The guy was found guilty after he plea bargained down from charges of possessing actual child pornography and lesser jail time, etc. Which alters the story considerably, I think.To say the least! I'll have to look that one up when I get home.
EDIT: I was going to say that, logically, why would you let the guy plea to cartoons if you've already got him nailed for possession of evidence of a felony (i.e., the real thing)? Then it occurred to me that logic has no place in these cases.
I had a similar reaction, but IIRC, it had something to do with computers. I don't know. I can't even figure out how to clear my browser. "Hey, Doodlebug, what is all this about amputee dwarf porn?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To which the correct answer is "what do you have against amputee dwarves you fascist pig?!!?", right?
Actually, it's more like
[Hides face in shame]
Hey, srly, though, Madame Sissyl, over in the How do You Handle Homosexuality in Your Campaign Thread, I relayed an amusing anecdote about a friend of a friend which makes some exciting but rather dubious claims about Swedish marital customs. Your thoughts? [Crosses fingers]
I'm pretty much pro-gay rights, given that I'm a straight man in a gay marriage myself.
But I have to ask folks here this question. Would you be just as sympathetic if the case was that of an 18 year old male having sex with a 15 year old girl? If not, why should this one be any different?
It shouldn't be any different, which goes to show you how weird the pro-gay rights lobby is. This has done the rounds on the internet, and yet there are probably thousands of similar straight-sex scenarios like this every single year.
And when I say it shouldn't be any different, I mean neither are a particularly big deal. 3 years difference should not a felony make.
But, ya know, laws is laws and that 18 year old is a rapist. And remember, rape is rape is rape and if you think that what is happening to this young woman is an injustice you are a rape apologist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think any world that threatens to send a high school senior to jail for fifteen years for going down on (or being gone down upon by) a high school sophomore, regardless of either's gender, is a stupid one, and I hereby vow to dedicate my life to smashing it through international proletarian socialist revolution.
Free Kate!
Vive le Galt!
Would it have been worse if Kate had already graduated?
Or what if she was a 21 year old 4th year senior?
You just don't understand, Doodlebug. Kate is a rapist. Her partner could not legally consent.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the fact that she is female or the fact that she is gay shouldn't be part of it all. While I have no desire for her to be hurt or imprisoned, on an individual, personal level, I do feel that the exact same measuring stick that is used for a male in the same situation should be fully used here, because that is what equality is all about. Any jail sentencing should not be any less than at least the average of what males see, but I seriously doubt that there will be any life-long issues thereafter with their reputation be destroyed irreparably, them being beaten and much worse in jail, or all of the other things that a boy in the exact same circumstances would face just for being a boy.
Like I said, I have no desire to wish her harm, but at the same time, maybe this is the sort of thing that might help a lot more people in the long run and start to really show how stupid some of these cases are for the age groups in question.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I have to ask folks here this question. Would you be just as sympathetic if the case was that of an 18 year old male having sex with a 15 year old girl?
As long as there's no victimization occurring -- no clear power imbalance or anything like that -- then I think the penalty for two young people doing what they want together should be handled by them and their families, and not by the courts. That applies regardless of whether the people are male, female, gay, striaght, or whatever. I was equally sickened by imprisonment of the 17-year-old guy whose 16-year-old girlfriend's parents decided they didn't like him, and used the courts to get rid of him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would it have been worse if Kate had already graduated?
Or what if she was a 21 year old 4th year senior?You just don't understand, Doodlebug. Kate is a rapist. Her partner could not legally consent.
Seeing as how I know that you are paying lip service to principles you doesn't subscribe to, Comrade Meatrace, I am not sure if this post is just sarcasm or if you are really asking me a question.
I used to be underage. I consented. A lot. As often as I could, as a matter of fact. I don't buy that teenagers can't consent bullshiznit.
I don't care if I get NAMBLA-baited.
Free Kate!
Stop the hate!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an LGBT rights/feminist activist-ish kind of person, no, there would be no difference if the offender was male, provided there was no coercion or power imbalance in the relationship (of which we can see none in this case). Romeo and Juliet laws exist for a reason--but, sadly, not in the state Kate is in, as far as I recall from reading about this case.
But you also have to understand that the LGBT community is rather sensitive about this kind of thing. I needn't provide reference for the amount of couples in similar situations whose parents made them split up because of their sexuality...
