TheSaxlad wrote:Seriously. And Im not even joking.I seriously question the Judgement of some politicians. Especially right wing ones.
BBC wrote:"On being told that the five year figure came from the Council of Circuit Judges, Mr Clarke said: "That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15 year olds..."
"A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."
When BBC interviewer Victoria Derbyshire interrupted to say "Rape is rape, with respect" Mr Clarke replied: "No it's not, if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. Because she is under age, she can't consent... What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."
I am still not clear to what you are objecting.
The above is statuatory rape. It is a crime because an 18 year old has a lot more maturity and power (emotional, physical, etc.) than a 15 year old. Depending on the circumstances, it may or may not have a lessor penalty than more traditional rape (depends on how much force is used, etc.).
One of the big, historic reasons this is on the books is that we don't want unwed mothers. Historically, the "statuatory rape" clause was used to "protect" young women from being "taken advantage of". I agree that idea is paternalistic. Still, even while a lot of 15-16 (even 14 and 13 year olds!) may look physically like they are older, very few are mature enough to truly handle a relationship, or more importantly to handle any child that might result. That goes for both boys and girls, by-the-way, though granted, it is more often used in teen girls.
In the US, the complication is that statuatory rape gets included in Megan's law listings for child molestors. As much as I think child molesters ought to be pilliared and that statuatory rape IS a crime, not all statuatory rape is true child molestation of the sort that Megan's law is meant to prevent.
Date rape, though related, is a different matter. This gets to the idea that just because you take someone out, buy them dinner, etc doesn't mean you automatically have the right to "get in their pants". If you don't understand that... well, sorry.
Of course, there are ALWAYS women who claim "rape" when it is not. They add to making it hard on the legitimate rape victims. However, part of that has to do with the utter double standard women face in "promiscuity" (to use the old word). Even today, a woman who "sleeps around" even a little is somehow "deficient" in many eyes, can be harmed professionally, socially, etc. (lose scholarships, etc far more readily than boys, just as an example). Boys are still given a "wink and a nod" on this. Even if someone is cheating, the woman tends to take more heat than the man.
