why is this a common story?

Post Reply New Topic

There's many reasons.
Actually assault happens more than you realize, it just isn't always reported.
These particular crimes are photographed and posted online, that's why you are hearing about them more. If they were never photographed and posted on the internet, you wouldn't hear about it on the news as often.
Assaults tend to happen when people are left on their own and no one is around, like kids at a party without any adults and since so many parents both work more and more, kids are left home alone more, they drink, do drugs, they don't have good judgment. This is what can happen.

Parents stay home with your kids more and teach them there's more to life than the party and the phone pics and video posted to Facebook and Youtube. That would halt a lot of it.

And the reason they commit suicide afterward more is obvious. If you had your very personal business all over the internet, not posted by you and people taunted you everyday, called you hideous names and you felt alone and like there was no way out, you would probably feel like dying everyday, too.

But I have NOT made such statements. I NEVER said a 14 year old bore some responsibility for being raped. All I ever said a 14 year old was responsible for in a hypothetical situation is making herself present at a certain place and time in which certain activities and behaviors were more likely to put her at risk. I didn't suggest she was at fault for getting raped. There is a difference. You appear to be purposefully misrepresenting my statements. If you're having to make personal attacks against me and deliberately misrepresent my statements, then you're certainly not interested in an honest discussion.

I hold her parents more responsible than her. Wouldn't it be great if parents were actually expected to be parents?

Absolutely.

We had a discussion on parenting styles earlier, which LKL and I seem to be at odds on the ideal parenting style. My contention is that every parent has to go with a parenting style that both suits them (comes naturally) as parents AND gets the desired behaviors from the children. LKL seems to think that a strict style by default CAUSES rebellion rather than curbs it; I say it all really depends on the child.

Certainly, an overly strict household can breed resentment. But my kids (at 6 and 4) are reminded pretty much on a daily basis that 1) my bark is worse than my bite; 2) there are REASONS why we do things the ways we do them; 3) We (as parents) trust those who show they can be trusted and freedom and freedom must be earned through responsible behavior; and 4) Please, PLEASE do NOT push dad, or you'll get more bite than bark--and you do NOT want to go there (we believe in spankings as a last resort punishment). My kids already get to do pretty much whatever they want to do, but they know where the boundaries are and have no desire to push them. For the time being it's fear of consequences. The goal is as they grow older that the motivation for good behavior move from being extrinsic (don't want a spanking) in intrinsic (doing the right thing for its own sake). We don't do a whole lot of rewards as a motivational strategy, and I think my kids are starting to figure out that being a good kid is its own reward. You don't necessarily HAVE to be a strict parent to get those results, nor am I saying that spanking HAS to be in the parental repertory; but you DO have to clearly communicate expectations.

I live by two rules when it comes to parenting: 1) Have few rules, enforce all, 2) Be firm, fair, and consistent. I Suppose there's a third rule: 3) Never make a rule you can't break. The first two rules are, in my opinion, self-evident. The third one is tricky, but the point is it is impossible to enforce ALL rules in EVERY situation.

There'd have to be some kind of extreme circumstances to warrant sneaking out in the middle of the night, and at the moment I can't imagine what those might be. We as parents still have to ask the question WHY a kid would do that. And if there isn't any kind of good reason behind extreme behavior, then it is our duty to make sure those behavioral patterns don't get started in the first place. In my view, if that means keeping a teenager under lock and key until they reach adulthood, I'm willing to go there. As it is, my youngest two spend practically their entire days with me. We have a bond that I don't think many kids have with their parents. They HAVE to do what they're told, which at worst means my 4 year old WILL practice piano for an hour every day (how many 4 year olds do you personally know who play piano?). Same goes for my 6 year old as soon as he gets out of school. I think because we are all so close and work closely together, we'll avoid a lot of those issues when they get closer to adulthood.

