|
I would put this in quotes, but it's too hard on the eyes:
In December of 1996, National Public Radio ran a story about a group of newly
arrived Iraqi immigrants in Lincoln, Nebraska, several of whom had been jailed
because they had married, as is the custom where they came from, 13 and 14 year
old women. They were in jail for statatory rape. There are several issues here
of import. First, the way "minors" are treated and thought of in the
dominant, christianized American culture, and second, the way that culture has
manipulated and abused the legal system to enforce their moral beliefs and
practices. There was a time in the history of America when it was legal to own
an African slave and illegal for a woman to vote. Both of these are now
embarrassments, but they were the law of the land at the time. Blacks and women
were once considered by reasonable, respected people as being mentally inferior
to caucasian males. The law merely reflected this belief. Today, it is young
people who are considered inferior. They can legally be treated in a way which
would result in assault charges between adults. They have fewer rights and
freedoms than "adults", they can and are legally manipulated and
mistreated, and they are thought to be (and generally are) unable to make
important decisions or run their own lives. Of course, a three year old is too
biologically young to take care of herself; she must have help. But twelve year
olds are something else: they don't have much life experience, but can they make
important decisions about their lives and bodies? It depends, I think, on
several factors, one of the most important being how they were raised. Africans
and women were once raised to be "inferior". They had substandard
education, virtually nonexistent opportunities, and a culture that constantly
told them they were inferior. The same is true of children today. They are often
raised to have low self-esteem, poor self-image, and to fit into an
inferior-to-adults pattern. What else should we expect of them? Children can
make choices if they're raised to honor their own boundaries, recognize and
internalize their worth as an individual, and are taught about the world and
others. These are tools they need, just like anyone else, to be a functioning
human being. And they both need and deserve these tools much earlier than they
traditionally receive them, if they get them at all. Infancy is not too young to
begin fostering this intelligent personhood. The term "child", and
certainly the word "minor", are themselves a problem. They represent a
seperate class of people who can be and are treated differently than adults.
That is, worse. I believe that in the future, young people will be much more
independent, free, and respected than they are now, and choices will be more
open, even to the youngest toddler, as long as they are not exposed to harm. But
aye, there's the rub: what is harm? To radical Pagans, disrespecting a young
person is harmful. Add sexuality to this mix, and the issue of children and
teens making their own decisions and running their own lives becomes downright
volatile. Sex is already a noxious issue in the non-Pagan culture. If it isn't
being manipulated, it's being vilified and criminalized. From a futurist
viewpoint, the controversy over gay and lesbian rights, for example, is at once
laughable, ridiculous, and offensive. I believe future generations will scoff at
such nonsense just as we scoff at the once-heated debate about whether
African-Americans and women deserved legal recognition. Yet the law in some
places in America (as of this writing) regard gays and lesbians as criminals.
Absurd! So, too, people of differing enough ages can be imprisoned for having
sex. If a 30 year old woman has mutually desired sex with a 14 year old boy, the
woman is who will end up imprisioned because the boy, simply because of his age,
is considered unable to make his own decision. And with obvious gender
descrimination, it is often the male who is charged with "statory
rape". If two 13 year olds have mutually desired sex, it's often the boy
who gets the rap. For Radical Pagans, and many in the greater Pagan community,
the keys terms are 'mutually desired' and 'harm'. All sexual activity, without
exception, must always be mutually desired. Does the 14 year old boy desire the
30 year old woman and vice versa? Do two 12 year olds desire each other? Do four
70 years olds? Harm is less clear cut. Some 12 year olds will be harmed, meaning
physically injured or psychologically scarred, even by a sexual union that they
think they desire at the time. But so will many 30 year olds. If the 12 year old
is brought up in Pagan ways, knows their boundaries, their likes and dislikes,
understands yes and no, and has the self-confidence and esteem to make their
preferences known and manifest, then they have the right to have safe sex with
anyone they choose and who also chooses them. If this seems controversial now,
its only because we're mired in an historical context which will change with
time. I believe sex between most older people and most younger people is harmful
at this time, but I think most of the harm is socio-cultural, not biological or
inherent. The determination of sexual maturity is mental and spiritual, not
chronological. But the heavy layer of Puritan Christian morality lays like a
toxic fog over the issue, even the discussion of the issue. But I should not be
so judgemental. It isn't the morals of the christianized majority I have any
objection to. They have the right to their beliefs and morals just like everyone
else in America. What must and one day will end is the abuse of the legal system
in the cause of that majority morality. Morals should never be codified into
law, neither the majority's nor a minority's. That isn't what law is for. The
