On statutory rape.

9 Jul

Yesterday Roissy made a post about the show Californication, at first praising its portrayal of an unrepentant divorced manwhore named Frank Moody who is the master of cocky/funny game, then complaining that said character is also a white-knighting chump who defends all of the women who treat him badly.  One such woman happens to be a 17-year-old who seduces Frank, then steals his manuscript and passes it off as her own, while threatening him with the specter of statutory rape if he tries to expose her fraud.  Roissy then veered off on a tangent complaining about statutory rape laws and how inconvenient it is to have to think twice about having sex with an attractive young woman if there’s the possibility she’s underage.  After all, there are well-developed 13-year-olds out there!  Many of the commenters on the thread vehemently agreed – how dare these evil feminist laws exist that prevent men from taking what has historically been available to them!

The thing is, historically older men were able to have sex with attractive 15-year-olds because they married those 15-year-olds.  Which meant that in addition to getting the sex, these men were also taking on the responsibility of housing, clothing, and feeding these 15-year-olds – FOR LIFE.  And also taking care of any children their union might produce, which, in the time before birth control pills, patches, and implants, was highly likely (and one of the primary societal reasons for marriage to exist in the first place; a society of bastards won’t remain a society for long).  Even if a man were having sex with a 15-year-old on the downlow, if she got pregnant, he would be under enormous societal pressure to marry her so as to avoid the bastardy of her child.

Men today can still have sex with the 15-year-old of their dreams, legally, by marrying her.  At that age in the United States, parental consent is required, but surely an older man who has the skills to woo a busty and willing 15-year-old must have the ability to charm her parents as well, no?  But if all the 15-year-old and man want is sex, then why shouldn’t the law shield her from a man who will not marry her?  Who may pressure her to abort their child if she does conceive?  Who could leave her emotionally devastated when he tires of her and moves on to the next tasty 15-year-old?  Because the age of first marriage in the U.S. has risen so high, why shouldn’t there be laws shielding young women from early sexual experiences that will greatly impact their ability to marry later on?  How can it possibly make sense that a functional, stable society with a high age of first marriage also has a low age of consent?  If men want the age of consent to drop, then the age of first marriage has to drop with it.  No matter how sexually mature of a body a 15-year-old may have, her mental and emotional states are not nearly as developed as those of an older woman.  And even older women have great difficulty handling the emotional aftermath of sexual relationships that end.  If men will not be the guardians of a woman’s mind, heart, and body, then the state will step in and try to do the job.

Additionally, the reasoning behind these complaints smacks of Adam-and-Eve to me.  The men who gripe that they can’t go out and bang the voluptuous teenybopper of their choice without fear of criminal repercussion are the same ones who believe that women are fickle and irrational and are in great need of a man’s authority, guidance, and protection from herself in their lives…except when it comes to women’s sexual impulses, apparently.  Especially if they are impulsing in his direction.  Then it’s all the woman’s choice and “hey, she wanted it, so why is it my fault?” – just like Adam in the Garden of Eden when God confronts him about eating the fruit:  “the woman gave it to me, and I ate it.”  Interestingly, God does not say, “Well, Adam, you’re right.  You just did what Eve wanted you to do.  You’re off the hook, bro.”  Instead, God metes out a punishment with the ultimate domino effect – cursing all men to work to live – while specifically condemning him for listening to Eve.  The argument against the high age of statutory rape laws is as old as time, and about as effective.

There’s always a price to pay for sex, and female sexuality in particular has always been pretty pricey.  In the past, it was protected by social pressure and personal restraint through religious convictions.  Now that both of those have largely fallen by the wayside, the law has stepped in to mandate self-restraint.  Kind of ironic that women are more “available” than ever, but in order to achieve that, the most desirable women are less attainable than ever.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “On statutory rape.”

  1. Will S. July 14, 2010 at 7:36 am #

    The PUA arguments for lowering the age of legal consent are obviously self-serving, when they articulate it. But others, such as Christians, who are concerned about matters of the law and the role the State ought to play in society, such as political conservatives and libertarians, may question whether it is the role of the State to protect young women from the effects of making poor life choices, same as they may equally question the same as regards the State protecting young men from the effects of making poor life choices, too. (Ditto for things like welfare, etc., which affect people of both sexes.)