An acquaintance of mine was one of those "good girl" types who was in church every time the doors open, she still doesn't cuss, get drunk, and she consistently reads her Bible and participates in Bible studies every week, etc. Raised her daughter pretty much the same way. Her daughter is a recent college grad and decided to be a big girl and move out on her own. Her parents agreed to co-sign on an apartment rental IF the daughter agreed to live within a certain lifestyle. So time passes, she meets some boy, she quits the two good-paying jobs she had, and took a job on the coast that doesn't pay as well with a company known to treat entry-level employees like dirt. The parents stopped paying her rent, signed the car title completely over to her, stopped paying her insurance, and basically told her she's cut off as long as she insists on living with her boyfriend in his mom's house, drinking and partying away all her money, and doing all sort of things her parents disapprove of. Things were rockin' and rollin' ok for a few months, and now the girl is crying to her parents that her job makes her work on weekends and she never has any money. Aw...boo-hoo. Baby has to grow up and take responsibility for herself. Wow...what a concept!

I don't care if the kid is 15 or 35. Parents are NOT obligated to tolerate bad behavior, and I've NEVER understood how it is parents have come to be afraid of their kids to the point they won't stick it to them when the occasion calls for it. You don't HAVE to let the kid go out at night. You don't HAVE to give the kid the privilege of a car. If I have, say, a 14 year old who is raking in 5 and 6 figures a year, is capable of making grown-up decisions or is at least wise enough to listen to SMART people, and is perfectly capable of living outside our home, then who am I to tell them they can't live independently? Actually, I'd love it if they did. But all that depends on whether the kid is CAPABLE of independent living and working. If I have a rebellious kid at that age, the kid only has two options: 1) Change your behavior, or 2) Age out. Demonstrate on a consistent basis you can be responsible with freedom and you'll get freedom. Act like a whiny, know-it-all brat and you'll get treated like a little kid who can't handle living on his own.

It's not all that difficult. Again, you don't have to be "hard" or "strict," but you do have to get results. It baffles me that parents often just give up. My kids would REALLY have to push it for me to give up. They HAVE pushed me in the past, it's trying on the nerves, but they haven't broken me yet and at this point I doubt they even can.

And, yes, the parents are largely responsible. It's the nature of what we are that makes us responsible when awful things happen to our children that WE could have prevented by at least making sure our kids stay where they're supposed to be at whatever given time.

But, Ana, think about this, too: It's not just our job to keep kids in line to keep them from going to wild drinking/drug parties where there is a strong chance that someone is going to be forced to have sex with all the disgusting details being posted to Facebook. It's also our job to make sure our kids aren't forcing other kids to have sex with them, that our kids aren't initiating the parties, that our kids don't have access to drugs and alcohol. LKL and I are discussing finer points of situations that breed crimes and we disagree strongly on some of those finer points; however, LKL and I both agree (right, LKL?) that it is a HUGE problem that boys somehow think they can get away with exploiting young girls and women. Part of the ugliness, and a large part in rapes going unreported, is that society instantly jumps to the conclusion that the girl is a slut, wore the wrong clothes, and is somehow responsible for MAKING boys do awful things to her against her will. Boys who exploit young girls in that way do so because they honestly believe they can get away with it, and that is driven by the fact that a lot of these boys are born into privilege and somehow think they are entitled to whatever they want at any time. Yes, we need to keep our young girls at home or at least make ourselves aware of where they are at all times and what they are doing while they're out. That will go a long way to reducing the risk of rape. But we need to address the attackers as well. We as parents are doing something horribly wrong if we allow our boys to think they can get away with these kinds of things.

I'd tell my own kids that they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don't end up in jail--which means DON'T FREAKIN' COMMIT CRIMES. You end up in jail, I'm not bailing you out. If you so much as touch a girl and she cries rape, it's your fault for getting too close. What's going on with boys who get away with it is parents allow them to think they can and otherwise encourage the behavior. You're going to have rape so long as boys think they can stick their penises in whatever warm, moist hole they can find. Make them understand they CANNOT do that without extremely unpleasant consequences, and you'll do away with most of the crimes LKL is talking about being committed.

The whole "do what you want, just don't go to jail" attitude isn't going to do so well in this area. Since most rapes never get reported, and few of those that are reported end up with the agressor being convicted (which does not even mean jail time in some cases), then they can feel pretty secure that they won't go to jail for it.

You seem to have a somewhat skewed view on the amount of control a parent has with their teens. I certainly agree that their odds are better with good parenting, but good parenting quickly becomes overshadowed by the influence of their friends as they get older. You can go ahead and try to regulate their friends, but I think the odds are not in your favor when you forbid a teenager from hanging out with someone.

