Daughter, wife of AZ official (R) accused in sex case

[Still a Democrat]

Source: Associated Press

...

Rachel Brock is the daughter of Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock, and Susan Brock is his wife of 28 years; the family lived together in the Phoenix suburb of Chandler.

Rachel Brock is accused of committing numerous sex acts with the teenage boy between February 2007 and August 2008, and sending him nude photos and a video of herself masturbating; none of the acts involved intercourse. The boy was 14 at the time, and Rachel Brock was 18, classifying the crimes as dangerous crimes against children.

Police said that between August 2007 and October of this year, the teen met Susan Brock for sexual trysts. Susan Brock reportedly provided the boy with cell phones, and police seized text messages reportedly recording sexual exchanges between the two.

...

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7sV2ofBVjPHmukAzMam6pZyiPJQ?docId=941081be9dcc40dfbc837bfe327671db

[Oceansaway]

1. family values crowd.....nt

[Tx4obama]

2. Bristol Palin's new neighborhood, Maricopa AZ n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

8. Just FYI

The city is Chandler, Arizona.
The county is Maricopa.

There is another city Maricopa, Arizona, but that's not where these Brocks live.


Just sayin'.


TG in AJ

[Tx4obama]

15. Bristol's new house is in Maricopa, AZ. That's what I meant. n/t

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

4. Not if the 14 year old boy didn't WANT the sexual acts to occur.

Your post makes you sound like a dirty old man. I'd strongly consider deleting it. I WILL alert on it.

[Kali]

11. why would you alert on it?

it makes him sound like 90% of heterosexual males to me, please

you are correct if the 14 year old male didn't want it, it was wrong, but I would question that assertion, myself.

[Ken Burch]

14. I alerted because it was mocking the notion of sexual abuse

The post took a "hubba hubba" tone that was totally inappropriate. This was a real situation of sexual abuse, not a letter in "Penthouse Forum".

If we're going to take that issue seriously, we have to assume that it's just as much sexual abuse when it's done by an adult female to an underage male as it is when it's done by an adult male to an underage female. Comments that sound like they're saying "hell, the kid just got lucky" are totally inappropriate in that context.

[Swagman]

21. tecnically you are correct and the law has been allegedly broken

of course in most European countries this wouldn't be a matter for the law. Countries like Spain , France, Germany, Italy..it would be legal.

However if pressure was applied then that isn't fair or right.

[Ken Burch]

25. It appears pressure was applied, and both the young woman AND HER MOTHER

were doing this to the young boy.

It needs to be taken just as seriously as it would be if the genders were reversed. There'd be no "it's the kid's lucky day" kind of talk THEN.

Some people in this thread really need to take a serious look at their views on sexuality and age, methinks.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

36. a third women was involved in trying to delete incriminating emails

The Washington Post has the story. A friend of the mothers tried to help eliminate the
evidence. Maybe she had other involvement. Can you imagine being a 48 year old women and
telling anyone about this? Much less ask for help in deleting the evidence?

Sure sex is a wonderful thing, but this situation is not wonderful. It is sick.

Daughter, wife of AZ official accused in sex case
By AMANDA LEE MYERS
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 30, 2010; 8:42 PM
...
A third woman, Christian Hart Weems, 37, was arrested in the case Tuesday on suspicion of obstructing a criminal investigation and conspiracy to commit computer tampering. She's accused of deleting potentially incriminating e-mails between the boy and Susan Brock. Police say Weems is a friend of Susan Brock....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123002729.html

Its too bad that some folks can't imagine how there may have been things
going on, coercion, threats whatever - it isn't a healthy situation.

[Ken Burch]

37. Yeah...too many of them think this is a letter from "Penthouse Forum"

Or Jacqueline Bisset and Andrew McCarthy in "CLASS".

[awoke_in_2003]

17. right there with you. nt

[former9thward]

24. If you read the story the 14 year old kept coming back for YEARS.

I think that means he WANTED the sexual acts to occur.

[Ken Burch]

28. That just means he'd been groomed and brought into the cycle

If you believe that his return means he "WANTED the sexual acts to occur", you haven't talked to any female victims of child sex abuse. A lot of them did the same...mainly out of fear or coercion.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

41. like the victims of pedophile priests, those victims kept coming back for more too, right?

thats what you think, that these young people are on happy little dates.