-------
Comrade Goblin, I just wanted to say that I hope you enjoy the reading list and find some use about it. Since the other thread was closed I wanted to mention something.
Well, I may be speaking out of line, because what the hell do I know about typical feminism. But, I found this pretty good article on "Redefining Feminism" from earlier this year that was discussing intersectionality as some kind of new thing, even though it sounds a lot like what bell hooks was talking about 30 years ago, so, I assumed...
As far as I understand it, intersectionality is very much a third-wave feminism thing, although for people like me who pretty much know nothing but third-wave feminism it seems incredibly obvious. I believe bell hooks is one of those authors who hit the topic early (and hence continues to be incredibly relevant today). Wikipedia suggests it was " highlighted by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989" so that is comparatively recent, I suppose.
However, plenty of second-wave feminist adherents are still around, as well as people who have decided that that's the way of the future so to speak, so there is sometimes a bit of a clash in ideology from the sisters who came before us, I feel. Also, radfems.
|
From what I read it's the other girl's parents forcing the issue. They're the ones that pressed charges.
Also should this be treated the same as a male/female relationship? There's zero chance of either girl getting pregnant. One of the big fears about statutory rape is that the one side isn't mentally capable of consenting to the relationship, and I don't mean to trivialize this, but mental maturity and age don't really equate. The other fear though is that a young woman's body isn't ready to handle child birth. I'd think most 15 year old girls would probably be mostly finished with puberty but a 13 year old might not be fully grown and pregnancy can be brutal on a young body. In some African tribes you have young girls being married off as soon as they're old enough to menstruate, and then pregnancy ruins their young bodies.
Sending someone to prison for taking advantage of a young person is often justified, but this case is a bit tricky, and I don't think the cookie cutter approach really works.
So by your logic a couple is a-ok if one is sterile? Or is it ONLY the fact both are female that makes it ok to you?
|
|
From what I read it's the other girl's parents forcing the issue. They're the ones that pressed charges.
Also should this be treated the same as a male/female relationship? There's zero chance of either girl getting pregnant. One of the big fears about statutory rape is that the one side isn't mentally capable of consenting to the relationship, and I don't mean to trivialize this, but mental maturity and age don't really equate. The other fear though is that a young woman's body isn't ready to handle child birth.
I'll disagree. If it was as easy as pregnancy, well then no one should have a problem if a male used a condom (or is steril, or uses non-vaginal sex, or etc. . .) in the exact same circumstances, because there is no difference beyond the perception that the male is the aggressor and the female is the victim.
But even beyond that, there is also the fact that women tend to have a much more defined sense, (or at least in a different way) of self image based around sex, and her beginning to have sex at that age, particularly one hiding behind the illusion that just because there is no male/female penetration there is no danger could reasonably easily lead to the mindset that it's both perfectly safe and perfectly healthy <that is to have sex at very young ages and without considering issues beyond not getting pregnant>. What about the potential for various diseases, that are no less present or dangerous just because the partner does not have a penis?
It's also a bit hypocritical (and no I'm not calling you personally hypocritical, just saying the idea) to say one hand that the rational should be equal for all, but then skip out and say well just because it's gay/female/whatever, it's ok.
|
|
As an LGBT rights/feminist activist-ish kind of person, no, there would be no difference if the offender was male, provided there was no coercion or power imbalance in the relationship (of which we can see none in this case).
I'll also heavily disagree with this. Feminism sort of want to put this in the back burner, out of sight, out of mind, but the repercussion that a male sexual offender (actual or not) are much, much worse than that of females. In (US at least) prisons, rapists, child molesters, and other sexual offenders are literally at the bottom of the ladder, meaning that the rest of their life in prison will be literal hell. They will be beaten, raped, and degraded at every opportunity, which will very likely lead to them getting further extended sentences, not to mention all of the issues with health they have to look forward to. For the female offenders, if they even get punished judicially, they on the other hand, tend to get raised to a moderate to high tier in prison. Society and the media will go out of their way to permanently smear a male offenders name, absolutely ruining them to the point that usually their own family will disown them as will their friends, while usually for female offenders the perception is that somehow they themselves where the victim. For the female, it's all about what's wrong and how can we fix them, while with male it's much more I don't care, you made your bed, (even if you actually didn't) and now you need to live with it. You can even see this now, how the feminist community is going to arms over it, because the older female is female. That's it. If it was a guy, despite that females actually mature earlier, both physically and mentally in that age range, he's a rapist pig, and that's it.