That is right. 6% of reported cases get convictions and 56% of cases that go to trial (which are only the cases that the prosecutor feels have enough evidence for a trial) result in convictions. Just a little over half of cases going to trial and getting a conviction seems impressive to you? I personally think that it shows just how dismissive our court system is of sexual assault.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 21 Nov 2013, 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

You can talk about how parenting will protect your children, but you may have missed a few stats I posted:

38% of victims were raped by a friend or acquaintance,
28% by someone "intimate,"
7% by a relative
26% by a stranger to the victim.

40% happen in the victim's own home.

Keeping your kids away from parties and locked in your home can only do so much, no matter how effective you are at controlling your teenager.

I can't believe some men need to be taught to not rape. Are they really that stupid? Who doesn't understand that no means no and if a woman doesn't want sex, don't make her have it. How hard is that to understand? Now it needs to be taught? What's next? Being taught how to not kill people or rob a bank?

It's not that. I mean, MAYBE. But I've also pointed out that convictions are won based on evidence. You have to give everyone a fair trial. It's easy to get the evidence if it's a particularly violent and senseless crime, not so much if a woman is raped by, say, her husband over the course of their marriage. Also, in terms of how we deal with court cases, YES, we do have to rely on legal definitions. Rape might be rape, it might even be wrong...but it might not always be prosecutable. And that's not me relating a dismissive attitude or saying rape is excusable, it's just a look at reality. The fact that over half of cases that do go to trial result in a conviction is a good sign that at least we've made that much progress. I don't doubt we have a long way to go, but for the sake of this thread I think our failures are being exaggerated.

LKL said something else that she, for some strange reason, believes we disagree on (and I even mentioned this myself in an earlier post): Just ONE rape is one rape too many. Bad enough that, but to stand in the way of justice as a society is an even worse tragedy. If the majority of folks really are perpetuating this mess, then I'm afraid there's not a thing we can do about it until the collective consciousness changes its mind.

The thing that's tough about the whole discussion is the difficulty in discussing it objectively. I've been labeled a bad guy here for standing up for equal justice under the law, particularly in the area of keeping the justice system fair toward both victims and the accused. We can't assume that every person who gets accused of rape really is guilty of it. Is it possible at all that the other half of cases that do go to trial, at least in part, are not acquitted because of lack of evidence, but possibly because no crime was committed? I'm pulling for the side of the innocent, here. I can't help it if being objective makes me look like a jerk, but often times objective reality is not "kind" or "fair" the way we think maybe it should be--nor is what is "fair" according to one person or group of people the same measure of "fair" to others. Accusing me of being a jerk is not going to keep wrongly convicted people out of prisons or from being scarlet-lettered for the rest of their lives. I mean, just look at the court of public opinion when someone is merely accused of something. Anything. Casey Anthony. We all believe without a doubt she did the deed, but the prosecution failed to get a conviction. Not once has anyone even remotely considered that maybe she's not guilty of a crime, at least not any crimes she was on trial for? (She WAS found guilty, just not of the crime they really wanted to nail her for). From what I understand she's had to have a complete identity change in order to just survive. And any time a man is accused of rape--even if he didn't do it, and even if a trial demonstrates that he didn't do it or that prosecution is unable to prove it--his life is pretty much over because all people will ever see is a rapist.

We ASSUME that in cases like Alabama that sex was not consensual. We ASSUME there is no possible way this girl could be playing the alleged rapist. We ASSUME that this man is some sort of evil pervert, and without evidence or some modicum of objectivity, ASSUME that this guy deserved more in terms of punishment than he got. How is this being objective, non-judgmental, or fair? What if I'm a happily married man with three or more kids and crazy-b!+ch from my past shows up and accuses me of rape for all of two nights we were together, and she's the one who initiated sex? And we were both adults at the time? I work for a church, so the first thing to go would be my job. I think my marriage is strong enough and that my wife knows my history well enough we could survive something off-the-wall as that, but it's not like being unemployable wouldn't take its toll on other areas of our relationship. And my kids would have to live with what other parents or kids would have to say to them or how they'd treat them differently.