[former9thward]

53. Priests are in a position of power and authority like teachers

who get caught up in this stuff. Not the case here. But trying to discuss these matters with the puritan crowd is hopeless. Either they forgot what being a teenager is or they were social outcasts and never knew.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

64. and these two grown women abused their power - they are sick

and may mess up this boy's head so that he thinks it is normal for a mother/wife
and daughter both to seduce a 13 year old.

Maybe he'l carry on the tradition with his son and both of them have sex with a 13 year
old girl.

[former9thward]

72. Males and Females think differently about this stuff.

No it has nothing to do with education, indoctrination or whatever else you will throw out there. Brains are wired differently. The boy will do just fine in life. If anything he has gained self confidence at an earlier age than most males.

[Psephos]

73. Yes, because all males are alike, and all males are equally and robustly resistant to sexual abuse.

Who needs facts when one has assumptions?

[former9thward]

86. The only ones making assumptions are the ones saying

this will screw up this teenage boy. They don't know him and they are just projecting their puritan values on him and everyone else.

[Psephos]

87. He's getting the projections from all sides.

Those who say it will cost him, and those who say it won't. In other words, it's really not about the boy, it's about commenters' own assumptions and values...and their egos.

The one thing that can be said with certainty is that nothing about the effects of this on the boy can be said with certainty. In a larger view, some kids would go through this ok, some would not. Blanket statements are ridiculous.

[former9thward]

88. You are right but afterall this is an opinion board.

If we were restricted on commenting unless we had pure facts and complete knowledge of the subject matter DU would have maybe 1 or 2% of the posts it has now.

[Psephos]

89. You are right as well.

Some render opinions, others opinions about opinions.

Anyway, Happy New Year! :)

[Tansy_Gold]

5. And the reason it's a dream date for a 14 yr old boy

is precisely the reason why 14 yr old boys are not old enough to consent to it.

And at 18, the 18 yr old girl should know better.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

39. it wasn't a date. He had a girlfriend, and it wasn't the Mother/Daughter perverts

"The teen told police Susan Brock would pick him up at school or home and drive him to secluded areas where they would have sexual contact in her car, although there was no intercourse, according to a court document. Authorities say Susan Brock also helped the boy meet his girlfriend and provide places where the young couple could have sex."

[Tansy_Gold]

44. I know that.

I was responding to what the poster said, not to what the young man in the article did/said/or thought.


TG

[FreakinDJ]

7. Ya - but if the roles were reversed the 18 boy would go to prison

and Feminist would come out of the woodwork demanding his sentence be No Less then 15 years

[Tansy_Gold]

9. first of all, it's "roles," not "rolls" (although the pun may be unintended)

Second of all, the girl may end up going to jail in this case.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Good for her

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreakinDJ]

32. If only you were appalled by this SICKO Mother/daughter team

1/2 as much as you are concerned for grammatical errors

So do you defend these perverts who have caused irreparable harm to this boy

[kestrel91316]

61. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. I'm as appalled as anyone

about the accusations.

However, my post was all about the bad grammar in the post attacking feminists.

[tblue37]

58. I am an actual grammar expert, yet I would never mock people for making

grammar and usage errors in online posts, especially since such errors are often typos rather than real errors, and DU offers a very limited window of opportunity for correcting such errors. I often post a message in a hurry and come back to read responses a few hours later only to find an embarrassing typo in my message that I am unable to correct because the editing window has closed.

But even when such errors really are errors, I would not make fun of someone for committing them. If it is within the editing window and I think the person would want to know, I might alert him or her to make the change while he or she still can, but I would try to do so respectfully.

I take issue with the poster's broad brush disrespect for feminists, but I would argue that point, without sneering at his errors.

[Tansy_Gold]

59. I hate to say it, tblue, but you have a typo. n/t STILL

[tblue37]

67. Thanks for catching it for me in time!

I can't type, so I make a lot of typos, and I am 60, so my eyesight isn't good for proofreading on a computer monitor. In fact, I count on alert readers of my grammar and usage website to let me know about typos in my articles so I can fix them.

I certainly don't mind when someone tells me about my typos so I can fix them. In fact, I am always grateful.

