Conquer Club

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."

Explain better, then maybe we can comment.

Players Update in First Post.

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.

Im not objecting against rape. Im objecting about politicians.

Politicians should be raped. Repeatedly.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:Politicians should be raped. Repeatedly.


Honibaz

at times, I think most people would agree with that.

What Ken Clarke actually said is a serious mess of a confusion of a tangle of mixed meanings. He seems to have said that date rape is an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old. That's not date rape- it's not even rape under British law, although it is an offence. He used that as a distinction between "date rape", as he defined it, and "serious rape". Bear in mind at this point that this is the guy tasked with reforming the British legal system. Apart from his weird definition of date rape, he also downplayed date rape by suggesting that it wasn't serious rape.

I think there's been a bit too much read into this, but he's really been an idiot on this one. He pissed off a lot of people very quickly. Some of them probably didn't like him in the first place, but he'll likely be spending the next week or so apologising.

As the interviewer pointed out, rape is rape. He denied this, but mainly, I think, because he's an idiot.

Sounds to me like he trivialized date rape as not all that serious, then when the wanker realized what he'd done he pretended he was confusing statutory rape with date rape. Seriously - the asshat needs to be buggered. Wherethefuck is Norse when we need him?


Honibaz

Symmetry wrote:What Ken Clarke actually said is a serious mess of a confusion of a tangle of mixed meanings. He seems to have said that date rape is an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old. That's not date rape- it's not even rape under British law, although it is an offence. He used that as a distinction between "date rape", as he defined it, and "serious rape". Bear in mind at this point that this is the guy tasked with reforming the British legal system. Apart from his weird definition of date rape, he also downplayed date rape by suggesting that it wasn't serious rape.

Then the guy is definitely a jerk and an idiot (or intellligent... if it gets him what he wants).

Symmetry wrote:I think there's been a bit too much read into this, but he's really been an idiot on this one. He pissed off a lot of people very quickly. Some of them probably didn't like him in the first place, but he'll likely be spending the next week or so apologising.

As the interviewer pointed out, rape is rape. He denied this, but mainly, I think, because he's an idiot.

This is why I wanted clarification. Based on the title, I thought initially you had an issue with the definition of rape.

Granted, as a female (and one who has worked a lot of "non-traditional" or "typically male" occupations), I am probably more sensitive to this than many.

I don't think there's anything wrong with an 18 year old and a 15 year old having sex if it's consensual. Sorry, but 18 is a completely arbitrary age.

I remember in my high school this girl who was a year older than me and this boy who was a year younger than me were dating. The boy's parents hated her, so as soon as she turned 18 and they had sex again, they charged her with statutory rape, even though the boy obviously didn't want it.

People mature at different rates and start at different ages. Saying straight out that 18 year olds are more sexually mature than say 16 year olds is pretty fucking stupid. It's case by case, but I think if both have reached puberty and both are consenting, then it shouldn't be rape at all. If the parents are really worried, then they should teach their kids something.

Army of GOD wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with an 18 year old and a 15 year old having sex if it's consensual. Sorry, but 18 is a completely arbitrary age.

I remember in my high school this girl who was a year older than me and this boy who was a year younger than me were dating. The boy's parents hated her, so as soon as she turned 18 and they had sex again, they charged her with statutory rape, even though the boy obviously didn't want it.

People mature at different rates and start at different ages. Saying straight out that 18 year olds are more sexually mature than say 16 year olds is pretty fucking stupid. It's case by case, but I think if both have reached puberty and both are consenting, then it shouldn't be rape at all. If the parents are really worried, then they should teach their kids something.

As soon as the older people and their older traditions die off, perhaps the US in general will find your reasonable argument to be more agreeable.

I agree with AoG on this. When I was 19 I dated a 17-year old girl. We had sex, lots of. If someone had told me that what we were doing was somehow wrong I'd probably had hit him in the mouth. I was a bit more temperamental back then.

Pretty much everyone under the age of 30 is too immature for a free society to function. All of them should be thrown in jail until their 30th birthdays.

Army of GOD wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with an 18 year old and a 15 year old having sex if it's consensual. Sorry, but 18 is a completely arbitrary age.

I remember in my high school this girl who was a year older than me and this boy who was a year younger than me were dating. The boy's parents hated her, so as soon as she turned 18 and they had sex again, they charged her with statutory rape, even though the boy obviously didn't want it.

People mature at different rates and start at different ages. Saying straight out that 18 year olds are more sexually mature than say 16 year olds is pretty fucking stupid. It's case by case, but I think if both have reached puberty and both are consenting, then it shouldn't be rape at all. If the parents are really worried, then they should teach their kids something.

On the surface your argument makes a lot of sense. However, if we use this argument to do away with the age of consent shall we also apply it to alcohol and tobacco age limits? Marriage? School, (and here's the big one) [b]driving[b]? Like i said, on the surface . . .