I can concede that we need to do a better job. But we cannot afford any kind of changes that compromise due process and unnecessarily ruin the lives of the innocent.

BTW, a distant relative of mine was arrested for rape. It happened during a party where heavy drinking was involved, and he and the girl slipped away to do what they wanted to do. It was completely out of character for this guy to engage in any kind of violent behavior, much less take advantage of a girl and do something she didn't want to do. Trouble is, they got caught by her father. So in order to protect herself, she threw my cousin under the bus and accused him of raping her, just because SHE didn't want to get in trouble. The sad thing is my cousin didn't have a leg to stand on. The girl finally came to her senses and begged her dad to drop the charges.

It's not that simple, though. "Yes" can magically turn into "no" after the fact. "Yes" might be a "no" due to age restrictions." "Yes" might turn into a "no" when a guy dumps a girl for her best friend or her sister. "Yes" might turn into a "no" because the girl's puppy died.

I think most men would find it common sense to understand "no means NO." My wife doesn't have a problem letting me have sex with her when she's not in the mood, but quite frankly I get no personal enjoyment from that. I might get off on it, but I end up just feeling weird afterwards. I just don't enjoy having sex with someone who doesn't want to or isn't interested...or is just doing it to be nice to me. It's just as bad as rape even if my partner doesn't care, and a straight-up "NO" is something I'm ok with. It's not that men can't take "no" for an answer. It's that a "yes" doesn't always remain a "yes."

There is a VERY simple solution to all this: Just don't have sex. And that applies equally to guys and gals. If a guy simply doesn't have sex, he won't leave evidence, no crime was committed, and if he faces false allegations, it's a slam dunk for the defense.

It's not about "teaching guys to take no for an answer." They shouldn't have to be taught. However, there are people who will try to get away with pretty much anything if they can. I could tell my son, "don't have sex, but if you do, 'no means no.'" There you go, I've done my manly duty and instructed my son. But if he sneaks off, buys vodka and some date-rape drug, whatever it was I supposedly "taught" him isn't going to do one bit of good. It's more than just "teaching." Kids have to be monitored. Parents have to know what they're doing, who they're with, where they are, etc., and parents have to be able to say "NO" just as forcefully--and make it stick. As it is, parents of rapists (teenage boys) are complicit in their actions by not actively preventing their boys from acting that way in the first place. They won't be raping young girls as long as parents are watching. Teaching isn't enough...parents MUST keep up with their kids.

All that can change after kids reach adulthood, but hopefully by then if a boy hasn't started raping girls, he probably never will. If he just feels that much of a need to rape women, he's free to do so. He's also free to face a conviction if he does it. But by that point it's out of the parents' hands and the penalties will be more severe.

But my point is at least incidences like Maryville could be eliminated from the list. No, it doesn't stop a stranger from breaking into your house and doing what he wants with your daughter.

This stat fascinates me:


I can't see any easy solution for that one. I mean, is it rape if a married woman doesn't really want to have sex but goes along with it so her husband will leave her alone? Even if she could say no, probably should say no, and choose not to refuse sex? Is it rape if a woman gets bored and could think of a million things she'd rather be doing? I mean, if this is what passes for rape, then I'd bet the vast majority of men qualify as rapists.

It's going to be next to impossible to prove something like that being rape. I mentioned before a close friend of mine was repeatedly raped by her bf over the course of about a year and a half. She didn't report it as rape because she knew good and well she couldn't prove it. She only took him to court to make him leave her alone after she broke up with him the SECOND time. Maybe she was unable to get justice for being raped, but at the very least she got her life back. The only way a woman could prove something like that is by changing the status of the rapist from "intimate" to not. "She does NOT want to be with you, please go away." She would THEN have to allow herself to be raped or worse (not to imply something worse than rape, just perhaps being beaten or injured in addition to rape), and have two or three friends on standby to either catch the act and call the cops or otherwise stop it from happening if it seems her life is in danger. At that point, the evidence should be ironclad and little to no chance of the attacker posing a plausible defense.

But you see what has to happen, right? It's a setup--not entrapment, but a citizen-initiated sting op. It also requires the victim to be violated AGAIN after having been tormented enough. It just comes down to how bad does the woman really want this guy to go away and to what lengths she's willing to go to make it happen.

