The XX Factor: What women really think.

Dispatch from the FLDS Polygamist's Trial: What Does It Mean To Be a Willing Child Bride?

A guest post from DoubleX writer Sonia Smith: 

For the past two weeks, I’ve been camped out in a west Texas courtroom watching the trial of fundamentalist Mormon polygamist Raymond Merril Jessop unfold. Sentencing begins today, and Jessop could face up to 20 years in prison for impregnating his underage “celestial” wife in 2004. The victim, 16 at the time of the sexual assault, never took the stand, and all the evidence in the case seemed to indicate that she was Jessop’s willing bride. But what does that even mean in an environment where girls are conditioned from birth to believe that marrying an older, powerful man is the highest honor?

In the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, girls are taught that being a plural wife and mother is the only way to reach the highest rung of heaven. In this atmosphere, getting married at 14 or 15 becomes the next logical step in a girl’s life. They are into placed in marriages—"sealed for time and all eternity"—whenever the sect’s prophet deems them worthy, regardless of their age, according to the testimony of former FLDS member Rebecca Musser. Once married, girls must show perfect obedience to their husbands, who are viewed as their only connection to God ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)

Polanski's Probation Officer's Disturbing Report

The New York Times quotes extensively from the September 1977 probation officer's report about Roman Polanski. The report is appallingly sympathetic towards Polanski, describing his rape of Samantha Gailey as "spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgment by the defendant" and placing the some of the blame back on Gailey and her mom. But the most upsetting part of the report is the part that excuses Polanski's behavior because he's a creative genius and an immigrant ... (Read more in DoubleX.)

When Teen Sex Breaks the Law

While we're on the subject of teen sex, I thought I'd raise this post from Constantino Diaz-Duran at the Daily Beast. He describes the case of two 17-year-olds from Sheboygan, Wisc., who were arrested for having sex with their 14-year-old significant others. Same town, same age difference, same assistant district attorney. But one of the 17-year-olds was charged with a class C felony (maximum sentence: 40 years in prison), and the other was charged with a misdemeanor (maximum sentence: nine months in jail).

Why the disparity? In one case, it was a 17-year-old guy sleeping with his 14-year-old girlfriend; in the other, the sexes were reversed.

Diaz-Duran asks if the "boy was a victim of gender bias." Certainly it seems that his gender influenced the charge. But maybe that's as it should be. Yes, a 17-year-old female is capable of causing harm to an innocent 14-year-old with her sexuality, just as is her male counterpart. But men tend to be bigger, stronger, and have more parts that they can force into you. That's a crucial difference, and one that explains to some extent why rape laws would (and should) treat the sexes differently.

Gender discrimination aside, statutory rape laws do seem problematic. Obviously we should protect youngsters from the Humbert Humberts of the world. But what about teens whose sexual relations are totally consentual, like the case of Genarlow Wilson? (And yes, I do think teenagers are emotionally capable of coming to such mutual decisions.) In those situations, it seems like the statutory rape card is just a way for angry parents to convince themselves that their own child is pure by pinning the dirty sex act on someone else. And too often, those angry parents may be reacting to something other than actual predatory behavior, such as a boyfriend they don't approve of.

I'm curious, especially in the context of yesterday's discussion about the balance of raising kids who are safe but independent, how others—especially Emily B. and Dahlia—feel about statutory rape laws. Can't there be a better way of protecting against genuine predators without ensnaring teens engaged in consentual sex?

What IS the Age of Consent?

Juliet, you're right that what's most offensive about the Jezebels' discussion of Polanski's rape of a 13-year-old is its glibness; the very title of their post, suggesting that exploiting a child might not be as bad as making a movie about that exploitation, is just galling. Sorry, a 44-year-old having sex with a drugged 13-year-old is never consensual. I'm too steeped lately in research into serious child sexual exploitation to make jokes about it. I've been at conferences where law enforcement folks are being trained in how to respond when they find, say, sex with a 13-year-old being sold on Craigslist (see John R. Miller's excellent op-ed in the NYT today). And in researching sexual harassment of teens on the job, I've seen statutory rape laws used to excellent effect in stopping predatory men from going back to work with underage girls.

But here's the other thing that offended me about the Jezzies' post: They get the facts completely wrong. Eighteen-year-olds can legally choose to have sex, everywhere in the country. In at least 44 states, 16-year-olds can say yes. (My main source is this 2004 study, but I had a friend with a Westlaw account do a spotcheck to see if its table on Pages 6 and 7 is still accurate. Nope, the ages have dropped. For instance, Wisconsin's age of consent is now 16; so is Delaware's, with a Romeo-and-Juliet clause for 12-to-15-year-olds.)

Here are some more of the complicated details, for nerds like me: Idaho is the only state where you have to be 18 to consent, with no Romeo-and-Juliet exception. Which means that even in Idaho, you would have been free to choose sex with your older boyfriend; he broke no laws. (And yes, I am forcibly restraining myself from making any jokes about the relevance of your name.) California puts it at 18 with a very, very carefully graded and complicated set of exceptions: At 17 or under, someone can have a lover within three years of his/her age; but the state only really aims its heavy guns at you only if you're over 21 and have sex with someone 15 or under. Many states get especially punitive when there's a larger age gap and the child is 14 or 13 or 12 or under—because the bigger the gap and the younger the child, the more coercive it is on its face.

Your argument about how patronizing stat rape laws seem, in other words, is precisely the argument feminists have been making for decades—and because of that feminist effort, the age of consent is lower than it used to be. So why would the Jezzies go joking about it? As far as I'm concerned, they just deflect attention from Polanski's crime in coercing this child into sex. Check out the documents about his actions. Disgusting.