Honibaz

InkL0sed wrote:Pretty much everyone under the age of 30 is too immature for a free society to function. All of them should be thrown in jail until their 30th birthdays.

"Wild In the Streets" - amirite? I loved the end scene.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with an 18 year old and a 15 year old having sex if it's consensual. Sorry, but 18 is a completely arbitrary age.

I remember in my high school this girl who was a year older than me and this boy who was a year younger than me were dating. The boy's parents hated her, so as soon as she turned 18 and they had sex again, they charged her with statutory rape, even though the boy obviously didn't want it.

People mature at different rates and start at different ages. Saying straight out that 18 year olds are more sexually mature than say 16 year olds is pretty fucking stupid. It's case by case, but I think if both have reached puberty and both are consenting, then it shouldn't be rape at all. If the parents are really worried, then they should teach their kids something.

On the surface your argument makes a lot of sense. However, if we use this argument to do away with the age of consent shall we also apply it to alcohol and tobacco age limits? Marriage? School, (and here's the big one) [b]driving[b]? Like i said, on the surface . . .


Honibaz

Yes. I mean, it's not like someone takes a maturity test before they do any of these things. Maturity doesn't only vary with age, but it also is completely subjective. There is no thing as "objective maturity", so saying 18 is the end-all-be-all age where people can start smoking tobacco is fucking stupid (and I don't even smoke). There are tests for obtaining your driver's license, so I'm not completely worried about that one. In the US it's 21 to start drinking, in other countries it's less than 18 (I think)...they're just throwing out arbitrary ages that mean little to nothing.

natty_dread wrote:I agree with AoG on this. When I was 19 I dated a 17-year old girl. We had sex, lots of. If someone had told me that what we were doing was somehow wrong I'd probably had hit him in the mouth. I was a bit more temperamental back then.

In Britain thats not illegal.

The idea is that it is illegal to have sex with a minor (under 16) even if they consent to it. Ken whoever he is called this date rape. Which it obviously isnt.

b.k. barunt wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with an 18 year old and a 15 year old having sex if it's consensual. Sorry, but 18 is a completely arbitrary age.

I remember in my high school this girl who was a year older than me and this boy who was a year younger than me were dating. The boy's parents hated her, so as soon as she turned 18 and they had sex again, they charged her with statutory rape, even though the boy obviously didn't want it.

People mature at different rates and start at different ages. Saying straight out that 18 year olds are more sexually mature than say 16 year olds is pretty fucking stupid. It's case by case, but I think if both have reached puberty and both are consenting, then it shouldn't be rape at all. If the parents are really worried, then they should teach their kids something.

On the surface your argument makes a lot of sense. However, if we use this argument to do away with the age of consent shall we also apply it to alcohol and tobacco age limits? Marriage? School, (and here's the big one) [b]driving[b]? Like i said, on the surface . . .


Honibaz

Good points, as usual bk.
Also, as I noted, maturity regarding sex implies the ability to raise any children, since no birth control is 100%.

natty_dread wrote:I agree with AoG on this. When I was 19 I dated a 17-year old girl. We had sex, lots of. If someone had told me that what we were doing was somehow wrong I'd probably had hit him in the mouth. I was a bit more temperamental back then.

[/quote]
There is a HUGE difference between a 17 year old and a 15 year old. As a practical matter, its rare for a conviction if the "minor" is 17.. unless you REALLY piss off the parents or judge.

Still... your idea of an appropriate response does not do much for the maturity argument

PLAYER57832 wrote:Still... your idea of an appropriate response does not do much for the maturity argument

Player, I was 19 at the time. Since when have 19-year-olds been known for their maturity?

natty_dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Still... your idea of an appropriate response does not do much for the maturity argument

Player, I was 19 at the time. Since when have 19-year-olds been known for their maturity?

I suspect that's precisely her point. <smile>

natty_dread wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Still... your idea of an appropriate response does not do much for the maturity argument

Player, I was 19 at the time. Since when have 19-year-olds been known for their maturity?

This is true. Hell, I even knew 20somethings (and some older) that their maturity is questionable.

Army of GOD wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with an 18 year old and a 15 year old having sex if it's consensual. Sorry, but 18 is a completely arbitrary age.

I remember in my high school this girl who was a year older than me and this boy who was a year younger than me were dating. The boy's parents hated her, so as soon as she turned 18 and they had sex again, they charged her with statutory rape, even though the boy obviously didn't want it.

People mature at different rates and start at different ages. Saying straight out that 18 year olds are more sexually mature than say 16 year olds is pretty fucking stupid. It's case by case, but I think if both have reached puberty and both are consenting, then it shouldn't be rape at all. If the parents are really worried, then they should teach their kids something.

How did the parents know they'd had sex again? Did he have one of those punch cards from 7-11 where you get a free slurpee every fourth time you do it?

Anywho, I once had a four-way with 2 19 year olds and a 20 year old when I was in my early 60s. Is that the moral equivalent to having sex with one 58 year old? It's definitely something to think about.

how much did that run ya?