And for anyone else reading this, I wouldn't dare suggest anyone ACTUALLY PULL A STUNT LIKE THIS. This is HYPOTHETICAL, and only an attempt to show one possible way of exacting vengeance through the legal system. There is no guarantee that it would work, nor do I believe it's necessarily the smartest thing anyone can do. I just see it as the most effective way to get it done that a victim MIGHT have available, and I'm open to better ways of doing things. This is not an unusual pattern in pursuing other criminals, so HYPOTHETICALLY it seems to me an effective way to go about it. I'm not 100% certain the risks are worth taking here, so PLEASE don't think I'd actually expect anyone to try it. I'm only speaking from my limited perspective, and I actually welcome criticism and being proven wrong when it pertains to things like this.

I'm spending WAY too much time responding, so I'm sorry if I'm having trouble keeping up. That's my own fault, I know, and I'll try to do better. I'm not avoiding issues...rather, I'm just not seeing them.

I don't think I have a skewed view on the amount of control parents actually have. I don't think that parents exercise or realize just how much control they really have. They don't do enough, and they make up excuses for not doing enough. I'm not crazy about a lot of things I hear on Dr. Phil or Supernanny back when I watched those shows, but they are dead on when it comes to a lot of parenting issues. Not ALL parenting issues, but many. I disagree with Supernanny when it comes to spanking, but I agree with the reasons she gives for avoiding spanking--that is, it is overused and, just as with any overused method of punishment, loses its effectiveness. I can't remember the last time I spanked one of my own children, and there is a good reason I haven't spanked them: Other disciplinary methods have worked well enough I haven't felt the need to. My kids get plenty of threats, but very little follow through. They know how to act, so the frequency of punishment has greatly diminished to next to nothing in recent months. That can all change in an instant, and kids can forget things like that. So spanking kids is not yet out of our repertory. It's just unnecessary at this point in time, for which I am grateful.

Dr. Phil's attitude has often been that parents have no faith in what they can actually do to their kids, especially teenagers. I've heard parents on that show say "We can't just take away their car keys." Dr. Phil's response has invariably been "Why NOT??? Yes, you CAN!" Or, "We can't just put bars on their windows." Um, yes, you CAN. My attitude is if a child is capable of owning and maintaining a vehicle, can pay their own rent, buy their own food, water, and clothing, and afford basic necessities or comforts, they deserve to be out on their own. If they don't NEED me anymore, what's the point in my forcing them to hang around? If my kid could do all that at 13 years old, I'd be fine with that. Why wouldn't I be? Go with my blessing, start your own business, make a lot of money--oh, and pick me out a good nursing home, ok? We emphasize independence within careful boundaries and we get strict if our kids are being brats. Being a brat doesn't show me you can take care of yourself, so guess what? I'm going to treat you like you're 4 years old, and I don't care if you're 12.

14 year olds are in that weird no-man's land in which you don't know if the girl is more interested in 1 Direction or Barbie dolls. If my daughter is 14 years old, practices piano for 2 hours a day without me prompting her, does her share of the chores around the house, completes her homework in a timely and neat fashion, and acts grown up, you better believe I'm going to include her in making grown up decisions around the house. Heck, I might even give her responsibilities in running my business and let HER tell ME what I can do to improve. If her response to everything I have to say is "That's not fair, I hate you Daddy" then I'm going to assume that I'm not getting the 28 year old version but the 4 year old version and I'm going to treat her like a 4 year old. The 28 year old is welcome to come back any time.

If I have a 15 year old or 16 year old who acts like a 4 year old, I'm going to assume they do not have the maturity to responsibly handle a motor vehicle on public streets and highways. If they're acting like a mature 28-35 adult, I'll be more willing to take that risk with them. If you're my child and you can't handle that before you legally reach adulthood, beyond which there's nothing I can do, then sure, you'll be locked away in the highest room in the tallest tower above the dragon's keep. Hopefully my children will understand that childhood and teenage years will only be as pleasant as THEY allow it to be, and I'll do what it takes to keep them safe through that time.

