quote:

Exceptions to the age of consent rule

If one cannot consent to sexual relations before age 17, are children under age 17 guilty of rape or other sex offenses? The answer is yes and no.

New York's law provides a number of exceptions to the age of consent rule. While a child under age 17 cannot legally consent to have sex, the older partner of that child may or may not face criminal charges, depending on the situation and the law's exceptions.

No one may have sexual intercourse with a child under 11 years old. Hence, an 11-year-old who has sex with a 10-year-old would be guilty of rape in the first degree. That is an unlikely, but possible, scenario.

A person age 18 or older cannot have sex with a person under 13 years old under any circumstance. However, if the child is at least 13 and younger than 15, and if the adult is less than four years older than the child at the time of the sexual conduct, then that would release the adult defendant of criminal responsibility. Because this is an affirmative defense, the defendant, who usually carries no burden of proof at trial, has the burden of proving the age difference beyond a preponderance of the evidence (which is far less than the prosecution's burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.) For example, if a 14-and-a-half-year-old girl agrees to have sex with a boy on his eighteenth birthday, the 18-year-old would have an affirmative defense of being less than four years older than the victim.

Further, a 17-year-old would not be guilty of rape of a 12-year-old if the younger child agreed to the act. The 17-year-old might be guilty of a misdemeanor sexual offense, however.

But if a 17-year-old turns 18 before his or her partner turns 14, then as of the older child's eighteenth birthday, the sexual relations would be considered rape. This can be very disconcerting to the children and parents. It presents a scenario where sexual behavior that was legal on one day is be completely illegal the next.

Another exception falls where the defendant is accused of sexual abuse (touching another person sexually without consent). Proof of both a less-than-five-year gap between the ages of the actors, and the victim's age being at least 14, would act as an affirmative defense in an otherwise consensual situation. In other words, if it was a "no, don't touch me" situation, that would be sexual abuse. However, if it was a "please touch me" situation, and one actor in the situation is charged with sexual abuse but he or she proves both the age difference and that the other actor is 14, then there is an affirmative defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

feminists will assert that it's impossible for a woman to rape a man - as men are granted power by the patriarchy and therefore crimes committed against men simply do not count.

Funny, I am a feminist and I would never assert any of those things. Are you certain you know what you are talking about?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Didnt see the ages of the "boys" until I went searching for less "dramatic facts"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
The whole mantra from from annoyness and his ilk is that women are inferior in every regard. So he and his cohort are way ahead of the feminists in claiming that it's impossible for a woman to do any harm to a man, even as the feminists never claimed such in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Oh, you are talking about 'statutory rape', which is not really real rape. Underage consensual sex.

I think people need to insert "statutory rape" in all such consensual cases to make a clear point that, it wasn't real rape.

I often pondered if two 13 yr olds have sex with each other. Who gets in trouble?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

feminists will assert that it's impossible for a woman to rape a man - as men are granted power by the patriarchy and therefore crimes committed against men simply do not count.

Funny, I am a feminist and I would never assert any of those things. Are you certain you know what you are talking about?

Oh, that's easy. You're just lying. Or stupid. Or probably both.

To be a feminist is to be intellectually and morally bankrupt. It's not hard to think your way through the central contradictions in feminism, but it does require a brain.

quote:

In female perpetrator, male victim circumstances, the attitude toward the victim is exacerbated by social attitudes toward the roles of the sexes in the context of a sexual encounter, in which males are presumed interested, and females are presumed reluctant. It’s expected that a woman’s consent will be sought, while a man’s right to consent or deny is ignored. Men are seekers of consent, and women are gatekeepers. The gatekeeper-to-consent concept is so ingrained that it is often not a conscious thought. As a result, the social response to male rape victims is hampered by the idea that it’s abnormal for a heterosexual man to not automatically consent to any sexual contact from a woman. While society treats “no” as the default answer for women, until a “yes” is earned and offered, the default answer for men is treated as “yes,” leading to a tendency to disbelieve men who report being victimized. This mentality is imposed upon the view of male victims often regardless of their age…

Feminist advocates have exploited those social tendencies in order to maintain both their monopoly on perceived victim status, and the illusion that women are less domineering and violent than men. All of feminism’s vitriolic condemnation of sex offenders vanishes when the perpetrator is female, to be replaced with arguments they’d call rape apology, victim blaming, marginalizing, minimalizing, and misogyny if they were offered in discussion of male victimization of women. They try to refocus discussion to the “women have it worse” dialogue by downplaying the suffering of male victims in comparison to that of female victims. They deny statistics, falsely claiming that the incidence of female perpetrated rape of male victims is lower than it actually is. Many will go so far as to argue that men can’t be raped.

The successful effort by Mary Koss to define male victims of female rapists out of legal existence is a prime example of that argument; in order to forward it, she has to assert that an experience (forced heterosexual sex) which is clearly understood to be rape when a man does it to a woman isn’t the same crime when the sexes of the victim and perpetrator are reversed. The Koss effect isn’t limited to feminist-led research. The U.S. justice department’s updated definition of rape, like the CDC’s definition, requires that victim be penetrated, and therefore excludes a sexually intimate attack on a male victim’s genitals. This means Justice department statistics on rape will include same sex perpetrators, but not many female rapists of male victims…

Feminists call a community-wide attitude of rape apology “rape culture” when the victim is female, yet by their own definition, they’re most guilty of promoting a rape culture that tolerates victimization of boys and men, especially when the perpetrator is female...

quote:


(e)Proof of Threat.—
In a prosecution under this section, in proving that a person made a threat, it need not be proven that the person actually intended to carry out the threat or had the ability to carry out the threat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
It seems the law at the time listed age of consent for women as 16. But no "age of consent" was listed for males and it defaulted to the "age of majority" as in legal to make contracts without parent permission... 18 years old.
So, the daughter was charged with statutory rape.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Didnt see the ages of the "boys" until I went searching for less "dramatic facts"

Classic female apologia for female perpetrators. You're doing exactly what every MRA points out that women do. Minimising the notion of women as perpetrators with agency.

Pathetic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
It seems the law at the time listed age of consent for women as 16. But no "age of consent" was listed for males and it defaulted to the "age of majority" as in legal to make contracts without parent permission... 18 years old.
So, the daughter was charged with statutory rape.

Wow! Poor girl. It's almost a joke. A 16 yr old girl raped a 18 yr old boy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I hope she gets a long long prison sentence.

Oh, no. . . . mitigating circumstances. A stressed teacher at the beginning of a new school year obviously suffering from PTDS.

Seriously, will someone explain the extreme damage caused by her actions on the 17 year old. How does this warrant a ten year jail sentence?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
I'm an equalist. I have no idea of how many times I've said it is 'possible' for me to rape anyone.

quote:


If people are too busy being objectionable to people based on gender, that's kind of on you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

feminists will assert that it's impossible for a woman to rape a man - as men are granted power by the patriarchy and therefore crimes committed against men simply do not count.

Funny, I am a feminist and I would never assert any of those things. Are you certain you know what you are talking about?

Oh, that's easy. You're just lying. Or stupid. Or probably both.

To be a feminist is to be intellectually and morally bankrupt. It's not hard to think your way through the central contradictions in feminism, but it does require a brain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

In most states, age difference isn't even a factor if the adult in question is in a position of authority over the minor child.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

In most states, age difference isn't even a factor if the adult in question is in a position of authority over the minor child.

Yes well there are those on these boards who feel like that needn't be an issue either.