Leaving aside the multitude of obvious things, today's problem was that I was defending 'perpetrators' or statutory rape. For the uninitiated (what the hell is wrong with me? I had this problem yesterday. I'm not intending to make it sound like there's a sort of club for people who bone under-16s), statutory rape is penetrative sex between a man over the age of consent and a girl below the age of consent. So in the UK, basically a guy over 16, boning an under 16. It's not a difficult concept to imagine, I fancy. Wait. No. Again with the disgusting choice of words. Ah, bugger it. So to speak. Obviously, statutory rape is different from rape in that rape is - if proven - a proven accusation levelled against someone that they willingly and knowingly forced penetrative sex on an unwilling party. Someone who hasn't consented, basically. Stat-rape (not to be confused with the Latin statim, please) thus requires a willing accuser and willing witnesses. Consent is irrelevant. As far as I am aware there hasn't been anyone prosecuted for this in a bloody long time. As with most things I discuss, however, it's not quite as black and white as I would lead you to believe. With that in mind, I am going to ignore things like sexual assault (in this context relevant because it is an 'of-age' woman against an under-age boy), and sexual assault (homosexual statutory rape, I suppose). And just for your own knowledge of this, statutory rape is more 'properly' known as unlawful sexual intercourse. Obviously, I should be discussing all of these things - but because I don't have the time, mental energy, or thoughts, I'm not going to. Again, with that in mind you can probably take my thoughts here as representative of my thinking re: all of the other issues involved in these things. The main reason I'm only talking about statty is because that is what I was forced to defend earlier today in a law seminar.
Being embroiled in arguments where I come out looking like a paedophile/kidnapper/man with a love of bestiality/holocaust denier etc. is not an uncommon thing for me. Having ridiculously open views on subjects means that you quite often come across as somewhat... eccentric in your thinking -- if you'll permit me to trivialise so awfully. Now, this is probably attributable to two things: unreasonable opponents, and frustration. I can debate well, when I have time to formulate my arguments properly; unfortunately, such is life, this is not a normal circumstance. Things just sort of... happen. Couple that with people who will just shout over you until you cannot be bothered to respond any more = you being a bigot, rapist, kidnapper. As with today, as with the defence of statutory rape. As with my denunciation of the legal age of consent in Britain. My declamation simple: age of consent is arbitrary. My argument simple: statutory rape is unenforceable, and cannot be captured with an umbrella law - there is a need for individual analysis of each circumstance. Their rebuttal: age of consent is the law. Their argument simple: I'm disgusting. That's me. Not them. That's. Yeah. There we go. Not so simple, eh? This is post-modernism at its worst.
Basically I think that in most circumstances an act of statty would simply be a couple who had been in a relationship for a length of time and then the male has turned 16 whilst the girl is still under-age. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? I don't get how you can object, to be honest. I don't need to make my argument. Someone explain why my position makes me a defender of rapists and I will think of a counter-argument. Until then, go use your common sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment