Comments on: Statutory rape law – a paternalistic anachronism

By: AK

AK — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:07:41 +0000

So what if >sophie
Feb 11, 2010 15:4< 14 year old sister is still a virgin?

Why should the law be concerned if she is virgin or not?

Surely it is an issue, if sophie's parents want to make out of it, for the family to decide and NOT for the state to concern itself with. And neither should sophie or anyone else impose their values on another who does not share the same values.

Please state clearly why sex after puberty is wrong whatever the age with the caveat that precautions have been taken to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

If it is wrong for teenagers to engage in sex then why is it not wrong for others, whether married or not, to do the same?

As for lobo 76 trying to pull a fast one with his analogy of father teaching his son to play with knife, sex is a primordial need of mammals, whereas playing with knife is probably in lobo 76's imagination. It just goes to show that people like lobo have run out of arguments.

By: JJ

JJ — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:30:24 +0000

If I understand correctly, this law is here to protect against child exploitation. I believe at the time when the law was enacted, no one anticipated the current application of this law – for taking underage boys to task for having mutual sex with underage girl.

As far as sex education is concern, I believe the youngsters should be taught to protect themselves and at the same time, be strongly encouraged to avoid sex till they are above 18. Family should comes in as well to enforce on the moral aspect.

By: btan

btan — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:46:39 +0000

I prefer the “statutory rape” law to be retool to become a “sex-with-a-minor” law and this new law to be applied to minors of both gender. Only offenders above the minor age can be charged.

By: sophie

sophie — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:44:15 +0000

mockingbird.sg
i do not believe for a minute that abstinence is not working. if it weren’t, my 14-year-old sister who has countless male friends would be out there experimenting, thinking that a condom would be sufficient to protect her from pregnancy, STDs and other potential emotional stress. abstinence is a choice and it is a choice that works.
i do not believe for a second that teenagers are not equipped with the logic and self-mastery to delay sex / abstain from casual sex just because “they are teenagers and are going to experiment”.
sure, go ahead and teach them contraception, but who says abstinence doesn’t work just because they’re young and have raging hormones?
your fatalistic attitude disgusts me.

By: ayoungsingaporean

ayoungsingaporean — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:52:07 +0000

Indeed, many of us are missing the point entirely. I am assuming most people who think the law is great as it is somewhere in the age range of 35-60 and probably has a daughter of his own.
There is nothing wrong with caring for the well being of your children. There is something wrong with expecting the government to do it for you. Underage sex IS a social issue. Arguing that it is a crime is like saying a a 14 year old sneaking into his father’s minibar and taking a shot of vodka is a crime. It’s not, it parental negligence or teenage rebellion. Selling that liquor to a 14 year old is the crime here.
While sex has its fair share of risks, especially if both parties are underage, arresting them and tarnishing their future is ridiculously pointless. If one party, either male or female, was over 14 or worst still, much much older than that, then there is an obvious benefit to pressing charges on the older and presumably wiser party. Here’s a fairer and more helpful law perhaps…
Statutary rape is re-defined as: Any man or woman above the age of 14 having sexual relations of any sort with a person below that age has comitted statutary rape.
Punishments:
1. If both parties are 14 or below, they will BOTH be sent for counselling. Their parents will be counselled too to ensure that everyone understands that this is a social issue to be worked on at home. Parents will then help their children to understand the consequences of underaged sex and work towards a better more communicative household. (this might be difficult with the more conservative uncles and aunties but we should at least TRY)
2. If one party is above 14 but below 18, he/she will be sent to a reform centre of some sort. Boys town or girls town for no more than 2 years where there will be mild punishments and no lasting criminal record.
3. If one party is above 18, he/she will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Jail, canning whatever it takes to get this predator off the streets.
Many of Singapore’s laws are just there to make thing easier for policy makers and life easier for Singaporeans who can’t be bothered figuring out any ethics or morality. Simple black and whites are fine for most of these people. Human rights need to be taken into account now if Singapore wants to continue considering itself a democratic country where everyone has rights.

By: mockingbird.sg

mockingbird.sg — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:31:34 +0000

@lobo76

As I had mentioned in my earlier posts, the author had recommended that the law be refined and he insinuated the definition to a. exclude boys below the age of 14 from statutory rape or b. the law is nothing but a “paternalistic anachronism” and should be disregarded in our time and age.

