Talk:Rape
Contents |
[edit] The disempowering effect of expanding the definition of rape
People seem to think that it empowers people to have the definition of rape expanded, since they can seek the help of the government to combat exploitation. But I wonder if this could also be disempowering.
Suppose, for example, a law is passed that says that if you have one beer, you're unable to consent to sex. Then suppose a woman has a beer, has sex, and later says that the guy raped her. Yes, she's now been empowered to get a guy locked up who has sex with her under those circumstances. She's been empowered to have sex with a guy without taking any personal responsibility for that decision, as long as she's had a beer.
But she's been disempowered in that now, if that happens to her, she may consider herself a victim. She may think to herself, "I have no ability to stop a guy from having sex with me after I've had a beer, since that's rape, i.e. sex that happens against the victim's will." In other words, she tells herself that she's helpless to stop it, and therefore she feels less powerful, and more vulnerable to being victimized than she might have felt, if the definition of rape were narrower.
Taking personal responsibility can be empowering. To say, "I could have prevented this, but I made a bad decision" leaves open the possibility of learning from it and taking effective action unilaterally to prevent it from happening again. Otherwise, one has to lean on the government for protection. The government isn't very helpful in stopping rape and probably never will be, so that reliance will leave victims feeling perpetually unsafe and frustrated.
Victim-blaming works against organizing for political reform, since it shifts blame away from the government and those who control it. But it works in favor of getting people to take action on their own to prevent their becoming victims. Landmartian (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- What the fuck? Who are you even arguing against here? Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 14:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Probably the text they added to the article before leaving this on the talk page.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't notice that. Whut does "strong whiff of dried plant stalks" mean? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 16:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't notice that. Whut does "strong whiff of dried plant stalks" mean? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- Probably the text they added to the article before leaving this on the talk page.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also, have you ever even talked to a rape victim? (I kind of hope not, given how you would like to "empower" them by blaming them for their assault.) Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 14:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've talked to rape victims. Haven't we all, given how many rape victims are out there? Anyway, what I said above didn't come out very eloquently but my point is basically that in a lot of scenarios, there's more than one person contributing to the situation. RAINN says, "While you can never completely protect yourself from sexual assault, there are some things you can do to help reduce your risk of being assaulted." I was at a presentation at which a police officer was telling women how to avoid rape, and she said to act confident, look like you know exactly where you're going, have your car keys in your hand, etc. The whole point of her giving that advice is that if you behave in certain ways, it'll be less likely you'll get assaulted.
- So, what if someone doesn't follow that advice, and gets raped, when they wouldn't have, if they'd followed the advice? They can say, "My behavior had nothing to do with this rape, and therefore there is nothing I can change in my behavior to make a future rape less likely". That to me seems disempowering, because they're saying "I'm helpless" unless they're going to find some alternative way of combating sexual assault (e.g. becoming an anti-rape activist who actually comes up with policies that are effective at stopping rape). Or they can say, "My behavior may have contributed to making the rape more likely. Therefore, let me change my behavior." If changing the behavior is effective at stopping rape, then thinking that way and acting on it can be empowering (in that it makes them powerful to stop rape).
- Of course there's the counter-argument, "We shouldn't have to change our behavior; we should live in safe communities where police work has eradicated rape, and men should also be taught to refrain from rape." By that logic, schoolchildren shouldn't learn karate to try to stop bullies; instead, the teachers should keep an eye out for bullying, and people should be taught not to bully. Unfortunately, there's always some blind spot at any given moment where the teachers aren't watching (giving the bullies an opportunity to get in a few punches), and some kids will always bully even when they're told it's wrong, inconsiderate, etc.
- I probably should have introduced those thoughts about empowerment with reference to bullying rather than rape, since rape is a more politicized and emotionally charged topic. For example, feminists haven't gotten involved as much in talking about bullying, and tried to establish an orthodoxy of opinions about it, from which deviation would make on a misogynist.
- For example, if you tell a child, "Don't let them bully you; stick up for yourself!" no one will say that you're blaming the victim. But if you tell someone, "Take measures to make it less likely you'll get raped" then you're blaming the victim.
- The definition of "bullying" is also getting expanded lately, to include for instance talking trash about someone online. That too might be disempowering. Bullying is normally behavior that involves someone using physical force to block your path, or steal your lunch money, or give you a wedgie, or whatever. It's intrusive; you can't ignore it. Talking trash on the Internet, on the other hand, is behavior that you can ignore by blocking the person or whatever. But by calling that "bullying" we're possibly making kids think of it as something they're helpless to ignore.