|
|
I've read both LGBT community and feminist discussions on this issue, and most people seem to agree that the whole affair is incredibly dumb. In fact, many of them also brought up the same issues that you have mentioned; specifically, would we (as a community) treat this the same way if it was a heterosexual couple/older male? Mostly, the answer has been "of course we would". Some people have noted that it probably wouldn't get as much media attention if not for the fact that it is a homosexual couple, and with that I agree; however, you can blame the sensationalist media for that.
As for the rest of your post, I do not know very much about the state of US prisons as I am not an American citizen. I think that rape is a heinous crime and should be greatly punished (mostly with heavier sentences than what it is typically given now), but I don't believe that punishment should come with physical violence to a rapist. Of course, I also believe that punishment should focus much more on rehabilitation rather than corporal punishment in a gaol.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guy Humual, I think that a rapist or someone abusing their position of power over another is indeed just as dangerous, irrespective of their gender or the gender of their victim(s). It is incredibly insensitive to people who have been abused by women (whether their victims are men or women) to suggest that we should be less concerned about female rapists (especially lesbian ones) simply because of the lower chance of pregnancy or STI transmission.
|
|
Often in cases were you have a female teacher sexually assaulting a under age teen boy (a scenario that I find far more repulsive then the story we're currently disgusting) there's often reactions from the public based on the attractiveness of the teacher, or even jokes about the sexual prowess of the student, or often comments like "where was this teacher when I was in junior high"
Yeah, and I find that sickening. It's symptomatic of a bunch of problems in our society--in this case that men are supposed to be sex-crazed beasts, and that a "real man" would not turn down advances from an attractive woman. Or even more so that an attractive person can't commit rape. Or that if you physically react to the act (i.e., get an erection or other similar bodily reactions), it's not rape. F#$~ that noise.
|
|
As for the rest of your post, I do not know very much about the state of US prisons as I am not an American citizen. I think that rape is a heinous crime and should be greatly punished (mostly with heavier sentences than what it is typically given now), but I don't believe that punishment should come with physical violence to a rapist. Of course, I also believe that punishment should focus much more on rehabilitation rather than corporal punishment in a gaol.
I might have been more clear, but the violence I mentioned was from the other prisoners, all within the prison, though there is also a notorious amount of violence usually done or attempted upon them prior to them even going to trial, I was referring to the other prisoners, which I believe is a fairly universal custom in prisons that work similar to the US. That is to say that most western prisoners view rapist and molesters as the lowest of the low, and often go out of their way to beat, humiliate, and rape them.
However, it does bring up a question. In your opinion, in what ways could rapists (and I mean this very general right now, to include anything from statutory rape to forced sex), in what ways could the punishment be more severe, or heavier? Additionally, and as a separate question, what would be a rational way to focus on rehabilitating a rapist? Can it be done? (And I don't mean this in the sarcastic sense that feminists believe all men are rapists or rapists in waiting or whatever).
|
|
As for the rest of your post, I do not know very much about the state of US prisons as I am not an American citizen. I think that rape is a heinous crime and should be greatly punished (mostly with heavier sentences than what it is typically given now), but I don't believe that punishment should come with physical violence to a rapist. Of course, I also believe that punishment should focus much more on rehabilitation rather than corporal punishment in a gaol.I might have been more clear, but the violence I mentioned was from the other prisoners, all within the prison, though there is also a notorious amount of violence usually done or attempted upon them prior to them even going to trial, I was referring to the other prisoners, which I believe is a fairly universal custom in prisons that work similar to the US. That is to say that most western prisoners view rapist and molesters as the lowest of the low, and often go out of their way to beat, humiliate, and rape them.
However, it does bring up a question. In your opinion, in what ways could rapists (and I mean this very general right now, to include anything from statutory rape to forced sex), in what ways could the punishment be more severe, or heavier? Additionally, and as a separate question, what would be a rational way to focus on rehabilitating a rapist? Can it be done? (And I don't mean this in the sarcastic sense that feminists believe all men are rapists or rapists in waiting or whatever).