With these 2 premise in mind, it is suggestive that the author does not just wish for th law to be redefined but removed due to it’s inadequacy in this day and age. No doubt he is suggesting a new law be made to “balance out” the consequences of both male and female.
Not to delve too much into what is typing “redefine” a law when you fundamentally want to change the spirit in which it is built on (ie. men would be found guilty if he has sex with a girl under 14 with/without consent)?

With regards to the other topic at hand, Abstinence is not working. Teenagers will always be motivated to try something new and it behooves logic to not prepare them for it when the time comes.

By: j

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:22:26 +0000

lobo76, if i recall correctly there were a couple of cases in singapore where the older women were jailed.

By: lobo76

lobo76 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:20:27 +0000

To anyone,
I just want to ask if there is another law that specifically protects against underaged sex, not just 375 which seems to only protect the underaged girl? iirc, there were cases where an older woman and underaged boys were involved?

By: zz

zz — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:09:12 +0000

I think the above hypothetical scenario is misleading. a boy aged 14 (or for the matter, under 16) cannot be charged as an adult, and hence would not attract the punishment as given under the penal code.

As for the issue of consent, it is to me a non-starter to begin with. The law does not ignore the girl’s consent wilfully; rather the girl’s consent cannot be taken into account simply because of the presumption that her age renders her incapable of giving consent. While this may seem rather far-fetch by our personal experience, take a step back to consider this: this “incapacity” doctrine is one that is of general application in the law. It applies, generally speaking, to areas such as allowing a 14 year old girl to make those 1900 phone calls, or to allow a 14 year old boy to apply for a debit card. It seems illogical to me to argue that a 14 year old girl’s consent is valid enough to be taken into account for the purposes of sexual intercourse, but not valid enough if the same girl were to apply for a debit card on her own initiative.

The real issue would then be whether one is still uncomfortable with any form of punishment inflicted on the (presumably) “innocent” (as in intuitively; legally of course he must be guilty) 14 year old boy (eg probation, boys’ home etc), while letting the 14 year old girl go free. Now this is an open question to which i have not quite made up my mind yet, though intuitively speaking, I would be for it.

By: lobo76

lobo76 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:04:11 +0000

Zorro Feb 10, 2010 11:39
You seem to have interpreted the teaching of safe sex to saying safe sex is okay. If I may use your analogy: do you want to teach your child on how to safely handle a knife if, for whatever reasons, you cannot stop him/her from getting hold of one? Does it mean it is okay to play with a knife just because you teach him/her how to use it safely?

By: lobo76

lobo76 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:00:32 +0000

hwtan (Feb 10, 2010 11:08)
You may want to read about some of the reasons of why there is a drop in HIV STATISTICS in Zimbabwe here: http://www.avert.org/aids-zimbabwe.htm

By: wall of text

wall of text — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:41:11 +0000

I agree with objective that statutory rape should apply to both boys and girls. Prima facie, such a provision is already discriminatory to the males. What people often ignore is that it is equally offensive to the females. It implies that they are the victims whenever sex is involved, that they are some weak, exploited party which needs protection.

I know of many women who enjoy sex and don’t think it is something shameful. It is really silly and outdated to view women as people who don’t know how to love their own bodies and seek pleasure as the guys do. Should their sole social role be to stay at home, wait for their husbands to bang them, then breed? That would be very demeaning and regressive in our modern society. We pride ourselves on having a first world infrastructure, let’s have a first world mindset too instead of acting like the taliban or american rednecks.

By: wall of text

wall of text — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:28:26 +0000

I think there should be moderation and logic with regard to sexual matters. Unfortunately, such debates usually ends up being emotional. People adopt the fanatical moralist stance that everything not in accordance with their beliefs is wrong and should be banned. Alternatively, there will be those who scream free sex without regard to the consequences.

We should not adopt the ultra-liberal position that young children should be having sex, the same way young children should not be drinking or smoking. They’re not mature enough to make the safe choices and exercise moderation.

