Many readers are echoing this one:
Akin and his ilk are entirely deserving of condemnation. However, I’m not sure what you’re getting at when you say: “Yes, you read that right: ‘statutory rape can be consensual’.” Depending on the jurisdiction, if two minors have sex, both can technically be guilty of statutory rape. Statutory rape has historically included consensual sex between two people where one is just over the age of consent and the other is just under. The obvious injustice of that has led to “Romeo and Juliet” laws in many states that provide it isn’t statutory rape if the participants are within 2-3 years of age of the other. Point being, I may well disagree with all of Willke’s views and I certainly think Akin’s comments were horrific, but the fact that statutory rape can be consensual is not exactly worthy of ridicule in and of itself.
In context, I see that now. My reader is right. Another points to the law in California:
Read together, the first two paragraphs of the state’s statutory rape law make it clear that – regardless of consent – two minors having sex can be guilty of statutory rape (which California refers to as “unlawful sexual intercourse”). Thus, two 16-year-old high school students having consensual sex with each other are both technically guilty of statutory rape.
Don’t you remember that 18-year-old football player in Florida who was sentenced to 10 years for sleeping with his 15-year-old girlfriend? In fact, CNN writes articles about it, which means it’s as common as knowledge gets.
The Dish has linked before to articles showing how the largest group of sex offenders are teenagers, many of the who had consensual sex that was deemed statutory rape. I am not defending Akin or any other Republican BS, but the fact is many of the statutory rapes are consensual. So, temper your enthusiasm with a little nuance.