Our system allowing it is as bad as doing it i think
|
Rape is an odd subject. Its so damaging to the community and to the individual that many would probably say that there is no rehabilitating a rapist. In some ways I tend to agree, but I like to believe in second chances.
It is also odd because most other creatures that have a male and female counter part on this planet have a "mating" season of some sort and what could be considered rape does occur. I am not suggesting that because it occurs in nature it is good or we should be allowed to do it because of it, but I think sometimes we go over board with "sexual harassment" issues in this country and need to lighten up in some cases.
That being said, with the recent Air Force scandal, I doubt we are going to lighten up any time soon and if anything I suspect more restrictions and regulations to be in our future.
|
|
I might have been more clear, but the violence I mentioned was from the other prisoners, all within the prison, though there is also a notorious amount of violence usually done or attempted upon them prior to them even going to trial, I was referring to the other prisoners, which I believe is a fairly universal custom in prisons that work similar to the US. That is to say that most western prisoners view rapist and molesters as the lowest of the low, and often go out of their way to beat, humiliate, and rape them.
However, it does bring up a question. In your opinion, in what ways could rapists (and I mean this very general right now, to include anything from statutory rape to forced sex), in what ways could the punishment be more severe, or heavier? Additionally, and as a separate question, what would be a rational way to focus on rehabilitating a rapist? Can it be done? (And I don't mean this in the sarcastic sense that feminists believe all men are rapists or rapists in waiting or whatever).
Like I said, I don't think rapists should be physically abused by anyone. I do think that rapists are pretty g#! d+!n awful people, but nobody deserves to have physical violence inflicted upon themselves.
As far as rapist sentencing goes, I feel that a lot of sentences are much lighter (i.e. shorter) than they probably should be, plus the additional problem of getting rapists to trial at all. My mother is a social worker and has an unfortunate amount of experience with how difficult it is to get many rapists punished at all.
As for rehabilitation, I'm not sure, personally. I'm sure there would be something that can be done. Counselling and other psychiatric services for example. I know chemical castration is often suggested and may be useful in certain (especially in serial/aggravated) cases; but other drugs that reduce sexual drive or aggression may be useful for certain individuals. I think that rehabilitation would ideally be an individualistic/targeted thing. Note: this is not really my realm of expertise and I know very little about it.
|
|
Keep in mind that condoms are only 98% (or so) effective, and even when protection is used there's still a chance of the condom malfunctioning.
On one hand (condoms) your implying that since there is a risk, it's too bad, but on the other (since women are less likely to spread STD's), it's ok. You can't have both. Additionally, non-vaginal sex has 0% chance of pregnancy, which you kind of ignored. Also be sterile/barren. (although medically you can be sterile and still have children sometimes. It's more like super low sperm count, and your classified as sterile but still have the possibility, and obviously that was not the type I was referring to)
Agreed but keep in mind that sexually transmitted diseases are currently more likely to be spread by males then women because most men simple have more partners and thus more exposure to STDs.
I'm not sure that's true. I know it is both much more likely that females will catch STD's than males because of the method of "fluid transfer", but aside from that, of those that sleep with multiple partners, it tends to be more males. However, from the parent's perspective of wanting to protect their child, I'm not sure any of that matters, as the point was still that it's risky at such an early age when one of the participants (well I would say both) are not ready for what they are doing. Secondly, men and women react to different diseases in different ways. Some for example will lay dormant in woman anywhere between 6 months to a few years without any signs but will have nearly instant affects on men. Many more STD's, if not treated soon, can leave a woman barren within 2 years, most often will lead to systemic issues, and can themselves become fatal fairly quickly.
But again, all I'm asking is it really the same? Imagine a man roaming from state to state praying on young girls, the same scenario with a woman doing the same thing is no less creepy, but with the man you can also have a string of pregnant young women as well. So is the devastation left in the wake of these imaginary child rapists really the same? I don't have an answer, it's just...
I would say yes. Is the issue that one of them is too young and (potentially) being taken advantage of or is the issue only that they might get pregnant? If the case is A, then male or female, gay or not, it doesn't matter at all. Is it that they are doing something morally/legally wrong or is it that they are just doing something that may potentially have an unwanted outcome?
|
|
Like I said, I don't think rapists should be physically abused by anyone. I do think that rapists are pretty g~$ d~+n awful people, but nobody deserves to have physical violence inflicted upon themselves.