My concern is that regardless of how much I disagree with someone (and I DO disagree with this FreakingDJ person's attitude toward feminists, especially since I am a feminist), I don't like to see grammar and usage errors used to browbeat or humiliate someone. I teach college English, so I spend a lot of my time correcting other people's errors. I would never take a mocking tone when correcting my students, because I don't want them to be afraid to write. I have to correct them, but I can at least be respectful about it.

[Tansy_Gold]

69. Well, this isn't a classroom.

And sometimes, in the informal setting of a discussion board, using the medium to attack the message -- which is not the same as using it to attack the messenger -- is fair game.

Sloppy writing suggests sloppy thinking. Neither deserves respect.



TG

[kestrel91316]

62. Well, I'm not you. And I will generally attack people who sneer at feministS.

[tblue37]

68. Yes, yes--and I will agree with you. I am a feminist, too.

But attack him for his nonsensical statement, not for his grammar and usage errors. It is always tempting to go mean when dealing, for example, with the Freeper "morans" and their grammar and usage errors, but what is wrong with them is their ideas. Many people on our side also are a bit challenged when it comes to such things as spelling, diction, and sentence structure. I would hate for perfectly good liberal ideas to be discounted and mocked simply because the person holding those beliefs made some mechanical errors.

As a cat vet you are one of my favorite posters (I am a cat lady: 3 adult cats and one 5-month-old kitten). I am not arguing with your stance, just saying I don't like to see people mocked for mechanical errors.

[kestrel91316]

71. I guess I see no problem with mocking RW trolls for anything and everything I can.

It's just the way I am.

[Ken Burch]

16. "Feminist would come out of the woodwork"?

What is "Feminist"? Is that the "She-God of Deadly Vengeance" or something?

"Run for your lives, men...FEMINIST IS ANGRY!"

[FreakinDJ]

27. Remember the Hilary Primaries ...

Been around DU long ?

[Ken Burch]

31. I've been around for years.

Never saw THAT one.

BTW, what the heck is a "Hilary Primary"? There were primaries where Senator Clinton competed against Senator Obama, but I never heard of any such thing as a "Hilary Primary".

And if you're trying to stir up shit about THAT, you are way out of line to do it in THIS thread.

[Tansy_Gold]

51. H-I-L-L-A-R-Y. n/t

[Ken Burch]

90. Maybe Hilary Swank ran for president too

You damn well couldn't call HER "weak on defense":

[Ian David]

29. ...

[mackerel]

42. You might think that but years later it often comes out as

PTSD. Working in Social Security law for the last 3 years, I've come across a few cases like this now and the men literally can't stand to be around women because of the abuse they experienced in their teen years.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

46. "The victim's parents had forbidden Susan Brock to have contact with him."

From another story about a third arrest, this time of the mother's friend who
helped to destroy evidence.

2nd arrest made in Susan Brock sex case
Woman arrested on Tuesday is accused of altering evidence in the e-mail account of boy Brock is charged with abusing

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/12/30/20101230brock1230.html

[Dash87]

52. Ah yes, the "boys can never be raped, he must have wanted it" statement.

If it was such a "dream date" for him, why did he tell the police?

Also, if it were an 18 year old male, and another adult man doing this to a little girl, would you be okay with that?

:(

[Skittles]

57. when will people like you understand?

regardless of your FANTASIES, it is NOT RIGHT to project sexual advances on a CHILD. END OF STORY!!!!!

[Tansy_Gold]

60. +1000 n/t

[WheelWalker]

76. x 10 to the 99th

[Devil_Fish]

77. So what if it was a 14 Y/O girl that "Wanted it" from an 18 Y/O boy?

Stat rape applies both ways.

[Kali]

6. 14 and 18?

meh - not enough real info
I've seen some 14 year olds that were way more mature than some 18 year olds.

I know I was hot for 18 and older when I was 13 and 14...

[Still a Democrat]

10. There's enough info

A 14 year old isn't legally capable of consent. The act is illegal, whether there was resistance or not.

[Ken Burch]

18. Also, the kid seems to have reported it.

There's a "minds in the gutter" thing happening in this thread that is massively uncool.

[Swagman]

19. true..although the law should consider all the circumstances

..whether there was cohesion etc despite the illegalities. If it was consensual (I know-it's a still illegal) ...all the circumstances should be considered.

