The Stemp's personal site

Music, Writings, and Libertarian Anti-Politics

header photo

teachers fucking their students

I recently rented and watched two movies this weekend, J. Edgar staring Leonardo DiCaprio, and That's My Boy staring Adam Sandler. While a post about J. Edgar Hoover might seem more appropriate for a blog about libertarianism I would prefer to focus this post on a topic made fun of in That's My Boy. The movie got awful reviews and while I see their point that Adam Sandler is passed his prime(which is normal when you have done so much funny stuff already.) I just don't understand all the complaints, mostly from feminists about the movies "Celebration of rape culture". Apparently movie critics today simply except without question and any thought that statutory "rape" is somehow real rape. But lets go back to first principles and see if statutory "rape" is real rape, and if it is a violation of the Non-aggression principle to engage in it. Let's start with reminding our self's what the nonaggression principle is, and it basically is saying that force can ONLY be used in defense of persons and property and to get restitution for prior violations of persons and property. So if someone is trying to kill you you can try to kill them right back, to paraphrase Malcolm Reynolds, and if someone stole your TV you are justified in breaking into their house to steal it back.(But you would probably be in your best interest to have a private police agency do it instead.) So what this means is that sense laws are force, if you violate them violence is used against you, so there can only be laws against violations of the Non-aggression Principle, individuals can engage in anything else on their own property and other people can't use force to stop it, even freaky ass shit like having orgies and doing coke off strippers asses, people can however show their contempt with such actions and ostracize people who do that shit. So with this in mind lets see what statutory "rape" is. Wikipedia defines it as: "sexual activities in which one person is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior." They call this magical age the age of consent. Right off the bat this seems quite nanny statist, they are basically saying that you can be unable to consent to something when you are in fact able to. In all statutory "rape" cases the "victim" has consented to having sex with an adult, but legally the "victim" is unable to consent to sex. This seems to deny all logic and reality itself to say that you cannot consent to something that you are able and in fact just did consent to. Most people retort that the child cannot consent because they do not understand what sex is, that of coarse is a blatant lie. Every child if they do not already know what sex is learns it in sex education in fourth grade. I don't think I need to explain the mechanics of sex but you no doubt understand what I'm talking about. If you know what that is and someone says "you wanna have sex?" and you say yes then you have consented to it. If someone told a child that sex was a magical game that you can play with anyone(or whatever pedophiles say to their victims) and the child doesn't know what it actually is and says yes than in that case they did not really consent, but that is because they were defrauded, and statutory "rape" laws are not needed to punish that, fraud laws and regular rape laws already have it covered. I find it lacking when people say younger teenagers are incapable of understanding sex anyways, because there are many different ways in which sex is understood depending on the person. Some think of it as just fun, some prostitutes think of it as business, some something you can only have with your spouse and some with only someone you are in love with. So to say someone must understand what sex is in anyway other than the literal physical act before they consent to it would create a cluster-fuck of ungodly proportions. Some people would claim that teenagers under the age of consent would not make the right decisions about sex and so force is justified to make them wait till they are older to decide. To that I would ask how many adults make smart decisions about sex? I've known plenty of idiotic 40 year old's that would make the same stupid decisions about sex as any 14 year old. What people don't get is that there are stupid people and there are smart people, stupid people are gonna make the same horrible decisions at 14 that they would make at 60, and likewise with smart people,  the dumb-asses I went to elementary school with are the same dumb-asses that are failing high school now. Even if it were true though that magically at 16 someone is suddenly so much more understanding about sex than when they were 15 I don't see why that justifies using force to stop statutory "rape". The Libertarian creed says that people should be able to engage in any activity on their own property that doesn't violate the rights of others, even horrible activities that ruin the life of the person engaging in them. A libertarian might retort that "Well parents own guardianship rights over their kids so if an adult has sex with a young teenager than the parent can sue the adult for restitution." I would agree with the first part of this that parents own guardianship rights over their kids that they loose more and more of as the kid grows older. But even if statutory "rape" did violate the property rights the parent has in guardianship of their children then the only person the parents could sue is the person who put the teenager into the situation, which would be the teenager itself sense the teenager is the one consenting but not really consenting to the sex. Could you imagine a parents law suit against their teenage son for consenting to sex with an adult going into an arbitration agency? Its time we drop this notion of statutory "rape", it frankly is an insult of victims of actual rape, and its time we abolish the age of consent, because frankly, its an insult to young teenagers. Before freaking out on me I must add that you won't have to worry about pedophiles getting off the hook without age of consent laws, no child under the age of 14 would consent to sex, they simply don't have the urges there yet to want it, I was that age once, the idea of having sex was in the same category as driving a car or drinking alcohol that while it looks cool, its something only older people get to do, so I have to wait till then. Pedophilia is just regular rape, because it involves at least coercion and sometimes fraud as well, so it is perfectly OK to use force to stop it. I should also add that abolishing age of consent wouldn't mean teachers could just fuck their consenting students and suffer no consequences, they would just be done without the initiation of force. Parents would be able and they should always teach their kids to wait to have sex until they are older and if it is already done then punish the kid by like taking their allowance away or no TV or some shit. Private schools could and they should fire teachers that fuck their consenting students and ostracize and refuse to hire any teacher that did that at another school. There are lots of things people do wrong, and lots of things they shouldn't do, but initiating force to stop them is both counterproductive and wrong.

Go Back

Comment