The point I was trying to make though that the actual punishments (overall) are much more heavily felt by males than females once they have been found guilty, (regardless of if they actually where). I'm not suggesting I think it's a good thing as much as trying to show that there is a huge difference in the reality between men and women here.
As far as rapist sentencing goes, I feel that a lot of sentences are much lighter (i.e. shorter) than they probably should be, plus the additional problem of getting rapists to trial at all. My mother is a social worker and has an unfortunate amount of experience with how difficult it is to get many rapists punished at all.
As for rehabilitation, I'm not sure, personally. I'm sure there would be something that can be done. Counselling and other psychiatric services for example. I know chemical castration is often suggested and may be useful in certain (especially in serial/aggravated) cases; but other drugs that reduce sexual drive or aggression may be useful for certain individuals. I think that rehabilitation would ideally be an individualistic/targeted...
That's perfectly fine, I was just asking your opinion. Not demanding you know all the answers. :) Hoping for a discussion.
What's the difference between gender equality and gender sameness?
Gender equality is when you let anyone who meets the requirements do a job. Tote that barge, lift that bail, welcome to the team.
Gender sameness is when you expect 50% of firefighters or soldiers to be women (or 50% of kindergarten teachers to be male) and conclude that anything but a 50/50 ratio is entirely due to discrimination (not an actual term or anything, if someone can point me to a more official term for the concept i'd appreciate it). A few problematic instances include
Lower physical fitness requirements for women in some fields
Putting boys and girls on the same bell curve for the tests to determine ADD/ADHD- which is problematic because more than half of boys then qualify as having the disorder.
Changing ideas of emotional maturity over the years: It used to be the (stereotypical male approach) of burying your feelings and rolling a rock over them until they died. Now its the ability to express and confront your feelings.
Well, nobody said sex laws were sensible. The flat out worst I heard of was from the UK, where a 17-year old girl was registered as a sex offender and sentenced for possession of child pornography... For pictures of herself, naked, on her mobile phone.
There was a similar instance of two under 18 kids taping themselves having sex charged with creation of child pornography in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
And now we start to show some demonstrations on how men are effected by sexism. If this were a man they would ready the gallows but since it is a woman we got apologists trying to make pseudo medical excuses why it really isn't so bad
Since you know how we all think about everything, without us telling you, where should I plan my next vacation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now we start to show some demonstrations on how men are effected by sexism. If this were a man they would ready the gallows but since it is a woman we got apologists trying to make pseudo medical excuses why it really isn't so badSince you know how we all think about everything, without us telling you, where should I plan my next vacation?
Portmeirion
Comrade Goblin, I just wanted to say that I hope you enjoy the reading list and find some use about it. Since the other thread was closed I wanted to mention something.
Well, I may be speaking out of line, because what the hell do I know about typical feminism. But, I found this pretty good article on "Redefining Feminism" from earlier this year that was discussing intersectionality as some kind of new thing, even though it sounds a lot like what bell hooks was talking about 30 years ago, so, I assumed...As far as I understand it, intersectionality is very much a third-wave feminism thing, although for people like me who pretty much know nothing but third-wave feminism it seems incredibly obvious. I believe bell hooks is one of those authors who hit the topic early (and hence continues to be incredibly relevant today). Wikipedia suggests it was " highlighted by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989" so that is comparatively recent, I suppose.
However, plenty of second-wave feminist adherents are still around, as well as people who have decided that that's the way of the future so to speak, so there is sometimes a bit of a clash in ideology from the sisters who came before us, I feel. Also, radfems.
Thank you again, Sister Margatroid. I am in the middle of a couple of books at the moment (including the exciting end of the Gord the Rogue saga!), so it might take me a couple of weeks to start poking through it, but I'll get there eventually.
It is too bad the other thread got closed down, because I had a dream about Anita Sarkeesian last night.
I was taking her to the movies, one of my favorites, Duck Soup, and I was very excited. I was considering the hole in popcorn trick, but, nah, I figured, that would never work on a high-class feminist vlogger, so I decided to wait for an appropriate time, and do the whole pretend to stretch and come down over the shoulder thing.