I sometimes think these cases may have just been laid to rest and forgotten except society begins to work it's so-called morality on the young and they start to believe they have done something 'dirty'.

Easiest scenario: obey the law. :shrug:

[Tansy_Gold]

43. Excuse me, but did you mean

"coercion" when you wrote "cohesion"?

Regardless which you meant, while a 14 year old of either sex may indeed verbally grant consent, they are not considered by the law in the State of Arizona (which is where this happened; laws in other states may vary) to be emotionally or psychologically "mature" enough to legally grant consent. It's exactly the same as setting the legal age for driving at 16; it's a more or less arbitrary number but it generally marks a level of maturity commensurate with the responsibility.

And it has been decided, perhaps wrongly or perhaps rightly but still it's been done, that when a minor is abused by someone more than X years older -- as in the case of a 14 year old and an 18 year old -- then the abuse is considered "dangerous." That's how the law reads.

And that's why the (perhaps arbitrary) age difference limit is set at 4 years. Less than that, and you may have just under-age but mutually consenting persons. (If there is lack of consent, of course, then it's rape and that's a whole different crime.) More than that and there is an implication that the older person is, literally as well as figuratively, old enough to know better.



TG

[Mojorabbit]

26. I was capable at 14 of consent

and I am female.

[mackerel]

47. Doesn't matter the law sets precedent on age of consent.

[Tansy_Gold]

49. You do realize, of course, that there is a difference between

what you considered yourself "capable" of doing at 14 and what the law regards you as having the legal right to do?

I am also female, and I also granted consent at 14, and I considered myself at that time to be perfectly rational and mature and adult and capable of making an informed decision. My partner was 19 at the time. Almost 50 years later, no regrets, no recriminations, no PTSD.

That, however, is not how the law reads.



TG

[Mojorabbit]

54. I understand the difference Tansy. :)

I just get a little irritated when I see so many posts that insinuate that one cannot possibly make an informed decision at that age. I know many can't but not certainly not all. I also have no regrets and only fond memmories.

[boppers]

56. IIRC, AZ has *very* protective laws about consent.

http://www.lawforkids.org/laws/view_law.cfm?id=14

"In the State of Arizona, a person under 18 years old CANNOT consent to engage in sexual conduct (A.R.S. § 13-1401)."

I, too, broke the law and have no regrets, but legally, it was impossible for me to be capable of consent.

[U4ikLefty]

63. Your hand doesn't count.

Don't worry...Thelma Thumb and her four sisters ain't going to jail.

[Kali]

30. sorry, I should have been more clear

I'm not a black and white literalist - some laws/"crimes" really need to be evaluated on a case by case basis, sex crimes between young people especially.

there are situations where a 4 year age difference is not that significant. as I said I have known very mature 14 year olds (as well as immature ones). I would need way more personal info if I was making a judgment, say as a juror. In light of mandatory sex crime conviction-reporting and lifelong extra punishment inflicted on the "perpetrators" in situations like this care is especially important.

[Ken Burch]

33. I can understand what you're saying there

Still, there are a lot of people taking a totally inappropriate tone about this simply because the victim was a 14 year-old male. There is no reason for anyone to treat it as being any different than they would if the victim were a 14 year-old female being molested by an adult male AND HIS FATHER. Abuse is abuse...got it?

[Still a Democrat]

34. I agree circumstances must be considered when sentencing

and the sentences can be ridiculously long.

[FreakinDJ]

40. Susan Brock was 48 yrs old - that is a 31 yr age difference

Susan Brock reportedly provided the boy with cell phones, and police seized text messages reportedly recording sexual exchanges between the two.

"You have a situation where you have a mother who's abusing a juvenile victim, seemingly unknowingly to the daughter, or vice versa, and the daughter is also abusing the same victim," Favazzo said. "I just can't imagine a mother and daughter having this conversation, and the investigators say they don't have anything indicating the two of them knew about it."

is that SICK Enough for ya

[Kali]

45. yeah, sorry

guilty of not reading the whole article (I often don't hit links to news sites because they take a long time to load on my shitty dial up)

this story is really wacky - mom and daughter? and they seem not to have known about each other!? and the mom set the kid up with yet another "real" girlfriend? wow - reads like a bad soap opera script

I wonder what the hell the whole story really is.

