|
tweakabelle -> RE: A pervert goes to jail (9/27/2017 5:35:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
also, age of consent varies by state, and by country. there are places in the world where conversation occurs to lower the age of consent.
had weiner engaged in what he did in another time period, or in another place where age of consent is lower, he wouldn't be going to jail and people wouldn't be looking at him as a "pervert."
yes he broke the law, but the more interesting questions are the reasons behind the law, why are they so different around the world, how/why they have changed over time and the innate nature of men's sexuality.
Firstly, in relation to this particular case, Weiner must have been aware of the relevant laws, and he broke them. He should have known better, almost certainly did, and ignored the law anyway. No excuses for him, and no reason to show him any mercy either.
To the more general point re the subjective nature of age of consent laws: Yes of course they are subjective - they cannot be anything but subjective, and particular to the era, the understanding of sexual behaviours prevalent in that era, the cultural heritage that influences the ways that sexual behaviours are interpreted, both legally and generally, and numerous other factors. This point is valid for age of consent issues, but more importantly it is valid for all interpretations and understandings of sexual behaviour in all its varieties. They are all very subjective and cannot be anything other than subjective.
For this reason age of consent laws will appear to be arbitrary to one extent or another. There are real difficulties in finding ways of legally codifying a criterion that will accurately reflect the vast diversity of sexual behaviours and sexual maturity. However this should not be taken as an excuse or justification of adult child sexual encounters. There needs to be a sharp, unambiguous and codifiable standard to differentiate between child rape and fully informed consensual sexual encounters between sexually mature people. Feel free to suggest a criterion other than age that meets this threshold and protects the rights of juveniles against predatory adults, if you can find one.
Every society has ongoing discussions about the legal framework within which sexual expression must occur. There is not a lot that is fixed or immutable as the current debates around queer sexualities, their origin, their social status and their acceptance/repression illustrates perfectly.
In our Western societies today, the dominant discourse around paedophile behaviours is one of total rejection. There are very good reasons for this particular intolerance - we are well aware of the damage that survivors of paedophile sexual encounters are forced to suffer. We are well aware of impossibility of juveniles to give free fully informed consent. We are sensitive to the permanent inequality of power in adult/child relationships. These are a few of the many reasons that most paedophile sexual encounters are seen as rape of one kind or another. Rape is one of the few areas involving sexual behaviour that attracts universal condemnation.
So the argument that 'things might have been different in a different era' is far from a compelling argument and most certainly not a mitigating argument. Leaving aside any moral reasons, no acceptable understanding of sexual behaviour can or will condone rape, nor should it. The expression of any sexuality without free fully informed consent cannot be supported by anyone who believes in human rights or the inviolability of an individual's right to control their own body and its autonomy or the primacy of personal responsibility.
Your apparent sympathy for child rapists suggests to me that you really need to thoroughly reconsider your understanding of the concept of 'personal responsibility'.
|
|
|
|
