Comments on: Virginia Governor Proposes Rape Law Reform

By: Cara

Cara — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:04:33 +0000

As I said in the post, Kelso, I think that a lot of statutory rape laws go too far. But what we’re talking about here is a grown man having sex with a girl 14-16. Again, if we’re talking 16 and 18, or maybe 16 and 19, and the 16-year-old says that she consented, clearly the rape charge would be senseless.

Beyond that, I think that a genuinely consensual and non-manipulative relationship between a grown man and underage girl of 16 or younger would be extremely rare indeed. And I also honestly don’t care if a 14-year-old really wanted to have sex with a 25-year-old man. The guy knows that what he’s doing is wrong and has some really frightening boundary issues that I think fall into the pedophile category pretty easily.

By: Kelso

Kelso — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:41:36 +0000

I completely agree about what is said in the above article, but what about the minors that have actually consented to the older man? What if those two have have mutal feelings for eachother? I think that it should be decided that the statutory law in VA should be lowered to at least 17. Teenagers are not adults, but they have opinions, feelings, and let’s face it, they’ll be running this country some day.

By: Cara

Cara — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:37:33 +0000

This is, unfortunately, a standard practice in many cultures: “you made her unclean. you keep her now.”

Indeed it is. But it's that kind of shit that usually gets conservative assholes into a self-righteous rant about the evil, uncivilized Muslims. But now they're defending it. When white Christian men rape, all is good, but when it's men of color . . . well, this has been the system we've worked under for a long, long time, isn't it?

I've heard about the law that brandann is talking about; the difference between the two is that (dear god I hope) you could not find anyone to defend the beating your wife law, but apparently legislators are willing to stand up and defend this rape law bullshit. In any case, I am indeed sometimes surprised to find out that we're not past this shit. I guess that a bit of wishful thinking has to slip through every now and then.

By: brandann

brandann — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:33:04 +0000

wonderful post! and wonderful news!

though now i have to wonder how many states are currently not in compliance w/ the 2005 act. that is a pretty sad thing, and so many states have archaic laws, for example there was one in michigan that you could beat your wife in front of city hall w/ a stick no thicker than your thumb, but i hear that one was pretty common…

and good riddance to lie detectors…if you have ever taken one it leads you to doubt the whole process…they proctor tells you what to lie about, and gives you all these make believe scenarios to try to monitor what you are like when you lie, then they make it intentionally uncomfortable, and yell at you if you get distracted…i have known people to take up to about 9 hours on one test, so yeah, i would say they have no place in a court of law…jeebuz…

thanks again!

By: azliza

azliza — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:05:25 +0000

This news was the very first thing I heard when my NPR-set alarm went off this morning- it was nice to wake up to good feminist news, for once. Although a bit late (federal Violence AGainst Women Act of 2005.. Virginia’s never been the brightest crayon in the box, no offense), I’m really

If you rape someone and then marry her, it doesn’t nullify the rape — in fact, it’s probably just going to provide an excuse for a lot more rape. This is, unfortunately, a standard practice in many cultures: “you made her unclean. you keep her now.” And if you are Phyllis Schlafly, of course, there is no such thing as raping a spouse. What was her gem of a quote? Oh yeah.. “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.”

This was a really great post, Cara. There’s nothing I could add that you haven’t touched on. Thanks for doing all the research for us =)