Beyond that time, what? Do I stop caring about my children because now they CAN run away and there's nothing I can do? No. But I'm not enabling them, either. Mess with me, and you'll be lucky to keep the shirt on your back. The car is mine, get your own. I'm not cosigning for an apartment. I'm not getting you any loans. I'm not getting any loans, PERIOD, but I'm certainly not giving you anything to encourage your bad behavior. If that's what you want to do, find someone who will put you up long enough for you to work enough to buy your own car and save up enough money for a deposit on an apartment. Of course, that means you CAN'T drink and party your money away or spend it on a bum gf or bf. It means...omigoodness...you have to be RESPONSIBLE. Wow...what a concept! So even if I can't get my meathooks into you, I can still steer you in a direction that forces you to grow up or dig your own way out of your own mess. You can come crawling home any time, but you will do EXACTLY AS I SAY until you really can make it on your own with minimal help from me. Not because I enjoy controlling you, not because I have trouble letting go, but because I know from experience (and my own screwups) what's really best. Because I care about you and want you to have it better than I did. I can help you learn that in a low-risk (but not no-risk) environment, but you have to be willing to accept my help. I can't help you any other way.

Yes, I CAN forbid a teenager to hang out with someone. Idiot bf waiting outside with the car? She makes a break for it? No problem. I call the cops and report him for kidnapping. I've known people who got locked away for statutory rape when no rape occurred. First, the girl is protecting a guy she thinks she "loves," so she's incapable of reliable testimony in the first place. The fact that they were alone together and can be proven to have been alone together is enough to get a conviction for statutory. You wanna protect your idiot bf? Stay away from him.

I can't control who my kids hang out with at school? Well, first, I get to pick what school they attend and by default get to pick their friends based on that fact. But if I still find it to be a problem, we'll homeschool. I don't have a steady job-job right now and we're making it just fine. You'll get me all day, all the time. One way or the other, we're going to work this out.

I'm not saying that I'm GOING to do all that... That's going to an extreme. I'm just saying that I'm willing to go there IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES to change the behavior. I also don't care about being a control freak in my kids' lives. I'm not a control freak. It has nothing to do with that, but everything to do with what their behavior warrants from me. I just care about my kids and want the best from AND for them. If I have to expend little to get much from them, GREAT. PERFECT. That's what we want. I'm comfortable with going a little bit above and beyond as various situations call for it. Going all the way out for extreme behavioral problems is NOT my idea of fun and might even make me a little crazy in the end. But it's worth my sanity IF I've kept my kids safe for as long as I'm physically and legally able. The problem is most parents in general aren't REALLY willing to go there despite talking a good game, and I'd say in this day and time the vast majority of THOSE parents really have no clue as to what boundaries they really can set and enforce with their children and teenagers.

These kids probably know better when they are sober but when they get in situations where they are impaired by drugs or alcohol they don't make good choices and the stupid part of their brains take over. It's like they don't even know what they are doing add to that there's an entire group of them egging each other on, taking pictures, encouraging each other to act stupider and stupider. That's basically what it is.

First a simple question, why do 14 act either like they are 4 or like they are 28-34? Can't they act simply as if they were 14?

Really? This part particularly catched my eye, would you be willing to use a false rape accusation and screw up someone's life in order to keep them away from your daughter? You said it yourself that having a certain standard of evidence is desirable to avoid false convictions, like the thing that almost happened to your cousin, but if the quoted part is something you would actually consider... well, I just hope it is not.

And I think every single parent of every single child should bear some responsibility in this. What are these underage kids doing with booze and pills? Where are the parents? It's really sad how little parenting parents are willing to do these days. Underage kids need their parents, this is proof. You don't just leave them alone and let them do whatever they want. They aren't adults.

And if parents are encouraging this kinda of behavior, that's even more criminal imo. Just remember these kids are underage and we have laws to protect them because they aren't capable of making the same kind of rational decisions that older people are. They need parents there to tell them they can't do this. That's pretty much it. Simple stuff.

So I should NOT protect my daughter from behaving irresponsibly? This is precisely why STATUTORY rape laws exist. It's not rape in the sense that something forcibly happened that the young girl said "no" to. It's there so that young girls don't HAVE to take responsibility for themselves when they lack the maturity to consent to sex.

