between 30 yr old women and 15 year old boys from the male perspective. There’s a bunch of hollywood theorizing and fantasy. Reality is much, much different.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 6:39 pmNickM says:
You’re forgetting that the younger guy may have better physical sexual performance in some areas (e.g., ability to perform multiple times).
Nick
Quote
November 19, 2009, 3:52 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Nick, is that enough to risk everything for, do you think? If that’s all it is, she’s still an outlier. I would venture to say that most people like sex, and most people want good sex, but most people would not want even outstanding sex if it came with the price of losing everything.
Quote
November 19, 2009, 8:10 am