- Any way of thinking that makes people think they're helpless, when in fact there is something they could have done to improve their situation, tends to be disempowering. That's the point I was trying to make. Landmartian (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Bullying hasn't been just "physical acts" for a long time now, and the attitude of "just ignore the words" is dangerous and leads fast to suicide, so stop that bullshit. Now. --Miekal 18:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- What's the alternative to saying "just ignore the words"? Punish people for what they post to Facebook? Usually what happens when free speech is infringed like that is that the rules end up getting used against the victims. E.g., a bullying victim will post "Joe is a bully" and Joe will report the bullying victim and get him in trouble for bullying him by writing that. One of the few tools the victim had with which to fight back and raise awareness of the problem was his words, and then that freedom gets taken away too. Landmartian (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence for that? ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- See for example Nancy E. Willard's Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: "The disinhibited environment of the Internet and other technologies appears to allow the targets of bullying more freedom to retaliate against their aggressors. A target of bullying at school who is physically smaller than the bully may feel more comfortable engaging in online retaliation, especially anonymous retaliation, than in-person retaliation. Also, in an online environment, the target does not have to face a group of supporting friends who might be surrounding the bully at school. . . . Unfortunately, students who retaliate against bullies online can be mistakenly perceived as the source of the problem. This can be especially true under circumstances where the original victimization left no tangible evidence, but the cyberbullying did. . . . It is also important for counselors, psychologists, and administrators responding to a report of cyberbullying to recognize that the student who is engaging in cyberbullying may be seeking to retaliate against a bully or use the Internet as a vehicle to gain sufficient social power over an in-school bully to get the face-to-face bullying to stop. Counselors and psychologists or administrators who receive reports of cyberbullying are likely to receive at least two different kinds of material: 'Put down' material created by a higher social status bully (power bully), either an aggressive bully or a social climber bully, who is targeting a lower status target. 'Get-back-at' material created by a lower social status target (a retaliator) attempting to turn the tables on a higher social status bully." Landmartian (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can't tell if rape apologist or just MRA...BlackProg (talk) 6:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- So your evidence is just someone else saying the same things as you. No actual examples. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 13:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Of course specific examples can't be used in the literature when kids are involved, due to their privacy rights. I don't consider myself an MRA for the same reason I don't consider myself a feminist: because, while the definition of these terms makes these movements sound pretty innocuous and even beneficial, they aren't actually doing much to help men and women at this time. In fact, their efforts are mostly counterproductive. With regard to being a rape apologist, I guess if you define rape broadly enough, I'm a rape apologist. But that goes for any term. If someone defines being a "murder apologist" so broadly that support for abortion counts as being a murder apologist, then they would probably consider a lot of RationalWikians murder apologists. These are just propaganda terms used to smear opponents. Landmartian (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- So what kinds of rape do you think are OK? Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Landmartian, when people accuse you of being a rape apologist you generally need to back away for a second and look at what you're saying, not double down on it--Miekal 18:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- For example, the kind of rape where a person says "yes" of their own free will but isn't enthusiastic enough about it, I would consider okay. I'm sure also at Conservapedia people would say to abortion rights supporters, "when people accuse you of being a murder apologist you generally need to back away for a second and look at what you're saying, not double down on it". Like all ad hominem arguments, it's a way of distracting from the arguments by focusing on the proponent. Landmartian (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- So if i Coerce a person into saying yes, it's not rape?--Miekal 18:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- An ad hominem argument is when you criticise an argument based on the person making it, not when you criticise a person based on the argument they're making. Why do you think it's OK to have sex with somebody who isn't enthusiastic about it? ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- An ad hominem argument is when you criticise an argument based on the person making it, not when you criticise a person based on the argument they're making. Why do you think it's OK to have sex with somebody who isn't enthusiastic about it? ωεαşεζόίď
- So if i Coerce a person into saying yes, it's not rape?--Miekal 18:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- For example, the kind of rape where a person says "yes" of their own free will but isn't enthusiastic enough about it, I would consider okay. I'm sure also at Conservapedia people would say to abortion rights supporters, "when people accuse you of being a murder apologist you generally need to back away for a second and look at what you're saying, not double down on it". Like all ad hominem arguments, it's a way of distracting from the arguments by focusing on the proponent. Landmartian (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Landmartian, when people accuse you of being a rape apologist you generally need to back away for a second and look at what you're saying, not double down on it--Miekal 18:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- So what kinds of rape do you think are OK? Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- Of course specific examples can't be used in the literature when kids are involved, due to their privacy rights. I don't consider myself an MRA for the same reason I don't consider myself a feminist: because, while the definition of these terms makes these movements sound pretty innocuous and even beneficial, they aren't actually doing much to help men and women at this time. In fact, their efforts are mostly counterproductive. With regard to being a rape apologist, I guess if you define rape broadly enough, I'm a rape apologist. But that goes for any term. If someone defines being a "murder apologist" so broadly that support for abortion counts as being a murder apologist, then they would probably consider a lot of RationalWikians murder apologists. These are just propaganda terms used to smear opponents. Landmartian (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- So your evidence is just someone else saying the same things as you. No actual examples. Wëäŝëïöïď
- Can't tell if rape apologist or just MRA...BlackProg (talk) 6:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- See for example Nancy E. Willard's Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: "The disinhibited environment of the Internet and other technologies appears to allow the targets of bullying more freedom to retaliate against their aggressors. A target of bullying at school who is physically smaller than the bully may feel more comfortable engaging in online retaliation, especially anonymous retaliation, than in-person retaliation. Also, in an online environment, the target does not have to face a group of supporting friends who might be surrounding the bully at school. . . . Unfortunately, students who retaliate against bullies online can be mistakenly perceived as the source of the problem. This can be especially true under circumstances where the original victimization left no tangible evidence, but the cyberbullying did. . . . It is also important for counselors, psychologists, and administrators responding to a report of cyberbullying to recognize that the student who is engaging in cyberbullying may be seeking to retaliate against a bully or use the Internet as a vehicle to gain sufficient social power over an in-school bully to get the face-to-face bullying to stop. Counselors and psychologists or administrators who receive reports of cyberbullying are likely to receive at least two different kinds of material: 'Put down' material created by a higher social status bully (power bully), either an aggressive bully or a social climber bully, who is targeting a lower status target. 'Get-back-at' material created by a lower social status target (a retaliator) attempting to turn the tables on a higher social status bully." Landmartian (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence for that? ωεαşεζόίď
- What's the alternative to saying "just ignore the words"? Punish people for what they post to Facebook? Usually what happens when free speech is infringed like that is that the rules end up getting used against the victims. E.g., a bullying victim will post "Joe is a bully" and Joe will report the bullying victim and get him in trouble for bullying him by writing that. One of the few tools the victim had with which to fight back and raise awareness of the problem was his words, and then that freedom gets taken away too. Landmartian (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Bullying hasn't been just "physical acts" for a long time now, and the attitude of "just ignore the words" is dangerous and leads fast to suicide, so stop that bullshit. Now. --Miekal 18:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Any way of thinking that makes people think they're helpless, when in fact there is something they could have done to improve their situation, tends to be disempowering. That's the point I was trying to make. Landmartian (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] "A few states in the US"
"A few states in the US, a handful of countries in Western civilization, and most Middle Eastern, African, and Asian countries make legal distinctions between rapes that happen when force or violence is involved, and other types of rape, including ones where the threats are psychological or emotional." Is it really only a few states in the U.S.?
Maine, for instance, makes a distinction between the less serious crime of "Unlawful sexual contact", in which "The other person has not expressly or impliedly acquiesced in the sexual contact", and the more serious crime of "gross sexual assault" in which "The other person submits as a result of compulsion", compulsion being "the use of physical force, a threat to use physical force or a combination thereof that makes a person unable to physically repel the actor or produces in that person a reasonable fear that death, serious bodily injury or kidnapping might be imminently inflicted upon that person or another human being."
New Hampshire laws says "A person is guilty of the felony of aggravated felonious sexual assault if such person engages in sexual penetration with another person under any of the following circumstances: (a) When the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force, physical violence or superior physical strength."
Florida law says "A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon a person 18 years of age or older without that person’s consent, under any of the circumstances listed in paragraph (e), commits a felony of the first degree"; those circumstances include stuff like "The offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force or violence likely to cause serious personal injury on the victim, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the present ability to execute the threat."
California law says "Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances . . . Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another."
New York has a similar law.
Pennsylvania has a similar law.
It might not be only a few states. It might be several. I haven't checked all fifty, though. Landmartian (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Use of force as an element of rape
A family member of mine says that when she was in college, she said no to a guy, and he had sex with her anyway. She says that she actually kinda wanted to have sex with him, but was worried about getting pregnant. She admitted that she could've stopped him if she'd really wanted to.