  2. Aunt Haley July 14, 2010 at 8:26 am #

    I think questioning the role of the state in a matter such as this would be more of a libertarian thing. Conservatives accept state intervention in issues such as the speed limit and drugs; many states once had laws against adultery and sodomy, and I don’t remember hearing any collective conservative outcry against those.

  3. Will S. July 14, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    True, but then there are also those who lie somewhere between conservatism and libertarianism, in terms of their positions and beliefs, and I am such(except, as a Canadian, I also embody certain collectivist / leftist views that are fairly across-the-spectrum up here, such as on universal health care).

  4. Smashing_Retards July 18, 2010 at 7:49 am #

    Well, I can see a lot of clever moves here.

    How can it possibly make sense that a functional, stable society with a high age of first marriage also has a low age of consent?

    Let’s see, the age of consent at it’s highest in the US is 18, and the average ago of first marriage is 26. Are you claiming those women are celibate the EIGHT YEARS between 18 and 26?

    That’s what I thought. Most men are quite aware, when Special Snowflake decides to stop dating alphas and marry the “beta”(that is someone at her value, or a point higher) they are not her first or second or third lover.

    No matter how sexually mature of a body a 15-year-old may have, her mental and emotional states are not nearly as developed as those of an older woman. And even older women have great difficulty handling the emotional aftermath of sexual relationships that end. If men will not be the guardians of a woman’s mind, heart, and body, then the state will step in and try to do the job.

    Men meanwhile can fight in the dirt. Or have their lives destroyed because they had drunken sex with a 16 year old who claimed she was 17. Cause, you see, you are a special snowflake, and men are dirty animals. They get NO PROTECTION AT ALL. Period. You march in lock step with your sisters on this one.

    If the animal gets out of line, then your Christian Heart demands the animal’s total destruction. And if the dirty animal won’t do it, Special Snowflake can suck off her sugar daddy government to get what she wants.

    Special Snowflake smirks wisely.

    Men today can still have sex with the 15-year-old of their dreams, legally, by marrying her. At that age in the United States, parental consent is required, but surely an older man who has the skills to woo a busty and willing 15-year-old must have the ability to charm her parents as well, no?

    And if he can’t, well, to bad for the dirty filthy animal, no?

    Special Snowflake smirks wisely.

  5. Smashing_Retards July 18, 2010 at 7:51 am #

    So tags are disabled.

    Well, I can see a lot of clever moves here.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    How can it possibly make sense that a functional, stable society with a high age of first marriage also has a low age of consent?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Let’s see, the age of consent at it’s highest in the US is 18, and the average ago of first marriage is 26. Are you claiming those women are celibate the EIGHT YEARS between 18 and 26?

    That’s what I thought. Most men are quite aware, when Special Snowflake decides to stop dating alphas and marry the “beta”(that is someone at her value, or a point higher) they are not her first or second or third lover.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    No matter how sexually mature of a body a 15-year-old may have, her mental and emotional states are not nearly as developed as those of an older woman. And even older women have great difficulty handling the emotional aftermath of sexual relationships that end. If men will not be the guardians of a woman’s mind, heart, and body, then the state will step in and try to do the job.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Men meanwhile can fight in the dirt. Or have their lives destroyed because they had drunken sex with a 16 year old who claimed she was 17. Cause, you see, you are a special snowflake, and men are dirty animals. They get NO PROTECTION AT ALL. Period. You march in lock step with your sisters on this one.

    If the animal gets out of line, then your Christian Heart demands the animal’s total destruction. And if the dirty animal won’t do it, Special Snowflake can suck off her sugar daddy government to get what she wants.

    Special Snowflake smirks wisely.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Men today can still have sex with the 15-year-old of their dreams, legally, by marrying her. At that age in the United States, parental consent is required, but surely an older man who has the skills to woo a busty and willing 15-year-old must have the ability to charm her parents as well, no?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    And if he can’t, well, to bad for the dirty filthy animal, no?

    Special Snowflake smirks wisely.

  6. Aunt Haley July 19, 2010 at 12:08 am #

    1) The blog template I am currently using doesn’t recognize the blockquote tag. In the future if you wish to quote a previous post, just use italics.

    2) Knock it off with the crass language.

    3) You’re missing the forest for the trees. Policy is created for behavior in aggregate. Since in a three-year span, a girl could become pregnant and carry to term three times, it makes sense that if a girl isn’t going to get married until age 26, then society should restrict her sexual freedom for a longer period of time. It doesn’t mean that NO girls are having underage sex. It means that fewer of them are, which is good for a society in which men refuse to marry the women they impregnate.

