I have no issue with Saletan's general proposition that teenagers under the age of consent might legitimately want to have sex. The problem I keep having with his attempts to deal with this topic is the way he would go about determining whether such consent had legitimately been given.

In the Polanski case, the victim testified under oath that she said no to Polanski every step of the way. The probation report ignores that testimony and instead examines whether the victim's conduct fit the pattern society expects of a good girl. Saletan keeps citing that report as "evidence," when in fact it's an inference, based on traditional prejudices, that the girl must have wanted it because she was acting like a slut. By saying we need to balance these two items against each other, Saletan seems to be asking, do we believe a woman when she says she was raped, if she put herself in a dangerous situation and her behavior doesn't comport with society's stereotypes of how a rape victim should behave?

I accept Saletan's statement that he's trying to address consent more generally, and not just in the specific context of the Polanski case. But given the number of times he's referred to the Polanski probation report, I think it behooves him either to indicate that he has not read its full text, or to actually address whether the set of assumptions that the report couches within the term "evidence" are appropriate for the inquiry into consent.

It still seems to me that Saletan is trying to find some way to argue that, in certain circumstances, it's OK and even natural for a 44-year-old man to have consensual sex with a 13-year-old girl. He writes: "Is maturity an arguable factor with a 13-year-old, particularly one who's posing nude in a jacuzzi? Yes."

Well, I guess he can argue it, since he's tried three times, but the answer is still no. She's not old enough to give her consent -- regardless of whether she's willing to pose nude or has sexual feelings or not. There are probably 8 year olds who would qualify under those terms.

When will she be old enough to willingly give her consent? I'm not sure, and if the argument is that the issue is murkier toward the latter end of teenagehood, OK. But 13 years old is not open for interpretation, no matter how many times Saleten wants to write that it is.

KBF:

It still seems to me that Saletan is trying to find some way to argue that, in certain circumstances, it's OK and even natural for a 44-year-old man to have consensual sex with a 13-year-old girl. He writes: "Is maturity an arguable factor with a 13-year-old, particularly one who's posing nude in a jacuzzi? Yes."

I would actually disagree with this interpretation, because Saletan has also said that Polanski's age is relevant. Based on what he's written today, I think Saletan is asking us to consider that the question of consent also extends to situations that would come across as potentially more acceptable, like an older teen with a younger one.

my question would be where does the complaint come from? if it's the parents because they feel their child was victimized and the child does not, then i think there should be no prosecution. we waste too much time and money on victimless crimes in american society. now if the teenager complains, then it is just plain rape and should be prosecuted. note, however, that i'm speaking in general terms and not specifically about the polanski case which is far murkier. regardless, imo it is either rape or it is not. age shouldn't be a factor.

Well, I guess the question is, is there ever a circumstance in which a 44-year-old man having sex with a 13-year-old girl is NOT rape? I'd say no. And of course his age is relevant, just as her age is relevant.

From a legal perspective, the facts of the case are in dispute. The girl claims that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski claims otherwise.

And while the consent involved is a legitimate issue, the reason for it being so its to determine the level of severity of the crime. If Polanski forced the girl to have sex, his crime was far worse than if she had consented.

The most logical approach to statuatory rape laws are ones that differentiate between two teenagers having consensual sex and a teenager and an adult having consensual sex. While its perfectly natural for an adult to feel sexual attraction to a physically mature teenager, the consquences are too high and any adult should know better than to act on such urges.

So would you use the term "statuatory rape," or do you feel the word "rape" is too strong to describe what he did? Not being a smart-aleck here, sincerely curious.

Personally, I'm fine with the use of the term 'statuatory rape' and the argument is just semantics. There is bright, clear distinction between 'statuatory rape' and 'rape rape' (to use the words of Whoopi Goldberg). This doesn't exonerate Polanski or anyone else who commits the former but not the latter.

You make a good point. There is a difference between someone who grabs a 13-year-old in the park and forces himself on her and someone who thinks that 13-year-old has flirted with him and agreed to have sex (I'm not referring to the Polanski case here). I'm just not convinced that the 13-year-old really is in a position to consent. In either case, we expect the 44-year-old to know better, and I think we agree on that.

I think we are largely in agreement, though I'd use slightly different language. I'd say that a 13-year old can consent to sex, but that they can't LEGALLY consent.

One exception I'd make about a 13-year old's ability to consent legally would be when we are talking about a sexual relationship between peers. The thought of pressing charges of statutory rape on a 13-year old for having sex with his girlfriend is absurd. We can argue about the nature of human sexuality and the dangers of such early sexual activity, but the discussion belongs among family members and psychologists and not in the legal system.

"From a legal perspective, the facts of the case are in dispute. The girl claims that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski claims otherwise."

Actually, I've NEVER heard that Polanski claims she said yes. His claim has mainly been-- her mom left her alone with me. She was posing nude for me. She looked hot. Everyone wants to bang young girls. Leave me alone!!! I've never heard him say that she SAID YES. Only that "she was naked in front of me and her mom was ok with it so that means consent."

I was under the impression that Polanski was claiming that the sex was consensual. I can't say I've been following this case closely. Am I incorrect?