Various Comments from Around LJ

[queerbychoice]

socialismnow writes very educational comments on all my war-themed journal entries, which you will probably never see if I do not point them out to you.

Meanwhile, if you're planning to write an article about rape, please read my guidelines first, thank you. Because otherwise I shall scream at you.

Comments

[acidcrys.livejournal.com]

The focus towards the end of the article - is on the fact that often "rape" is ignored by society because its just "Sex".. thats why the author of the article uses the term sex, shes not making it her term for what happened -its society's word.. the last line about "sex with a child cannot be condoned" goes again with the fact that society sometimes views famous criminals acts of rape just as "sex" .. because everyone enjoys sex - so if they rape a woman why not? But the point is.. even if it is "just sex" .. it was with a child.. and even "just sex" .. should never be allowed with a 13 year old.

I think you misconstrued the entire article - or at least the ending..it wasn't about Rape itself.. it was about how Society and "Hollywood" ignore rape for the fact that its "just sex" .. but raping a child isnt just sex - its child molestation as well..

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

"but raping a child isnt just sex - its child molestation as well..."

But rape is never "just sex"! With anyone of any age! The whole point of inventing "statutory rape" and "child molestation" laws that were separate from other rape laws in the first place was in order to defend the rights of people who did not voice their nonconsent but who are presumed because of their youth to not have really wanted the sex to occur. So in cases where the child did voice their lack of consent, appealing to "statutory rape" arguments just makes the case look weaker than it is, as though we have to guess that this victim did not want to have sex just because she was 13. We don't have to guess that. We know she didn't consent, because she said so.

[donutgirl.livejournal.com]

Actually, I don't think "statutory rape" has anything whatsoever to do with the consent of the "victim". Even if the victim quite heartily agreed to the interaction, it is still considered rape, basically because the parents didn't agree. Of course, the laws vary from state to state, but in most states, the legal age of marriage (with parent's consent) is below the legal age to consent to sex. Basically, it's just like the middle ages, when rape had nothing to do with a woman's wishes, and everything to do with being the property of her husband or father. Just as children are viewed as property today.

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

Yes, but the argument usually presented in favor of statutory rape laws is that they are supposedly meant to protect a child who did not wish to consent but didn't dare say so aloud. So that's the argument I'm speaking in reponse to. Whether the statutory rape laws as a whole should be thrown out entirely is a different discussion (and one on which I don't necessarily differ that much from you, although I am still listening to the arguments and not necessarily comfortable making sweeping statements in public on the subject yet).