  7. Schopenbecq July 25, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    “The thing is, historically older men were able to have sex with attractive 15-year-olds because they married those 15-year-olds.”

    Possibly true. But that was historically before the pill, or even effective condoms.

    Also men were only required to marry those girls if they got them pregnant through sex (admittedly, rather likely).

    You’re also ignoring the fact that the average age of consent in Europe is still around 14.8 (and lower still in the rest of the non-american world). 50 years after the birth of the free sexual market.

    Jail a man if he gets a girl under 18 pregnant. On that, the older partner has to have some responsibility (and if we replaced age of consent to sex with age of consent to be impregnated, your vile teen pregnancy rates would tumble).
    Anything more than that demanded by feminists is just protecting your older female’s selfish sexual needs (i.e. putting men under threat of jail to be raped so you can still attract men). That’s rape on your part.

  8. steyraug96 July 30, 2010 at 9:46 am #

    Aunt Haley,
    I’m afraid it is YOU who is missing the forest for the trees.
    I speak as a born/raised/confirmed Catholic, with a short sexual history of LTRs. No one-night stands here.

    The point is, IF SHE LIES ABOUT HJER AGE, HE GOES TO PRISON REGARDLESS.
    If “she” rapes a boy? He gets to pay for her child, even though he’s a minor -> Where’s the statutory rape charge on the

    Look up the cases, Toy Soldiers and False Rape Society would be good starting points. There is not getting around the FACT that the law is one-sided and selectively enforced – which means it is, by definition, unconstitutional, immoral, sexist, not Christian – yet it is still ont he books, a double-barrelled shotgun leveled at the head, knees, and crotch of every man in the US (and Australia, from my understanding, and the UK, too), all with a hair-trigger just WAITING to go off.

    My 16-year-old sister passed for 21. I got carded until … This year (34). Still occasionally do.

    BUT: (insert whiny voice here)
    “Girls mature FASTER than boys.”

    Cry me a River.

    The injustice at the root of this problem is that women are protected from the CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS, while MEN are given those consequences in spades. IE, she’s Underage, in a 21+ club, she responds to his attention, she goes back to his place, or even hers, they have intercourse, HE goes to prison if she even says anything – no pregnancy need enter the picture.

    Yet a female teacher is getting child support payments from a (I think) HIGH SCHOOL student SHE seduced.

    The neon sign doesn’t get any brighter than this. You want to lay claim to that halo, better brush up on what Christian means, and who Christ was. He was no milquetoast, look at his handling of the moneychangers in the Temple. He didn’t say, “Let the children come unto me, but only if they are (fe)male.” Didn’t say “Render unto Cesar that which is Cesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s, unless the State mandates something different.”

    Let’s try something older: “THOU SHALT HAVE NO FALSE GODS BEFORE ME.”
    That INCLDUES the state.

    The idea that policy (I.E. RULES or LAWS) can create a perfect society or person is AT ODDS with the Law of Christ, and the laws of nature. You either accept Christ’s message, or you do not.

    While this is your personal space – you can do as you will – you might want to think about what is REALLY going on.
    A woman can:
    – Refuse sex
    – insist on “protection”
    – Take the pill
    – Get an IUD
    – Get an Abortion
    – abandon the child at a designated “Safe Zone” without repercussions
    – Give the child up for adoption

    ALL WITHOUT FATHER’S INPUT OR CONSENT.

    THEN, she can claim she was raped, even YEARS after the fact, and his name is in the papers, his picture is plastered on the evening news, he is arrested, may lose his job, in many places MUST be prosecuted (even if she recants, or it is found to be spurious), and her name CANNOT BE MENTIONED even AFTER the trial clears him of all guilt, meaning he’s not just “Not Guilty” but is in fact INNOCENT.

    WRT Child support, she ca name him as the father, provide a fake address, the court counts it as “Officially notified” (due to the postbox rule – items are considered “delivered” as of their post-date), and he finds out years later he’s on the hook for $$$ for a child he (1) did not know about, (2) has no involvement with, and cannot parent, (3) MAY NOT EVEN BE HIS, but he can’t contest the paternity because the time limit for the appeal is LONG GONE.

