undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsmagduf6y ago0 comments

He didn't defend rape. He objected to the use of the term "sexual assault", because the "assault" part connotes the use of violence. He doesn't believe any violence was used by his friend. Based on his understanding of the situation, the girl probably acted willing to his friend, and his friend likely didn't know her true age (can you tell a 17yo from an 18yo??). So he objects to his friend being called a violent rapist when he's really likely only guilty of having sex with a legal minor, while believing she was there of her own free will and probably of legal age.

Finally, your use of the word "rape" is wrong anyway. Having sex with a minor isn't "rape", it's "statutory rape", and that's only in the US. US laws do not apply worldwide. The age of consent varies from place to place, and according to UK residents on this forum, it's only 15 or 16 there. So are you going to tell me that everyone in the UK that has sex with someone that young is a "rapist"? Sorry, no.

0 comments

dragonwriter6y ago

> Finally, your use of the word "rape" is wrong anyway. Having sex with a minor isn't "rape", it's "statutory rape", and that's only in the US.

“Statutory rape” isn't usually the term in the law, it's a common-language hedge to indicate that it was (at the time the term was coined) literally rape under a particular set of criminal statutes, but not what some people consider “real” rape.

In some statutory schemes it is exactly rape still, in others it has different formal names (“unlawful sexual intercourse” [Penal Code 261.5] in California law, for instance.)

magdufOP6y ago

If it is legally called "rape" somewhere, then those laws are wrong and should be changed. "Rape" is a word that carries a particular meaning (i.e., violent unwanted sexual activity), and conflating it with things that are not violent is minimizing real rape.

"Unlawful sexual intercourse" like in your California example is fine: that's a good way to word sexual activity that's illegal without conflating it with violence.

dragonwriter6y ago

> If it is legally called "rape" somewhere, then those laws are wrong and should be changed. "Rape" is a word that carries a particular meaning

Generally, that meaning is sex without legal consent. Most state rape laws include sex with adults lacking capability for consent (due to intoxication, disability, etc.), even if they happen to carve out lack of legal capacity to consent due to age to a separate section of law, and do not require violence beyond the violence inherent in sex without consent, though they certainly include nonconsentual sex acheived through violence.

So, while it may or may not be carved out for organizational or other reasons in particular criminal codes, there is no reason that “statutory rape” does not fit conceptually within the space of “rape”. (The phrase “forcible rape” already exists for the subset you seem to want to limit “rape” to identify.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dragonwriter6y ago

> Finally, your use of the word "rape" is wrong anyway. Having sex with a minor isn't "rape", it's "statutory rape", and that's only in the US.

In some statutory schemes it is exactly rape still, in others it has different formal names (“unlawful sexual intercourse” [Penal Code 261.5] in California law, for instance.)

magdufOP6y ago

"Unlawful sexual intercourse" like in your California example is fine: that's a good way to word sexual activity that's illegal without conflating it with violence.

dragonwriter6y ago

> If it is legally called "rape" somewhere, then those laws are wrong and should be changed. "Rape" is a word that carries a particular meaning

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse