So a child can give consent to sex? Thats why its rape if its a child reguardless. Because a child does not have the mental abilities to fully process what is going on. Its the same reason we say kids shouldn't be allowed transitions. They can be manipulated or dont know the full extent of the consequences yet because they are children. Also why children are charged differently depending on the crime.
So yes its forced sex because the child can not consent to it due to them being so young and not having that level of autonomy yet. Thus it is rape. There is the case of like 2 or 3 years age difference that can get tricky (i.e. 16yo gf 18yo bf) but thats not a teacher sleeping with a student. Thats adult and minor with power dynamics in play.
You missed my point. Legally, a violent forcible rape is different from statutory rape, with different definitions and penalties, precisely because there is a real difference: physical violence is qualitatively different from either seduction or coercion.
I don't pretend to know any details of this case beyond what the article says, nor am I justifying the teacher. I'm just saying we should have different conversational terms to describe the different situations.
I see what you mean, my apologies if I came off hostile I am just very passionate on this topic and I can come off harsh. But yes, there is a legal difference in statutory vs non statutory. However the basic definition of rape is as follows.
"The crime of using force or the threat of force to compel a person to submit to sexual intercourse."
Force isn't just violence. Force has a few definitions as well
"To compel through pressure or necessity."
Or
"To gain by the use of force or coercion."
So the teacher being an adult and a teacher aka authority over a child/minor and student. Coerced (seduced) him into sexual acts as a minor who is unable to give consent because of his minor status. Thus that is rape. That is why its just one term in this.
Now the statutory is the legal modifier for the way treating case is handled because it presumes the child/minor can not consent even if they are a willing participant. Violence is not a modifier for rape, though violent rape should also be charged with other assault and violence charges.
I hope that helps some. Its mt best understanding of it with some quick searches to make sure I was not way off in my thoughts haha.
Edit: my reasoning for not wanting to split the definition of rape of violent vs not is because the act itself if 1 violent. And 2 does that mean someone who is on a date and gets forced upon in a car or something where no blood is spilled but its still not wanted or consented is rape, then does that mean the charges should be less for that rape? I don't think so and id hope and think you don't either. If in conversation. Mention its violent or not. But legally it should be handled and charged all the same. Otherwise the victim who is inflicted with the same traumas regardless of the violence or not will not get the same level of justice for that trauma. Rape is traumatic regardless. And that's my personally I don't make a distinction of violent or not. Because to me its all violent.
Actual laws generally reflect the morality of society. But news and propaganda work hard to twist the definitions, to push society where it shouldn't go.
And having witnessed the bizarre (and very anti-male, everything from "all sex is rape" to expelling guys because a consenting woman regretted her consent a few weeks later) definitions cultivated on college campuses, I'm sensitive on the topic too.
Yeah, we should have different words for this type of abuse. Rape implies forced sex without consent, which this wasn't.
So a child can give consent to sex? Thats why its rape if its a child reguardless. Because a child does not have the mental abilities to fully process what is going on. Its the same reason we say kids shouldn't be allowed transitions. They can be manipulated or dont know the full extent of the consequences yet because they are children. Also why children are charged differently depending on the crime.
So yes its forced sex because the child can not consent to it due to them being so young and not having that level of autonomy yet. Thus it is rape. There is the case of like 2 or 3 years age difference that can get tricky (i.e. 16yo gf 18yo bf) but thats not a teacher sleeping with a student. Thats adult and minor with power dynamics in play.
You missed my point. Legally, a violent forcible rape is different from statutory rape, with different definitions and penalties, precisely because there is a real difference: physical violence is qualitatively different from either seduction or coercion.
I don't pretend to know any details of this case beyond what the article says, nor am I justifying the teacher. I'm just saying we should have different conversational terms to describe the different situations.
I see what you mean, my apologies if I came off hostile I am just very passionate on this topic and I can come off harsh. But yes, there is a legal difference in statutory vs non statutory. However the basic definition of rape is as follows.
"The crime of using force or the threat of force to compel a person to submit to sexual intercourse."
Force isn't just violence. Force has a few definitions as well
"To compel through pressure or necessity."
Or
"To gain by the use of force or coercion."
So the teacher being an adult and a teacher aka authority over a child/minor and student. Coerced (seduced) him into sexual acts as a minor who is unable to give consent because of his minor status. Thus that is rape. That is why its just one term in this.
Now the statutory is the legal modifier for the way treating case is handled because it presumes the child/minor can not consent even if they are a willing participant. Violence is not a modifier for rape, though violent rape should also be charged with other assault and violence charges.
I hope that helps some. Its mt best understanding of it with some quick searches to make sure I was not way off in my thoughts haha.
Edit: my reasoning for not wanting to split the definition of rape of violent vs not is because the act itself if 1 violent. And 2 does that mean someone who is on a date and gets forced upon in a car or something where no blood is spilled but its still not wanted or consented is rape, then does that mean the charges should be less for that rape? I don't think so and id hope and think you don't either. If in conversation. Mention its violent or not. But legally it should be handled and charged all the same. Otherwise the victim who is inflicted with the same traumas regardless of the violence or not will not get the same level of justice for that trauma. Rape is traumatic regardless. And that's my personally I don't make a distinction of violent or not. Because to me its all violent.
No worries.
Actual laws generally reflect the morality of society. But news and propaganda work hard to twist the definitions, to push society where it shouldn't go.
And having witnessed the bizarre (and very anti-male, everything from "all sex is rape" to expelling guys because a consenting woman regretted her consent a few weeks later) definitions cultivated on college campuses, I'm sensitive on the topic too.