    How much do men have to give before it is enough?

    It will never be enough, women are vacuous black holes that consume a man’s resources endlessly – his money, time, credit, honor, family, and sanity – and I speak from personal experience.

    I told the woman last night, all women are the same, just a different wrapper; her response was, “Took you this long to figure it out?”
    Yeah, $400,000 so far, a bankruptcy, reposessions, child custody battle (for HER daughter, mind – not mine!), and since her name is on the deed, I can’t even end the relationship without finishing the foreclosure and ruining the rest of my life. I am estranged from my family because of her presence in my life, I end up doing the huosework as well as working my @$$ off as the sole bread-winner, yet I am STILL at fault and to blame if ANYTHING is less than perfect.

    And I can’t look at her wrong, yell at her, or strike her, because in New Jersey, there is a “Will Arrest” policy, which means as the man, I will be arrested.

    Here’s the bottom line: MEN ARE GETTING ANGRY, because they mostly cherish women, but women want it both ways all the time: All the choices, none of the responsibility. Women get license, men get prison, even if SHE LIES.

    End result: Lower marriage rates, men who will not even TALK to women due to bad experiences or fear of ruin from even spurious charges, and in too many cases, murder of offending wmoen. If you’re going to go to prison anyway, might as well have the ex-wife in a woodchipper. Get some prison status so your butt isn’t a target for Bubba.

    Think about it: Violence is still the one thing men are better at than women. Women out-speak, out-vote, will soon out-earn men due to academic crendentialism, and yet they will STILL tout the “75 cents on the dollar” pap, and force Title IX into the Math/Science/Technical degrees; force profitable men’s sports out with Title IX; force “nomalization” of test scores (which means, men are doing too well, so make the tests work so women score better); force their innapropriate dress into the workplace, then complain about “harassment”;

    It’s just too logn to continue. Men need to either find their gonads and deal with women, or they need to walk away, but EITHER way, we will not have a society (omit Just, Moral, Christian, Civil) any more.

    Statutory rape is the symptom, not the cause, but it’s a convenient thing to point to: Girls mature faster than boys, but must be protected from themselves until they find their perfect man, Mr Alpha, or Mr Big as Sex In The City termed him – like there are a million men fo that socio-economic level around! And then, he needs to be roped in and snared and secured, because his wandering eye will find all those 15-year-old girls irresistable unless the LAW stops him…

    It’s like gun control: Criminals LOVE unarmed targets.
    Allow concealed carry, crime rates drop, including murders committed via gun.

    Am I jaded? Cynical? Nasty? VOCAL?
    Yes, I am.

    And I’m a type-B personality, usually laid-back, quiet, peaceful, and understanding. But this Bull needs to end, NOW, and there must be some sort of reconciliation, or the backlash will destroy the Western World as we know it.

    Kindly examine the facts; the logic will become clear.

    You want to tell a 17-year-old he (she) is old enough to make an informed decision to join the military; operate million-plus dollar equipment; have access to national security documents on a daily basis; kill for and die for his (her) country; but can’t smoke, drink, or VOTE?
    CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

    In other words, if a 15-year-old girl is off-limits, they are OFF LIMITS, and SO ARE THE BOYS. Check teh Vagina Monologues for the rape scene: “If it was a rape, it was a good rape.” BECAUSE A WOMAN DID IT.
    Get the picture? Woman = good, Man = bad, who cares about the victim? That child (a girl) became a WOMAN after this event, isn’t that great? Make it a man, instead (and change NOTHING ELSE), and he would be villified (rightly so, as it included drugs and liquor. And BTW, the Original work had it as a 13-year-old girl being forcibly introduced into lesbianism. But where’s the OUTRAGE on V-Day when this play is performed across college campuses?)

    I am not a rapist. But I’m getting awfully close to becoming a murderer, and I DOUBT I am alone.

    THAT is the forest. The trees are unequal actions by our law-makers and law system, and everything else I already mentioned, I won’t bother repeating it.

    (As for marrying a 15-yer-old, eww. Any female under 21 became unattractive about the time I hit 25 – just too juvenile, and most too puerile for a good discussion anyway. I can’t see a normal man wanting something that young anyway…)

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Sweet sanity on statutory! - July 29, 2010

    […] Haley wrote a response to Roissy defending the status quo: There’s always a price to pay for sex, and female sexuality in particular has always been pretty […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s