[kestrel91316]

65. I had a romp with a 22 YO male 31 years my junior. It was FUN.

That alone is not a problem when both are consenting adults - just in case you are thinking THAT should be illegal. We both knew what we wanted and it was strictly NSA.

I suppose you want to outlaw that sort of thing, too.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

22. 14, 18 and 48 (the Mother and daughter sicko team)

It wasn't just an 18 year old molesting this boy, but the 18 year old's mother.

They abused their power.

[Kali]

38. I didn't pick up on the two names and that the mother may have been involved

yes that gets way out beyond even my tolerance level very rare situation where a 14 and 48 would have any kind of legit relationship in this day and age

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

20. sick. Both the Mother (48) and daughter (now 21) were having sex with this boy.

Sick. The dynamics of this are grotesque. What else is going on here?


"Rachel Brock is accused of committing numerous sex acts with the teenage boy between February 2007 and August 2008, and sending him nude photos and a video of herself masturbating; none of the acts involved intercourse. The boy was 14 at the time, and Rachel Brock was 18, classifying the crimes as dangerous crimes against children.

Police said that between August 2007 and October of this year, the teen met Susan Brock for sexual trysts. Susan Brock reportedly provided the boy with cell phones, and police seized text messages reportedly recording sexual exchanges between the two."

This is some kind of weird crap.

[Ken Burch]

23. And if it was two generations of MEN doing that to a 14-year old GIRL

They'd both have been shanked in the prison yard by now.

(Note: I'm NOT calling for THAT to be done to these women, just setting out the reality of prison life).

[Still a Democrat]

35. You have to believe each was aware of the other

It's pretty unlikely there would be no cross talk and this was just a coincidence.

[mackerel]

48. Honestly I'm surprised at a lot of the responses here.

[comtec]

50. what surprises you about the responses

i'm curious

[msanthrope]

55. You should read the Assange-apologist threads. Or the Polanski ones.

You wouldn't be so surprised.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

66. huge difference between Assange and grown women/groupees and two adult women and a 13 year old boy

Many consider me a feminist, but the Assange "case" was dropped and then revived when the
US needed a way to railroad the man.

He didn't molest them, they were adult women, not virgins clearly,
and one ended up deleting her twitter posts where she bragged about him.

They are adults.

[msanthrope]

70. Thanks for making my point. n/t

[intheflow]

74. Seriously twisted family. n/t

[jaysunb]

75. Hell, I wish I'd been that lucky when I was 14

although I can't imagine crying to the cops years later.

This whole story stinks to high heaven. In the words of a great rockabilly singer :

"Whole lotta lying going on here" :evilfrown:

[TheWraith]

78. I'll probably catch flak for this, but...

Unless there's evidence that the 18 year old girl was helping her mother in some way, I don't think she should be charged. An 18 year old screwing around with a 14 year old may raise some eyebrows, but I don't believe it merits criminal charges.

[Tansy_Gold]

79. Apparently you didn't read the article

Under Arizona law -- which cares not one whit whether you agree with it or not -- if the perp is four years or more older than the victim, it's a crime.

You can debate the merits of the law if you like, and there have been others here, including myself, who have offered glimpses into our own teen-age sexual histories, but the fact remains that the law of the state where Rachel and Susan committed their alleged acts says that it's a crime. And there was apparently sufficient evidence against the now-21-year-old Rachel to arrest her and deny her bail.


TG, TT

[TheWraith]

91. I did read the article. Your point is irrelevant.

To take an arbitrary legal line and define it as an absolute moral one is to abandon one's own judgment and rationality. That's the same logic that says a boy who, on his 18th birthday, sleeps with his 17 year and 11 month old girlfriend, is morally and legally the same as a 50 year old man raping a 13 year old. What Arizona's law says is hardly the only definition of what is right. In Iowa, the girl couldn't even have been charged, since the age of consent there is 14. If we accepted law as defining what's morally right, then ten years ago it would have been a terribly immoral crime for gay people in Texas to have sex. You really want to stake out the word of the state legislature as the arbiter of morality?

[Tansy_Gold]

92. State laws ROUTINELY use arbitrary definitions

There is often a HUGE difference between what is "morally" all right and what is "legally" all right.

As far as I know, I have not debated in this thread what is morally right or wrong in this particular case. I have tried to point out only what the law says and why the actions have been taken.

