That's absolutely disgusting.

I've seen it, it's disgusting, they're basically angling to deny that statutory rape, or being raped when your incapacitated isn't really rape.

Perhaps we should get a law tabled that says it's isn't assault if an angry feminist cuts off an anti-choicers balls, I'm sure they would be very unhappy over that.

i wonder if the'll change their mind in "if you get rid of what statutory rape is, can you lower the nation wide AOC to 13. if you want to redefine rape, you should redefine child to.
unless the child is a rapist."

Disgusting, I've signed the petition to stop this redefinition.

And signed. This is just foul. Denying abortion coverage for STATUTORY RAPE? I mean, really? What kind of heartless bastard does that!?

Done and done. Thanks for sharing this. The whole thing is just sucking the marrow from my soul.

Coerced rape, I agree, is well on par with forced rape. But "statutory rape" is stretched far beyond its reasonable limits. If two 13yo who had (pretty much consensual) sex with each other both land in jail, BOTH with charges of statutory rape of each other, something is definitely wrong. Also, if an angry father gets a 18yo boyfriend in prison for pedophilia with his 17yo daughter, this is utterly fucked up. Sure there are more clear-cut cases, but the slippery slope is well under way to a police state.

You can't fall back on the "slippery slope" argument - you sound like those people who say "If we allow gays to marry then next thing you know people will be marrying a boa constrictor!!!". Every law can be abused in some instances (and I don't have a lot of sympathy for Hypothetical Boyfriend, how hard is it to keep it in your pants for a few months?), but what these people are trying to do is not only reprehensible, but done with an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with the law and everything to do with turning America into a repressive theocracy.

Excuse me. These are NOT hypothetical situations. These are not "what-ifs". This is your neighbor already marrying a boa constrictor simply because the boa is the same sex, because the law specifically is worded to allow this. This is people sued for ridiculous things, landing in prison already. Not "but what if we ever allow this", it's "oh shit, we allowed this and just look at this mess that is happening right now!" - and a half of this protest is against backing out of this shit we're already in. "Let's keep putting innocent people in prison because we manage to sentence some actual criminals under the same clause."

Statutory law may not need being revoked entirely but it definitely has to be fixed. And it IS better to let some criminals go, than to put innocent people in prison.

If you like slippery slopes, consider that denying abortion in some situations is the first step in the slide to denying it in all situations.

The situations you're describing aren't nearly as prevalent as the media makes them out to be. The whole reason we have laws and lawyers and so on is to correct the situations you are so concerned about. However, there will ALWAYS be innocent people in jail for the wrong reasons. We do the best we can, but it happens. Taking about a woman's authority over her own body is not the way to solve the problem.

I think statutory rape should still be in there. If a 18-20 year old lands a 13-14 year old in bed then I would have to say its rape. At that point its the older person taking advantage of the younger persons naivety to get in their pants. If someone that old truely loved someone that young then they should wait until the person is of legal consent.
Also keep in mind that from state to state the legal age of consent changes.

Oh, but you're completely twisting it. The law says "18 or less". No exceptions. Sure there are valid cases. Yes, 13yo fucked by 19yo is solved by this law. So is 3yo fucked by 40yo. But the law is too wide, because 17yo fucked by 18yo is the same crime as 3yo fucked by 40yo. Which is fucking ridiculous. It's as if you wanted to help road safety be setting speed limit to 30 country-wide. Then argue that the law is valid because a driver driving 70 in a school area should be driving 30 there, meanwhile you conveniently omit that a driver driving 35 on a motorway will get a speeding ticket.

Perhaps mearly the statutory rape law should be re-defined? There are lots of ways to destort the law but I dont think the statutory rape should be taking off the definition of rape.

Maybe so. Maybe these should be separated. The word "rape" implies a violent act. What is currently known as statutory rape is often just misguiding, some exploitation, sometimes even a completely victimless crime (a 14yo girl has sex with boys her age four times a week,then tries it with an adult guy enjoys it entirely), and so on. Associating the act with a strongly loaded word "rape" is making some quite innocent activities sound really evil.

It's like you'd call emitting noxious fumes "chemical homicide". And using carbon monoxide to poison your wife would be the same class of crime as farting in a mall.

yeah. butif that happens, then "poor widdle girl was forced to have sex, they made her, they were con'ed her into it. poor little easly swayed widdle girl

i thought two 13 year olds can have sex. it's if a 18 and a anyone under 18 have sex it is rape.

although i love trolling the people here who think it's ok for 19 on 15 year old.

Law changes from country to country, from state to state... and from month to month.
That 13yo "mutual rape" is cited as one of dumbest cases ever, along with a 13yo girl who got accused of child abuse for posting self-made nude photos of herself on the net, ending up in sex offender registry. Yeah, all about protecting the children!

they want to do that as scared straigght.

wait, did the laws find was ti get around of some "dumb" kid planted nude photos of themself on others?

it was extream, but then again if anyone else had it. of course they want it to get their jollies off. even if she took it and upload it herself

maybe a part of me has mixed emotions because i can't laugh it off and ignore the boys that say sexual things to me, where I live.

I just hate the "so I can't tell a dirty joke on line if some stupid 14 year old will see it, but 14 year olds can ask me for sex, say they want to hump my dog"

OH but if I type it to them OL, i'm a criminal.

yeah. it also sounds like "let's set things back many years by saying minors canot enjoy and explore their sexuality and body"

I say "laugh at the girl, show her what happens if it gets in the wrong hands. I don't care. call her a naughty exhibitionist the only reason there is a problem is because she wanted it that way she should of printed them out if she had a boyfriend"

do I sould old fashioned for saying "Little girls shouldn't post naked photos of them self on line"

also, given, if I had shown her drawings from this site?


it's stupid.

it's only because "kids don't know......." and "adults who do that are sick and are trying to get kids in their pants"

Thats messed, I can't sign either but it reminds me a few years ago how there was talk in england that the only way to avoid these sex related crimes would be for everyone to sign a legal document saying ''I consent'' before they had sex. I lol'd!.