Some 14 year olds can handle that kind of thing. The legal and psychological theory is that teenagers lack the mental capacity to consent to sex. They may THINK they can consent, but they are not considered mature or responsible enough to make those kinds of decisions for themselves. So EVEN IF the child consents to it, it's dismissed as an older person exploiting the younger, particularly if the older person is in a position of trust; otherwise, the older person may be manipulating the younger in order to exploit her for harmful sexual purposes.

Statutory rape doesn't take into account whether penetration has actually occurred. The underlying assumption, as I've said before, is that if a young girl believes she has consented to an act she isn't mentally qualified to engage in, she will deny that she was forced to engage in the sex act or even that the sex act happened at all. You can't reliably gather evidence that way because the "victim" IS the evidence and, forgive me, has tampered with herself. She is not reliable evidence, so you have to go with what you have: Observed behavior. Was the victim of statutory alone with the actor? What conclusions can we possibly draw from this?

Same thing happens in ugly divorce cases. I knew a woman who filed for divorce whose husband was a police officer. She claimed she and her children were being abused. She probably could have taken this guy to the cleaners, taken full custody of the kids, and maybe even gotten her ex fired from his job. The trouble was that as soon as she got away from this guy, she shacked up with another man. Didn't even bother telling her lawyer about it. What does the cop do? Hires a private investigator to follow her around. Now we have pictures. It even came out in court that she and her bf were having sex in front of the kids. Guess what? Her abusive ex hubby has primary custody of the kids. This was based entirely on some photographs of her car at some other guy's house and her and bf going into the house together. The other details came about because she couldn't keep her stupid mouth shut. It doesn't take that much evidence to nail someone for certain offenses. Statutory rape is EASY to get evidence for. The laws are designed that way for a good reason.


Depends on which side you're on. And besides, it wasn't statutory rape this girl tried to bust my cousin for. It was outright, forcible, what some might call "legit" rape [nod to LKL]. I'm not sure the age difference would have made statutory rape doable, since the statutory laws are very specific in what qualifies as statutory. They are not treated the same as a non-consensual, sexual attack. But if I have a 14 year old daughter running off with some guy who's old enough to drive, chances are I've got a shot at statutory. Maybe/maybe not, but don't think I won't explore my options.

Finally, I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy by saying 14 year olds act like they're EITHER 4 OR 28. I only mean that they are in that crazy in-between place in which they are in many ways grown up and in many ways very childish or child-like. It's impossible to know from moment to moment which 14-year old you're getting: the adult or the child. This is just basic behavior modification. I can handle a kid acting grownup who has earned grown up things and grown up treatment. I can handle a kid acting like a kid who is only upset because I won't let her have a piece of candy on demand. So before I punish/reward a teen for something, especially if I have a teen throwing a fit, I need to know which teen I'm getting--the 4 year old or the 28 year old. Are we throwing a fit because we just aren't getting our way? Or are we throwing a fit because we have a legitimate concern that we can discuss and come to rational conclusions on how to handle it? I can go either way. Teens are very complicated creatures, and a 14 year old is not "just a 14 year old." Being able to handle behavioral issues appropriately for the age and for the situation is important in managing and modifying behavior.

BTW...I generally treat my 6 and 4 year olds like adults...not because I think that's the perfect way to raise them, but because it's all I know to do. I know they don't understand EVERYTHING I say, and I'm ok with that. Just the time spent working on playing musical instruments has really brought them a long way in terms of discipline and maturity, and it's nice having music as a common language. It's not always fun and games--the work rarely is--but I think my kids would rather that than be ignored. Ally Sheedy's character from "The Breakfast Club" comes to mind. If my daughter is going to Saturday detention because she's got nothing better to do, not to mention a compulsive liar, something is seriously wrong with me as a parent. I can relate to that myself in that my parents weren't overly worried about me until I inconvenienced them in some way. I needed to practice piano or clarinet, and my dad would nearly take my head off. It's all good until the kid learns to hit back, of course. I doubt I'll ever be the perfect dad, but hopefully I can avoid having my kids have the same Breakfast Club kinds of stories while at the same time avoiding the worst in my own father. My father was a little like Bender's dad...I just didn't end up as a bully the way Bender did.

Anyway, back to the regularly scheduled fight...