At the same time, we should also avoid the extremist conservative/religious position that you cannot have sex without marriage. Surely there is nothing wrong with consenting adults having sex with their partners, regardless of the legal status of their relationship. It is just another facet of a healthy relationship. Sexual autonomy should not be denied to responsible, educated people who are well-placed to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. There are no absolutes in moral matters.

By: Zorro

Zorro — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:39:21 +0000

I am of the opinion that children should be taught in school to abstain from sex because it is simply the right thing to do. To advocate practicing safe sex to our young children is almost like telling them that having sex is okay, regardless of their young age. The problem is at their young age, are they ready for it mentally and emotionally? What about the social costs? To some extent, we have to see sex at such a young age like someone handling a knife in the kitchen. Would you trust someone so young to handle a knife? In this regard, I feel that parents have a very big and important role to play. The schools can only do so much. Thankfully, we have the law to observe and that should act as a deterrent against wrongful behaviour. The question is how should we deal with children who engage in consensual sex? Should we called it satutory rape? I am sure our capable government will be able to come up with a solution.

By: oiligoli

oiligoli — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:33:19 +0000

for those puritans who are so concerned about the safety of our children, please answer these two questions:
1) If an adult has sex with his girlfriend, but successfully practises safe sex and does not get unwanted pregnancies or STDs, is that still a problem? Don’t say this is a hypothetical because it is entirely possible, my friends and myself all manage to pull it off.
2) Since safety and health is the issue with sex, would you kindly promote lesbian sex? It has been proven that that is the safest category of sex (lesbian sex -> straight sex -> gay sex).
3) Is masturbation ok? Surely that wouldn’t cause STDs or unwanted pregnancies. And no, I don’t know what you teach others, but it does not cause blindness and hairy palms too.
If your view is that, in spite of safety being out of the equation, sex is still wrong simply because it is out of marriage, I would suggest you come clean and simply say you’re promoting a certain moral agenda instead of safety. There is nothing wrong with that, and people can make an informed choice about whether they prefer to adopt morality package A, B or C for their own lives, without being blindsided by all the fluff about safety.

By: The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 10 Feb 2010

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 10 Feb 2010 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:28:27 +0000

[...] Daily Discourse – Barnyard Chorus: Degrees of information – TOC: Statutory rape law – a paternalistic anachronism [...]

By: bonsai kitty

bonsai kitty — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:16:42 +0000

Abstinence only programs? You mean like those that taught JC students that condoms will let the HIV virus through, and that masturbation is evil? Great education there, sounds more like deception and moralistic brainwashing to me.
I doubt that those who cry loudest for abstinence only programs truly have the interests of the teens at heart, from a factual/scientific basis. Rather, their key interest is recruitment of impressionable teens into their moral systems, which largely consists of “pre-marital sex is EVIL because my leader says so!”.

By: hwtan

hwtan — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:08:15 +0000

Sloo wrote:
“And if this is the case, educational and religious instituitions should do more to promote safe sex to curb STDs and teenage pregnancies”
Safe sex is never safe. It is just an excuse for people who promote casual sex. Zimbabwe is the only nation that fights Aids with success. Unlike its neighboring counties which fight Aids with safe-sex, Zimbabwe promotes healthy family life-style, faithful to spouse etc and has successfully reduce the amount of HIV carriers from about 1/3 of its population to about 13% today. However, its neighbours, which believe in the fallacy of safe-sex, continue to suffer from high rate of HIV.
As a social problem, sexual activity of youths must be curb with value, life-style and social atmosphere. Safe sex is simply damage control that doesn’t help to solve the problem at its root. It is just like pain killer. If you try to cure your back pain with pain killer alone, you will end up with more serious problem in the long run because thinking that the back pain has gone may mislead you to further damage your back by not resting it or seek for treatment.

By: Yee Joo Gle

Yee Joo Gle — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:19:20 +0000

@Wahliao
I believe the situation the writer had in mind was one where both the male and female participants were underaged.

By: Yee Joo Gle

Yee Joo Gle — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:15:54 +0000

@I don’t see the point
The writer is not saying that there is no problem here. Everyone is agreed that underage sex is undesirable for various reasons. He is saying that it is a social problem which should be remedied with measures other than the criminal law.