It’s not “rape.” They’re essentially the same age, and there wasn’t any force involved that we know of.
Statuatory rape laws are meant for actual predators, not teenage lovers. If the boy were 17, and the girl perhaps 12, that of course is much different, as the mental ages of the two are incomparable. If the boy were 22 and the girl 15, same thing.
A teenage couple 2 years apart having consensual sex is not what statuatory rape laws are meant to prevent and punish.
I’m not saying teenagers should have sex. I’m saying it’s not the same as statuatory rape.
Half the people on this forum had sex as teenagers, and I really don’t think they’re rapists.
Statutory rape laws are meant for actual predators, not teenage lovers.
Not quire right. Statutory rape laws exist because society requires 'consensual sexual acts' to have 'informed consent.' The legislatures, elected by the people, have passed laws setting the age for that consent at 16. By definition this girl could not give consent for sex. I imagine few on this forum would suggest the 15 year old girl could give consent to sign any contract (e.g. purchase a car, donate an organ, etc.) Why do so many here treat the ability to give 'informed consent' for sexual intercourse so differently?