The laws in many states claim that it is illegal (immoral?) for anyone who has not attained a certain age to consume alcoholic beverages. The day before, it's illegal; the day after, no problem. Ditto with purchasing cigarettes, getting married, driving a car.

In the absence of those arbitrary definitions how would you handle a case in which a 19 year old female has sex with a 13 year old male, becomes pregnant by him, and sues for child support. She claims she thought he was consenting to sex and he seemed mature enough to make that decision, so she thinks he's mature enough to pay child support. If you have no arbitrary dividing line, then anyone is fair game. She's 48 and he's 15? So what? She says he gave consent, his word against hers, who you gonna believe? He's 50 and she's 13? So what? He says she gave consent, her word against his, who you gonna believe? He's 35 and she's 6? So what? he says she gave consent, she wanted it, her word against his, who you gonna believe?

Where are you willing to draw the line, or aren't you willing to draw one at all? If there's no line, there's no crime. EVER.


The prohibitions against gay sex, however, are not quite the same thing, because the activity is what's prohibited, and it does not change with the "status" of the persons. Minors or legal consenting adults or any combination thereof -- it's all illegal. Or it was.

In contrast, the acts committed by Susan and Rachel Brock with this young man are not, apparently, illegal in and of themselves. It's the fact that he's "under-age" that makes them illegal. That's a status crime, dependent upon the arbitrarily-defined status of the individuals.

Again, if you don't define that status, then you have no crime. What Rachel Brock did with the young man is no crime. What Susan Brock did with him is no crime either.


TG

[bitchkitty]

80. Two TEENS had SEX?????? Oh, the horror! n/t

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabasco]

93. LOL! Is 48 the new teens?

Your response does not make sense.

The article is about two adults, one 48 years old, having sex with a 14 year old.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bitchkitty]

97. I was talking about the TEEN, as evidenced by my capital letters.

You seem very concerned over this.

I did not mention the 48-year old in my one-line post, so to reassure you, you are not imagining things, there was a 48-year old. You are right about that. Yes, that was molestation.

However, an 18-year old and a 14-year old having sex is not the same thing as a 48-year old having sex. I would think that it's the 48-year old that has the sickness, not only going after a young teen, but a young teen who happens to have been her daughter's lover. That's some Jerry Springer shit.

To me, all that goes without saying. But I hope you feel better. ;)

[HughBeaumont]

81. Wow, just some wide-eyed insanoids there . . .

Yeeee-haw! The daughter thinks it's all funny. I mean, 14 years old? WTF?

[RC]

82. If the girl here had been 17, no problem?

This apparently started 3 years ago?
But since she is now 18, it was 'dangerous'? I think somebody's anchor chain is too short.
Also, because the male and female brains are wired differently, there is a difference in who is which here. It does matter.

I have a question: This country is rather more tightly laced sexually compared to, say Europe. The question that applies to cases such as this is; "How much damage was done by the 'sexual abuse' itself vs. the 'treatment or counseling' that ends up laying a guilt trip on the 'abused victim' because (s)he did something 'wrong'?

[itsrobert]

83. When the boy was 11 or 12?

? yikes

[Tansy_Gold]

85. She is currently 21. She was 18 when it started. He was 13, maybe 14.

Here's the rationale behind it, as provided anecdotally by a friend of mine who used to be a case manager with CPS in Arizona and actually handled two similar cases.

At a given age in our culture, an individual is considered an adult and therefore has the ability to make adult, informed, rational decisions; and understand and take responsibility for the consequences of those actions. We assign various ages to the age of consent for various actions, such as working outside the home, driving, marriage, voting, military service, etc., based on a vague notion of average age at which an individual is morally, mentally, emotionally, financially, capable of assuming the responsibility for any consequences that arise from those actions. These apparently arbitrary designations have some basis in reality but generally when they go wrong, it's because the individuals involved are outside the range of normal. So you have some 16 year olds who are safe responsible drivers and you have some 30-year-olds who should never have been given a license. You have 17 year olds who marry happily for life and you have 40 year olds who go from one marriage to a divorce to another marriage to a divorce, etc. and leave behind a string of children with no support. Statistically, however, the imposed ages of consent work most of the time to maintain social stability.