That's seems like the kind of case that would be considered rape under the FBI's definition but wouldn't be considered rape under military law or other federal law or under a lot of state laws. Consent was lacking, but it wasn't done by force because she had the upper hand with regard to that. She had the ability to successfully resist, but chose not to. Possibly that was because of the ambivalence she felt. She doesn't seem to be all that traumatized by what happened, but maybe that also has something to do with the fact it happened several decades ago, and the feared consequence (pregnancy) didn't happen.
I wonder what the philosophy behind these laws is, that makes it a more serious crime if the rape is accomplished by force. My guess is that it's because people figure the harm from rape is partly because (1) it happens against the person's will, which means the sex was contrary to their interests; (2) the person feels powerless to stop it; and (3) the rapist who uses force terrorizes potential victims in general.
In the case of sex that the person could've stopped from happening, probably they felt some ambivalence or apathy about it, or they would've made more of an effort to resist. Therefore, (1) it's only somewhat against their will, as opposed to completely against their will; and/or they're only slightly bothered or inconvenienced by the unwanted sex, as opposed to greatly bothered or inconvenienced by it. This means that the harm to the person's interests from the sex is probably less than in other cases. Also, (2) if the person has power to stop it, that means that the sense of violation and frustration at powerlessness is probably less. The person takes some personal responsibility for not having put forth an effort that would've successfully stopped the rapist. Because they perceive themselves to have control over the situation, there's less likely to be the same feelings of distress, although on the other hand they might feel some extra psychological pain from self-blame, regret, etc. that they wouldn't have felt if they'd put all the blame on the other person. Lastly, (3) the kind of assailant who tends to be more of a terror to the community is probably the kind whose victims lacked the ability to fight him off. If a potential victim knows "I can successfully prevent rape by fighting him off" that tends to be an antidote to fear.
That's my hypothesis, anyway. Hope I didn't offend anybody. Landmartian (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is a lot of words to justify the fact somebody still had sex with somebody after they said no. No Resistance doesn't matter, whether you might wanna doesn't matter, whether you only dont wanna cause you might get pregnant doesnt matter, all that does matter is you said no and they still said yes. --Miekal 21:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's a difference between justifying and acknowledging gradations of offense severity. For example, recognizing a difference between grand and petty larceny doesn't mean that petty larceny is being justified. A lot of state laws recognize the use of force as an aggravating factor in sexual assault (sexual assault being non-consensual sexual contact). So the question is, what was the philosophy of the law, and why is it changing, and should it change? I'm sure there are answers somewhere.. Landmartian (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see a difference between "I might wanna have sex with you, but i said no and you still had sex with me anyways" and "i said no and you still had sex with me anyways". The key factor is and always will be that person said no. IT doesn't matter if force was used or not. if you cannot understand this, then i don't understand you.--Miekal 21:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's still not very clear what you (Landmartian) are asking & does read rather like you're saying that having sex with somebody who doesn't really want it but doesn't actively resist isn't that bad (same goes for your edit to the article). If the point you're making is just this: "I wonder what the philosophy behind these laws is, that makes it a more serious crime if the rape is accomplished by force" - then the "philosophy" is the same as with any other violent crime: the more violence involved, the more severe the crime is considered. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 13:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- It also occurs to me that maybe some people who don't resist simply lack assertiveness. Perhaps they are as strongly opposed to what's happening as someone who did resist, but they're more shy about offering resistance.
- It's still not very clear what you (Landmartian) are asking & does read rather like you're saying that having sex with somebody who doesn't really want it but doesn't actively resist isn't that bad (same goes for your edit to the article). If the point you're making is just this: "I wonder what the philosophy behind these laws is, that makes it a more serious crime if the rape is accomplished by force" - then the "philosophy" is the same as with any other violent crime: the more violence involved, the more severe the crime is considered. Wèàšèìòìď
- I don't see a difference between "I might wanna have sex with you, but i said no and you still had sex with me anyways" and "i said no and you still had sex with me anyways". The key factor is and always will be that person said no. IT doesn't matter if force was used or not. if you cannot understand this, then i don't understand you.--Miekal 21:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's a difference between justifying and acknowledging gradations of offense severity. For example, recognizing a difference between grand and petty larceny doesn't mean that petty larceny is being justified. A lot of state laws recognize the use of force as an aggravating factor in sexual assault (sexual assault being non-consensual sexual contact). So the question is, what was the philosophy of the law, and why is it changing, and should it change? I'm sure there are answers somewhere.. Landmartian (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think there's a larger, more general question here to address, which is what makes one crime more severe than another, and what makes one crime deserving of harsher punishment than another? That involves getting into sentencing theories such as retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation. Are violent rapists more dangerous than other kinds of sexual assailants, which would justify a harsher sentence in order to incapacitate them from committing other crimes? Does punishing violent rape more harshly deter people from committing a particularly harmful kind of rape?
