Anonymous on the case of lesbian girl charged with statutory rape.

[LadyHawkAZ]

10. 1) you asked what they were for, I answered

Is this really what statutory rape laws are meant to enforce?

Originally they were gender specific- male offender, female victim, because female virginity was marriage bait and destroying it ruined the girl's future chances, leaving her a potential burden on her family for life. The same-sex angle is a more modern twist. Nevada, for example, has separate ages of consent for hetero couples and same-sex couples, 16 and 18 respectively. As I said, effective, is it not? The principle is exactly the same, only the gendered basis has changed. The historical context is, I'm sure, readily available on Google- if not, it certainly was at the local library when I was a teen. Enjoy.

2) I said nothing whatsoever about pedophiles or rapists, and neither did the article. That's where your mind went, mine didn't. Obviously all people don't want to have sex all the time, but just as obviously these two young women DID at least some of the time, or there wouldn't be a case to debate. Stat rape laws as a general rule do not cover the same territory as rape laws. They are more for prosecuting consensual acts with teens. Kids under 12 or 13 (14 in some states iirc) are generally covered under child molestation laws, rape is covered by rape laws. Stat rape laws mainly cover consensual but underage acts, exactly like the one in the OP. They are not meant to keep teens from dating, they are meant to keep them from fucking. That's what the law is for. So yes, the law was intended to cover cases exactly like hers, and is being enforced exactly as written. Since I presume you're not trying to call Kaitlyn a pedophile rapist at the exact same time you're trying to call her prosecution an unfair one, this was a very bizarre and creepy red herring.