law is for solving problems between persons or entities. Note that there must be
a conflict between persons serious enough for the law to step in. If two teens
are having sex and they mutually desire it, and there is no harm occurring, then
the law has no place there. It should not be wielded like a battle-axe in the
cause of whatever moral interest can successfully manipulate it. Pagans should
not be able to use law either, say in some future county where we become a
majority, to try and coerce everyone into celebrating the Sabbats, or being
skyclad, or adopting liberal sexual mores. Yet the legal system is constantly
abused in such a manner to suppress "deviate" sexual behavior. Of
course, to be sexually "deviate," "immoral,"
"perverted," or "indecent" you have to start from some moral
standard; in this case the christianized moral hedgemony which lies at the
nearly invisible center of legal right and wrong, for which dissenting citizens
may be arrested and imprisoned. This abuse of the law has occurred because, from
the founding of the Republic, religion has been legally separated off from
religious morals, so that while Religion, meaning the outer display and
trappings, of a tradition is Constitutionally protected, the morality of a
religion, if far enough away or different enough from, the christianized norm,
is unprotected and subject to legal harrassment. The farther away a religion or
individual is from the christianized norm, the more illegal they're likely to
be. Now, none of this touches ethics. Ethics, as I am using the word here, is
about the basic human rights we all share, the ones explicated in documents such
as the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, and the United Nations Declaration of
Human Rights; and they're the same ones you learn in kindergarten: don't hurt
anyone else, don't rip anyone else off, respect others and yourself. Everyone's
rights extend out until they meet another, different, person. Then they stop.
This is why rape is wrong. No matter how old or young someone is, rape is rape.
It's involuntary and a crime. These are the reasons "statatory rape"
is a bankrupt, unconstitutional, and wholly false concept. It is nothing more
than an thinly disguised attempt at forcing one set of morals on others,
regardless of their own beliefs or morals. Rape is always involuntary. When both
or all parties desire the same sexual activity, it isn't rape. The minorities of
this country have often suffered under the laws of the majority, but times are
coming when there will be a gradual decrease in laws which activity discriminate
against minority moral traditions and an increase in the acceptance of diversity
and acknowldgement of diverse belief and practice. It has happened before, is
continuing today, and I think will continue into the future. Which brings us
back to the Iraqi husbands. They evidently weren't aware of the law which would
land them in jail as rapists. In their homeland, marrying (and consumating the
marriage to) early teens was common practice. It wasn't wrong. It's
"wrong" here only because the law is used to enforce Christian and
christianized values. The position of this author and of Radical Pagans in
general is that mutually desired sex between persons of any age isn't wrong,
should not be illegal, and ought to be addressed as a serious issue in hopes
that all persons, regardless of age or religious beliefs, will be free to be
sexual with anyone who they choose and who chooses them. [I would like to
acknowledge the difficulty of this issue to those who have suffered rape or
other hurtful sexual experiences in their childhood. I hope that by empowering
our kids, they can avoid what so many of us could not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why at the very least I favor a lower age of consent rather than a higher one. Who are we to judge those Iraqis for practicing their cultural traditions? Imagine how much pain and anguish it causes to couples who love each other very much, and are prosecuted because of their age difference. At one time in the USA women were married and bearing children at much younger ages than 18. Of course it was mainly because people lived half as long, but why suddenly has this anti-youth phobia surfaced? I understand the need and desire to protect children, but these laws cause perhaps more heartache than help (if abused by those in authority). I'll give you another example. My friend is 20 years old, and his girlfriend is 4 years his junior, though she may be 17 (Texas' age of consent) now I'm not sure. He met her when they were both still in high school, and they've been together for 2 and 1/2 years. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have sex under the law? She's a very level-headed young woman, and I'm sure she is capable of making her own decisions regarding something as sacred as her body.
This anti-youth culture has infected many other policies in the US as well. Another example of which are "teen curfews." In many US cities if you're under a certain age you aren't even allowed to be outside after midnight etc. I started working when I was 16 years old, and in Austin there's a law that says if you're under 17 you can't be out on the streets past midnight. I often had to work past midnight, so I was essentially breaking the law. Young people are easily discriminated against because they are politically very weak, and are among the demographic least likely to put up a fight to protect their freedoms. Personally I find this a disturbing trend. From a young person's perspective, there are many more "free" countries to grow up in. The word "minor" I tend to find particularly offensive.
___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/
Last edited by DaveSZ on Sep-26-2003 at 13:46
|
Sexual Age of Consent