- At this point, we leave the realm of philosophy somewhat to enter the field of science, because then questions arise such as whether there's evidence that violent rape is more harmful, or that these offenders are more dangerous, or that the harsher punishments are an effective deterrent. What factors contribute to trauma and other harms from rape, and do different kinds of rapes have varying degrees of those traumatogenic factors? This is the kind of analysis that goes into drafting sentencing guidelines and other public policies (e.g. statutory maximums). Landmartian (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Where is this going? Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- In a million different directions, since it's an open-ended inquiry. If you follow it far enough, it'll eventually return to philosophy, though. Landmartian (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Where is this going? Щєазєюіδ
- At this point, we leave the realm of philosophy somewhat to enter the field of science, because then questions arise such as whether there's evidence that violent rape is more harmful, or that these offenders are more dangerous, or that the harsher punishments are an effective deterrent. What factors contribute to trauma and other harms from rape, and do different kinds of rapes have varying degrees of those traumatogenic factors? This is the kind of analysis that goes into drafting sentencing guidelines and other public policies (e.g. statutory maximums). Landmartian (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Rape as moral panic:Birth of a Nation
I recently removed the category moral panic from cyber bullying, arguing it's a sufficiently common occurrence, as demonstrated by Gamergate. Isn't the fear of rape the single most common moral panic? Rape is the crime accused of random black men as propagated in the American south following the American civil war, and in films like Birth of a Nation. Fear of marauding armies of rapists created fear of Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, and pretty much every single war in history up until Vietnam when military rapes of the enemy dramatically decreased and the rape of female soldiers in ones own army rose. The penis stealing accused of witches was presumably a form of rape fear, unless castration is something other than sexual violence aka rape. Any thoughts? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Flattering aspects of rape, and the bad boy mystique
This article notes that part of why so many women find rape fantasies appealing is because of the concept of being so unbelievably desirable that a guy would take them at any cost. I wonder if that applies to real-life rapes at all, and helps mitigate or counter-balance some of the psychological pain of rape? As a side note, I wonder if these fantasies have something to do with the "bad boy" mystique, in that rape is one more way in which a guy shows a willingness to play by his own rules rather than by anyone else's. Rather than erring on the side of boring predictability, he would tend to do what he wants even at great risk, which they might find exciting. Landmartian (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jesus H Christ. Please just stop. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 01:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I can actually argue this case using decent references and without encouraging rape. The boddice ripper is a romance sub genre.[1] And yes, romance novels can affect peoples view on sex.[2] The romance genre, including the boddice rippers, are mostly written for and by women.[3]31-57 percent of women in one peer reviewed psychological study reported rape fantasies.[4]Presumably this study only used women above a certain age, and science will never ask children if they have rape fantasies, because that's illegal, unlike all the other psychological experiments that were subjected to children.[5]keep in mind a teenage girl watching twilight and writing fan fiction about it, is probably legally imagining statuary rape regardless of whether or not her fantasy involves force; even if that same fantasy held by a woman over 18 would not be a rape fantasy.
Fantasy rape is like the name suggests, a fantasy, where you are in complete control, just pretending not to always be in control; unlike real rape where you are not in control. A controlled sexual fantasy of powerlessness takes away the guilt conditioned by sexually repressive societies like Victorian England or Mormon America.
There also exist dominatrices that don't want monetary payment; I've yet to find a good source on how common a fantasy femdom is for men and women though, or how many amateur dominatrices do it just for love and not as a job. Here's one dominatrix's account of her job doing fantasy phone sex and how under-reported fetishes probably are[6]. Does anyone have a more scientific study on dominatrices? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Children under 14 and statutory rape
This article says that when someone has sex with children under 14, they're charged under "child molestation" statutes. I don't think that's true; I think most of the state laws don't call it "child molestation" but have a clause defining sex with those children as rape in the same rape statute that criminalizes forcible rape of adults. Usually the statute also establishes increased penalties for that kind of rape. The term "child molestation" is more of a colloquial term rather than a legal term.
When the sex is with an older teenager who is still below whatever age they need to be in order for adults to legally have sex with them, it's often not called "statutory rape" but simply "carnal knowledge" of an underage person. Landmartian (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)