Anyway, the movie started and I was laughing and having a great time and I looked over at Anita and she was scribbling furiously on a notepad headlines "Tropes Against Women." Every time Groucho and Margaret Dumont were on screen together, she would start shaking in anger and mutter "Bechdel test" to herself under her breath. So, I figured I'd try to alter the mood, smiled at her, and went in for a kiss.
She slapped me. "Who do you think you are, you little rapist, Harpo? Not if you were the last goblin on earth!" "But, baby..." I whispered, looking around in shame as the other theater-goers snickered at me, "I just thought, I just thought..." "You just thought that because you bought me a movie ticket and a popcorn, you had the right to kiss me? And now you can take me home and do what you want and I have no say, right?" "But, baby, I also bought you a box of Gummi Worms!"
Anyway, we left the film early, and, as I was driving her home, I made the mistake of mentioning the scene in Hannah and Her Sisters where Woody decides not to kill himself after watching a Marx Brothers film. "Woody Allen is a pedophile and a misogynist!" she shouted, angrily.
At which point, I kicked her out of the car, went home, and downloaded some porn...and all the girls looked like Anita!
You better believe I woke up in a cold sweat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You liked the part where she slapped you, though, didn't you?
Viva la OHFWA
The reason for statutory rape laws which limit children's ability to consent is because of concerns regarding the power imbalance between people of different ages. The victim is presumed to be more easily manipulated into actions for which they may not fully understand the ramifications by someone older and more experienced.
The problem is we have some pretty severely competing social norms at work here. On the one hand we have a desire to protect potential future victims (the rational behind sex offender registration laws becoming stronger) and an understanding that human sexual relationships are complex.
These close in age corner cases bring this to light. Ideally this is where prosecutorial discretion would come into play. The prosecutor has the final say in most cases whether to even file charges even if they think they can prove their case. Ideally in a case where there wasn't any sort of manipulation based on a power imbalance the charges would not be filed if the individuals were close in age. But reelection is seldom won by prosecutors that are seen to be soft on sex crimes.
|
|
I'm not sure this is a corner case at all, as much as just an uncommon one, with extra hot buttons. From the parent's perspective of the younger child, (removing the fact that both are female or that it is homosexual), it seems perfectly reasonable that they should have the full right to protect their daughter legally. Arguing that because it's a gay relationship goes a long way to show that the younger individual is regardless of her age, mature and competent enough to make a choice for herself, which then leads to well why would she then not be if the partner where a male? People might say that they don't think it would matter, but the past evidence of very similar cases (just switching up the genders) has shown pretty strongly that they (as a general community) simply do not.
My understanding is that it was primarily oral relations, which again means what would be the difference if the other partner was male? That's basically what it comes down to, how is this any different than if an older male had been having sexual relations with an underage/younger female, and in what way should the remove the parents (of the younger girl's) rights to legally defend their child, (whom they are legally accountable for)? The law either applies equally, regardless of gender, nationality, race, or sexual orientation, etc. . ., or it doesn't. It's not about getting all the perks but none of the responsibility, which is exactly what arguing that "because they where gay it's ok" is doing.
I think a lot of people are also jumping on the assumption that the parent's primary (or only) motivation is because they have an issue with their daughter being homosexual and are using this as an excuse to break that up. But the truth is that parent's of children are at least equally if not more concerned with their daughters having heterosexual relationships than they are with homosexual one, its very common that they disallow (or attempt to) their daughters from dating until they are _____ years old, period.
You liked the part where she slapped you, though, didn't you?
Viva la OHFWA
Viva la OHFWA! indeed.
I wish I could go back and edit that post. I'd put in a "'That's it!' I cried, slamming on the brakes, kicked her out of the car...", a bunch of musical and cinemacal links, and a better punch line:
"All the girls looked like Anita...and they were all laughing at me!"
The reason for statutory rape laws which limit children's ability to consent is because of concerns regarding the power imbalance between people of different ages. The victim is presumed to be more easily manipulated into actions for which they may not fully understand the ramifications by someone older and more experienced.
Well, if Citizen X and the Sisters from the Second Wave are correct, all sex is about dominance and power imbalance, so what's the point?
Technically.. it is being handled by the families, at least by one of them. It was the parents of the younger girl that brought this matter to the courts.
Then it's not being handled by the families, is it? The one girl's family is using the courts as an enforcer.