Why is statutory rape still considered "rape"?

Question

If both partners genuinely consent to the sex, why would the older person still be charged with rape? I understand the whole "adult should be more responsible" thing, but I just read something about how if a 16 year old marries an adult over the age of 18 with legal consent from her/his parents..the married couple could legally have sex. How does just being married make a difference in the whole thing? Does only the fact that they are married by law mean they can have sex even though the 16 year old is still technically a minor?

Answer 1

States have their own laws about what age you can give your consent, and they differ. And most are younger than 18. In my state the age of concent is 16.
The law states that if you are under the age of consent, then you can't concent.

Answer 2

Statutory rape means that the person does not have the necessary capacity to consent. A 16 year old who marries (very bad idea) is then, legally, an adult.

Answer 3

If parent consent to marriage of there minor child then it OK. As long as the sex is not forced against her well. If there is no consent by parents then yes it is rape because the law sees it as 16 to young to make that decision.

Answer 4

It is based on the concept that under a certain age, a person cannot voluntarily consent to have sex.

Whether that makes sense as a matter of logic, it is the law -- below a certain age, with a partner above a certain age, the minor cannot give consent.

Marriage is considered an exception, for whatever reason -- mainly based on the (now-obsolete) theory that a minor was the property of their parents, until they became the property of their spouse. This is the only example where the consent of the parents is sufficient to bind the child, where the consent of the parents to the sex itself is not sufficient.

Answer 5

with the aid of coercion, and manipulation. Statutory skill; bearing on, or of the character of a statute. A written regulation. So there is an age of consent. below that age, is against the regulation. And is then seen rape. you could understand this in the form of baby abuse, used for intercourse. So the regulation can charge you even however a baby replaced into coerced into giving her / his consent. have been given IT ? i'm hoping.

Answer 6

There are inequities in our laws and an increasing prudery in our society. It used to be possible in some states for a boy of 14 to marry a girl of 12, something unthinkable now. We rely on entirely artificial concepts and standards of maturity. While the protection of the young and defenseless is indeed of paramount importance, we could exercise a good deal more common sense when it comes to relationships beneficial to those involved. I know the difficulties faced by teen marriages and don't encourage sexual intercourse among young people, but age is not in and of itself a guide to maturity nor a barrier to sexual feelings and expression. Women and children are not chattel, they do not "belong" to their husbands or parents. We place limits on marriage which are not even strictly biblical, and further limits on sexual relations which have no bearing whatsoever on the persons involved apart from standards enshrined in our laws usually enacted on the basis of prejudice. Our mores are based on a skewed perception of men as perpetrators and women as receptors, in which we see men as free agents morally and physically uninvolved in the process of procreation and women left with the sole responsibility of what they do with their bodies, as if virgin birth were the norm. We also isolate sexual knowledge and development from both family and individual growth, as if it magically occurred at the age of 18 without any preliminary influences.
Believe it or not, it is possible for a man to rape his wife and a woman to rape a man, both of which are graver violations of the person than statutory rape. Rape on the whole has little or nothing to do with sex other than the use of sex as an expression of violence and dominance.

Answer 7

Law.

You have to have a line drawn.
People take liberties with little children. So someone has to say it's okay with consent from a older person (parent).

Look at the Bigamist. This one guy just got out of jail. He had the permission from the parents to engage with a 13yr old girl. But that still didn't make it legal. because of lines being drawn. And the conditions of consent. Violation of the law.

Some grown ups are sick puppies.

I don't believe in a 18yr old boy having sex with his 16yr old girlfriend, being convicted.
Because in theory, he's probably mentally 15yrs old. Girls mature faster than boys..

Answer 8

they need to change some things about that, like if a 19 year old has sex with a 17 year old, they're both just young people and if both consent, ITS NOT RAPE.

Answer 9

i dont know why, maybe its a little extreme, but honestly i feel there should be exceptions, like if a 16 and 19 year old have sex, sometimes when it involved a very young teenager, such as a 13 year old then to me....i think it was just ignorance on the teenagers part, most young girls think its cool to be with older guys and dont realize the guy was just sick until they get older.

Answer 10

If you are under 18, legally you a are a child, and children aren't able to "consent" to anything without permission.

That's the short answer. And it's the right answer.