I'm not talking about two 14-year-olds having sex with each other; I'm talking about things like a 30-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old. The age difference is crucial when talking about this issue, in my opinion, because there's no way two teenagers of the same age having sex with each other is the same as a 30-year-old having sex with someone half his or her age.
Does the law which you speak of allow this age gap specifically? Like I said, when the age of consent is lower than 18, most of the time there are various nuances written into the law that one must take into consideration. Japan's age of consent is 14 too, but it's still illegal for adults to take advantage of them like that. Course I do not have the time or patience to list off every single nuance of the age of consent laws in Japan because they are seemingly too numerous. With benefits and detriments in and of themselves.
Ours is 16, but it's still illegal for a 30 year old to have sex with them. Age of consent just means the law recognizes that they can enter sex legally, it does not necessarily mean that it's legal for an adult to sexually abuse them.
Well, on the flip side, we have societies where child marriage is not uncommon, yet it is no less destructive than anywhere else:
I'm not arguing that sexual abuse never causes harm in some instances. I'm saying that society's expectations of the reactions to said abuse may in fact exacerbate it in some children. May even cause it where there is none. A child might be groped and brush it off as nothing. People react differently to trauma is what I'm saying. Expecting all children to be severely traumatized by even the (for lack of a better word) slightest abuse can cause trouble.
I think there are certain problems with the marriage or sexual relationship of, say, a 13-year-old to or with a person who is something like 28 or 30 that have little or nothing to do with society's reactions to the sexual relationship between the two. The mental and physical development of a child aren't going to change based on any given society's reaction to such a relationship, are they?
That I wholeheartedly agree with. No child should be forced to enter a marriage. No person should be forced to enter a marriage, really. Any adult who takes advantage of or abuses a minor like that should be punished severely. (Obviously if it's a minor doing the abuse, then psychological evaluation and mental health help is the route we usually take.)
I'm not sure I agree with the point you are raising here. This feels to me like arguing that since some societies don't recognize marital rape as a form of rape, raising awareness about it there could detrimentally affect victims of marital rape in those societies. I think it's important to raise awareness about abuse regardless of whether or not the society the victim lives in tolerates such abuse. That's not what I'm asking about in this thread; what I'm asking about is whether setting the age of consent as low as 14 or 15 is legally sanctioning child rape to begin with.
Well firstly, to answer your question. No. Not necessarily at least.
14 and 15 year olds are not children. They are adolescents. Studies are showing that the brain is actually different during the teenage years than that of a child and adult. To call them children is inaccurate. Sure they aren't quite adults yet, but they're not children either.
I'm sure there are some countries that do sanction child rape. The aforementioned child marriages. *shudders*
But really it all depends on what allowances are made. What sanctions are put into place to ensure age gap and coercion are eliminated as much as possible. I doubt many countries think to themselves "well raping children is a okay, so let's set the age of consent at this number instead of the higher number of our overseas counterparts." It's a lot more complex than that. Usually.
Plus, one has to take into account puberty. This is not some clear cut process. Some teenagers will be ready for sex at a younger age than their peers, some at an older age, some in the middle. The brain changes for an adolescent are quite significant during this phase of human development. So it would make sense, at least according to this knowledge, to set the age of consent relatively low to allow the sexual experimentation of teenagers (among peers of comparable ages, not adults) to go unpunished easier.
Even in places where the age is higher like 16, one has to be extra careful not to try to label sexually experimenting teens as sex offenders. Even though the law usually allows certain leeway.
Secondly, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying not to go all witch hunt/mental mob every time the mere whisper of child sexual abuse is uttered. Yes, stand against it firmly. But don't go overboard and don't go plying the victims with the expectation that they react a certain way to the trauma. (Not saying that is what you are doing, I'm speaking more in general.) Which is what society often does, though it does mean well.