The more complex a culture becomes, the more likely it is to assign these rather rigid parameters to more and more behaviors, and under the law the violation of such statutes is known as "status crime." Breaking curfew, under age drinking, under age sex -- it's not the actions that are criminal in and of themselves, but the status of the individual makes the actions criminal.

Assigning an age of consent for sexual activity has ramifications to the greater society, and typically laws regarding consent vary with the complexity of the society's economy. By attempting to limit the formation of families -- via marriage and pregnancy -- to those who are economically capable of supporting them through wage-earning, an industrialized society maintains its unique status quo. Age for marriage and childbearing is less important in a subsistence or pre-industrial society because going out and getting a job to earn cash wages to pay the bills is also less important.

In order to maintain the status of the under-age individuals, laws must be enacted and enforced to clarify the distinction. Thus the difference between "forcible rape" and "statutory rape," in the latter of which there may be no actual force, but because one individual is "under age," a crime has been committed. (And yes, there is a feminist sociological/anthropological examination of whether or not this all falls under the general rubric of patriarchy, but that's for another discussion.) In our culture, we've defined the age of consent for sexual activity and we've added further limitations that distinguish under age "consensual" sex (between two minors) from abusive sex in which one partner is a legal adult who under the law is held to be more responsible, more able to make rational informed decisions.

Thus, the 18 year old is considered an adult under the law, and her engaging in sexual activity, even if not including intercourse, is considered dangerous. She should, under the law, know better. Obviously, she doesn't, and she is therefore considered a criminal.

There are further distinctions if one of the parties is under an even lower age limit. How would you deal with an 18 year old who is engaging in sexual activity with a 12 year old? with an 8 year old? with a 4 year old? Where do you draw the line for the age of informed consent? Or do you just not draw it?

It's easy to say that each of these cases should be judged on its own merits, on the maturity of the individuals, but unfortunately we just don't operate that way. We don't do it for driving and we don't do it for drinking alcohol and we don't do it for sex. We set limits and we expect the adults to respect those limits for the good of society. When they don't. . . .

What some people also forget in their casual attitude toward under age sex is that we also have a society in which children are not routinely taught birth control or STD defense, nor are the materials for contraception and disease prevention readily available. CPS has to deal with the aftermath: such as three 13 year old girlfriends who are impregnated by the same 15 year old boy who told them (and maybe believed) they couldn't get pregnant if he masturbated first. How do we hold him responsible for child support at his age? (So much for robust self-esteem!) It's not just whether the individual is psychologically scarred by his or her participation as an under age partner to a sexual relationship; it is also the potential impact on the greater community.

It is not likely that there are bunches of 18 year old girls out there seducing 13 and 14 year old boys. There probably are quite a few 18 year old boys out there seducing 13 and 14 year old girls. Most of the time we only know about it when someone gets either sick or pregnant, and those are the cosequences the very young are not capable of responsibly dealing with in our culture. In order to progress toward an egalitarian society and throw of the shackles of patriarchy we do need to impose the same limitations on all genders and all sexual orientations. And that means those who fail to obey the law will have to pay the price. Suggesting that the under age partner, because he's male and "wired differently" for sexual desire, still ignores the fact that desire alone is insufficient justification for dismissing a crime committed by a legal adult. At 13 or 14, he was not in a position to accept responsibility for the consequences of his actions; at 18 she had the legal responsiblity for saying no. She failed.



TG

[SquireJons]

94. Criminalizing Consensual Sex

Cause there's nothing else important to attend to...

99% of 14 year old boys would give their right arm for such "abuse." The mom's involvement is a bit creepy, but there is no crime regarding Rachel Brock IMO.

[Tansy_Gold]

95. Where, then, would you draw the line?

Would you have a different "age of consent" for girls than for boys? And where would you draw the line? 14? 12? 10?

If the male is considered old enough to consent to sex, is he also old enough to take financial responsibilty for any children who are conceived? Maybe we should do away with age restrictions for gainful employment, too, so these junior high dads can get jobs to support their families.

And if there's no "crime" on Rachel Brock's part, what about her mother? Why should she be held to a different standard? After all, if it was okay for the boy to "want it," why should there be any blame placed on the 48-year-old woman he wants it with? Maybe she can say he forced her to do it?



