OK... I hear Saleton's logic -- that certain individuals at age 13 may well have the emotional maturity to make informed decisions about their own sexual activity. And other individuals at age 30 may not. Of COURSE there's a wide, blurry line there.

But a main purpose of Law is to enable us, as a society, to draw clear bright lines where nature and circumstance only offer endless gradations. We define a legal "age of consent" because that's about the only way the law can provide a consistent and clear dividing line. And our legal system also provides for humans -- lawyers, judges, and juries -- to hear the particulars of any given case and to arrive at some way of determining just how such a standard might apply in a particular case. The law can't be pure algorithm and it also cannot be pure whim (say! there's yet another one of those blurry lines).

I take his point that there is a difference between lusting after someone who's reached sexual maturity and someone who has not. That would be a distinction between pedophilia and statutory rape. Of course, "sexual maturity", too, is not exactly a clear point in time for any of us.

but the solution is easy. rape is rape is rape. either the person consented or not. it can't be the parents coming along and saying that they don't agree with the moral choices that their kids made and trying to prosecute someone for it. unless someone forces themselves on someone else (physically or through intimidation, etc...) it shouldn't be considered rape. and it should always be called rape and not statutory.

The point I disagree with you, Deduction, is that an adult shouldn't be held legally accountable for consensual sex with a teenager below the age of consent. The most logical legal structures are ones that draw a distinction between a 13-year old having consensual sex with a peer or with and adult.

We can argue about the semantics of whether statuatory rape should be called something else, but certainly a 43-year old man should be held culpable for even consensual sex with such a teen.

At a certain stage of mental and emotional development a minor cannot grant consent by definition.

For example, ask a 5 year old to remove their underwear and they would have no concept this could be a sexual related act. Ask a 14 year old, and most would understand it could be a sexual related act. Thus a 5 year old cannot grant consent by definition. e.g. saying yes to something they don't understand isn't concent.

So the key question is when does a minor have the mental and emotional developement to understand and thus grant consent? How is this measured (i.e. what is the criteria)? Should it just be based on age? If yes, what age? 13 - 15 appear to be the ages that require discusion.

Yes, state do define what you are calling is a 'peer' with sames using age difference. E.g if a 5 year standard is used, a 21 year old is a peer of a 16 year old.

So while I disagree with Deduction also on the same point as you, are you saying all minors cannot grant consent to any non peer? e.g. 17 with 25 year old the 25 year old is hed culpable, even if the 17 year clearly says they granted consent, has a sexual history (willingly had sex with other 'peers' in their past), and they say they understood what they were doing and willingly had sex with the non peer?

Note that I don't use gender in my example. The main reason being the recent female teacher cases with their 15 or so year old students. Note that these teachers were barely held culpable since most didn't do one day in jail. Thus there also appears to be gender bias by the state with regards to sex with a minor and consent.

Any answers that we can come up with are by nature arbitrary. But having such laws in place are reasonable, and so we must draw lines somewhere. The question is where to do so, so that the people who are meant to protected by such laws are protected while cases of injustices- such as the the SC football player who went to jail for consensual oral sex with a sophmore when he was a senior- are avoided.

WA State laws seem fairly rational to me:

Age of consent: 16

Peer: Someone within 3 years of age.

Special restrictions on people in positions of authority- teachers, coaches, ministers, etc.

Well sadly for that SC football player an injustices was NOT avoid. He paid big time until the injustice was corrected.

Anyhow, what your state WA has is very rational to me also. As I have been saying for days the dificult ages are really 14 - 15. I can see a 18 year old with a 15 year old being very similar to that SC football player case and while technically a crime was committed the punishment shouldn't be the same as if it was a 30 year old with someone that was 13.

Its no fun arguing if you're going to agree with me!

I wish you were here the last two days! I was one of the only people here that understood what Saletan was getting at (note I said understood, not agree since I didn't agree with some of the things he implied). Everyone else felt that he was condoning the rape of children or the specific actions of Polanski. It took me a while to understand why there was this much hate towards Saletan. It all related to Polanski case, Hollywood, the artist gets a free ride issues, and all the other things there. Ok, there are legit issues there, but it really wasn't the substance of what Saletan was discussing (at least the way I read his article). But Saletan should of used a different case or cases instead of the Polanski one. For example, that SC one or the women teachers and their male students ones, related to consent, pedhophile and sexual crimes associated with a minor. Oh, well maybe Saletan knew exactly what he was doing and wanted to stir up the pot!

Oh, well maybe Saletan knew exactly what he was doing and wanted to stir up the pot!

I always wonder if job reviews for editorial writers use the comments section as a criteria. Lots of responses + controversy = job security.