rape myths

[thechairmanmeow]

just been reading the 'rape myths busted' page the section some rapes are not as 'serious' as others got me thinking.

if a 15 year old girl and a 16 year old boy have consentual sex is that rape?

Technically a 15 year old cannot consent to sex as she is below the age of consent, but if the children are near in age (no more than 3 years) the CPS will not prosecute this as it would not be in the public interest. Similarly if the boy is also underage, or if the ages are the other way round.

The age of consent is to protect children from predatory child-rapists.

at the risk of sounding sophist here , 'not being in the public interest' doesnt stop it being technicaly rape?
as there is no clear violation , this can be seen as a less serious form of rape, or rape is simply the wrong word for it.

No it is not.

You could try reading the sexual offences act 2003

And additionally the CPS guidance that covers the situation you mention here

Child sex offences committed by children or young persons
Section 13 of the 2003 Act makes it an offence for a youth under 18 to have sexual activity with a child under 16, cause or incite a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity, engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child under or cause a child under 16 to watch a sexual act. These offences are punishable on indictment with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years. They are grave crimes for the purposes of section 24 Magistrates Courts Act 1980 and section 91 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Section 13 (2) (a) purports to restrict the maximum penalty on summary conviction to a maximum of 6 months imprisonment, although this should be read in the light of section 101 (2) Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to allow a Detention and Training Order of up to 24 months.

An offence is not committed if the child is over 13 but is under 16 and the youth has a reasonable belief that the child is 16 or over.

It should be noted that where both parties to sexual activity are under 16, then they may both have committed a criminal offence. However, the overriding purpose of the legislation is to protect children and it was not Parliaments intention to punish children unnecessarily or for the criminal law to intervene where it was wholly in appropriate. Consensual sexual activity between, for example, a 14 or 15 year-old and a teenage partner would not normally require criminal proceedings in the absence of aggravating features. The relevant considerations include:

the respective ages of the parties;
the existence and nature of any relationship
their level of maturity;
whether any duty of care existed;
whether there was a serious element of exploitation.

HTH.

It's not rape.

It is technically sexually activity with a minor but it will not be prosecuted in England & Wales. Can't remember about Scotland.

Basil the age under which a child is deemed incapable of consent is under 13.

Between 13 and 15 if the CPS did decide to prosecute for consensual sex, the charge would be sexual activity with a child or causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, as per the sex offences act 2003 here

Ah yes, sorry, careless wording there.

Lots of people think that there's something called "statutory rape" as well. This is an American concept AFAIK and doesn't exist in the UK.

So that was the point of your OP Chairmanmeow? To prove to the silly feminists that some rape is less serious than others?

Why don't you ask yourself why you are so emotionally invested in that idea?

FGS. Tut.

Yes, I think it's always best to be aware of what the law actually says before starting these types of thread.

no need to be arsey about it basil, as i said i was thinking about it, and diddnt want to sound sophist.
yes i would have won a grand victory for the mra's if it was found that a couple of words were badly put on the mumsnet myth-busted page! if you want to think thats why i'm here then go ahead basil.

it's interesting that 'statutory rape' is an american construct, i diddnt know that. and it's nice to know that the CPU take mitigating circumstances into account, it's clearly different when an adult has sex with a minor and when two kids who may well be very much in love have sex.

SQ, just to verify, you said 'no it's not' no, rape is not the right word for it, or no it's not rape?

I have explained in my previous posts, and also the links I have provided will clarify for you.

For further information you could do a search for threads about ken clarke's comment about some rape being more severe than other rape and the conversations at that time, they also explain this very fully.

Rape is rape. Rape is always serious. Some rapes are not "more serious" than others. Some have further aggravating circumstances like additional violence but the act of rape is the act of rape full stop. The law does not support an idea of differing severities of rape and the MN rape myths page is correct.

yes i remember what ken clarke said and the lash back

i agree with your second paragraf word for word, if my first senario isnt rape if it is, i dont.

what does "sophist" mean ?

Someone with a very slick argument that doesn't bear close analysis.
Think snake-oil salesperson or smoke and mirrors!

ok, thanks

The scenario in your OP is not considered to be rape in the UK.

I really think that if you are concerned about these matters it would be useful for you to read the relevant legislation.

The answer to your question is no chairman. The law doesn't consider it rape and the 16 year old wouldn't be prosecuted.

thank you SQ and cailin i'm pleased about that, when i was 17 i had sex with my girlfreind of 15, we had been dateing for 6 months and we lost our virginties to each other. i know i'm not a rapist but it's nice to know i cant be got on a technicality.

sq, your links are lenthy pages of text, i'm deslexic ( not an excuse) trawling through all that might be easy for you? i dont know. however, i'm not expecting to be told that i should have informed myself as to what the current leglislation is before starting a thread, ideas and facts get passed around on forums like this dont they?

as for what sophist means ,( not suggesting what has been said is wrong) how i ment it is a 'winnable but pointless argument'

Bloody hell I've just realised.

So does tht mean DS, who has just turned 13 can now legally consent to sex?

(As long as it's not with an older boy/ girl)

I would still be illegal in theory but in practice they would not prosecute if it were a cheerful consensual relarionship with a similarly aged peer. The risk factors they look at are posted upthread:

"The relevant considerations include:

the respective ages of the parties;
the existence and nature of any relationship
their level of maturity;
whether any duty of care existed;
whether there was a serious element of exploitation."

Also in the event of over 13s having a consensual sexual relationship it is unlikely that anyone would report it to anyone so the whole point is moot really.

Personally 13 seems terribly young to be having sex but when I was at school a couple of girls that age were and certainly at 14 - all with boys a similar age and I do think that prosecuting them (both presumably!) is not what the law is there for (and in fact it's stated that it's not what the law is there for).

No one is likely to report consensual sex between two teenagers to the police unless there was some genuine concern about the situation being abusive.

I am baffled as to where your idea that you could be "got" for rape on a technicality comes from chairmanmeow- how on earth would that happen? The only way it could happen would be if your former girlfriend suddenly decided to bring charges for some reason and even then it would be incredibly hard to prove. It's not like the police just swoop in one day and say "chairman, did you have sex with a 15 year old when you were 17?" and then haul you off to prison.

cailin, i'm not sitting here thinking the police are on their way, it's just something i was thinking about.