TG

[SquireJons]

98. It's pretty simple to me...

If sex is consensual, then no crime was committed. We have more people in jail than we know what to do with so imprisoning people for something as natural as sex is more than a waste of time and money, it is persecution.

As far as I'm concerned, age of consent occurs at puberty. That's when nature tells us we are ready for sex. From that point on, if consent is given, it's no ones business but the people involved and perhaps those that have the legal responsibility for them (ie. their guardians). There is no economic clause with sex or with being parents. By your logic, people below a certain income level should be prevented from having sex, because it might lead to children.

In truth, this is just idealized theory for me, because I am a father of a 13 year old boy and I understand the concerns and ramifications. But that does not change my view. It's up to parents to discuss sex with their kids before the urges hit and make sure they understand the consequences. My son is more mature about sex than I am, because I have made sure he knows the risks.

If I found that he was having sex with a girl several years older than himself, I would talk with him, then with the girl to see what was going on. If I thought that it was abusive or detrimental to him, I would take steps to end the relationship. But if it wasn't, I would adjust to the new situation and monitor it closely.

The situation with the older woman is different. I would definitely try to end the relationship. But if he consented, I would not go to the police; I would deal with it myself.

It seems obvious to me, that women do not understand male sexuality in the slightest. From my perspective, it seems that women regularly adopt the view that sex is bad (not for themselves but in general), where as most men consider sex to be good in absence of coercion or manipulation. I don't think we will ever get men and women to agree on sexual issues.

[Tansy_Gold]

99. You are addressing only what YOU would do in YOUR situation

You are not addressing the greater ramifications to society, which is what a legal/justice system attempts (always imperfectly) to do.

Your scenario assumes that every child has a parent who teaches that child a set of logical moral values and gives that child adequate education to make informed decisions. What your scenario does not address is all the conditions, circumstances, and situations which fall outside your ideal.

How would you, as a judge or member of a jury, determine whether the sex was consensual if an 11-year-old girl who has reached puberty claims she had no idea what her mother's 30-year-old boyfriend was doing to her, but the boyfriend says, "Hey, she told me she wanted to have sex. She came on to me. She's old enough."

As a society we have said that young people, regardless of certain physical characteristics, are not emotionally and psychologically mature enough to take on adult responsibilities. By your rationale, it's all about what we WANT to do and what FEELS GOOD and nothing else. You seem to see little beyond the desire to satisfy and urge, and no reason to control that urge, regardless of the consequences.

We've decided, as a society, that children do not have the skill sets -- emotional, physical, etc., all in combination -- to drive an automobile until they reach a certain age. As I wrote in a pervious post, there are some 14-year-olds who are mature enough in all these criteria to be safe drivers, and there are more than a few 30 year olds who should never be handed the keys. But in general, we put the "legal driving age" at 16. It varies some places, but in general, it's 16. Do you think that's wrong? Do you think, instead, we should just let everyone drive as soon as they can reach the gas pedal and see through the steering wheel?

What about marriage? Should 10 year olds be allowed to marry, to enter into a lifetime commitment, indissoluble except by divorce, because they're "in love"? I remember having such a monstrous crush on one of the boys in my fifth grade class that I'd have married him at age 10 in a heartbeat! Do you think a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old should be able to marry? If they're old enough to grant consent to sex, then they're old enough to marry, right?

And what are you saying about men in general? That they should be allowed to indulge their sexual desires any time and under any circumstances they wish, because after all boys will be boys and they can't do anything about it? They're "hard-wired" differently from girls and so we should have a different standard for them, allowing much more leniency toward their sexual behavior because it's "normal" for boys? Does that mean you think girls who "experiment" with their sexuality at an early age are deviant or not normal. . . or are just "bad" girls?

What you seem to be saying is: 14 year old boys like sex, and there should never be any laws enacted that would in any way prevent 14 year old boys from getting all the sex they want anywhere they can get it, even if those laws are enacted to protect other 14 year old children and even younger children from sexual abuse, exploitation, and even rape. Nothing is more important than protecting the sexual rights of 14 year old boys, at any cost. 14 year old boys, and even 12 or 10 year old boys who are capable of getting an erection are by definition old enough to make up their own minds and any time anyone has sex with a 10 or 12 or 14 year old boy, it must be because he wanted it, because 14 year old boys ALWAYS want sex and that's a good thing.



Tansy Gold