Living in Peru : your everyday companion

Statutory rape law reformed in Peru

(LIP-ir) -- The Minister of Women and Social Development, Virginia Borra has always been wary and skeptical of congress' idea to change the age of consent law for sexual activity.

She has stated that an age of consent reform, changing the age of consent to 14, would jeopardize minors. One the Minister's biggest concerns is that the minor could be intimidated into saying they approve or apporved of sexual activity.

Borra was concerned with the Justice Commissions opinion to make sexual acts legal with adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18. According to Borra, legislators need to consider the reprocussions of their decisions. "A 14 year-olds personality is not defined yet, they can be coerced into having sex because of the moment."

Minister Borra held campaigns, gathered statistics, debated in Congress and even tried to change laws to benefit her cause - yet it has done her no good. The age of consent reform was approved today in Congress.

Today, Congress has ruled in favor of the age of consent reform and has therefore declared that having sexual relations with a person the age of 14 or older, with their consent, is legal.

Up until today a person could be charged with statutory rape and be sentenced up to 30 years in prison for having sexual relations with a person under the age of 16.

Congressman Alejandro Rebaza Martell explained his fight for this reform by stating that under Peruvian law it was legal (with their parents consent) for 16 to 18 year-olds to get married, yet under the same law it was illegal for 16 to 18 year-olds to have sexual relations.

President of the Justice Commission, Raúl Castro supported Rebaza by stating that this reform would correct an old error. He stated that if there had not been an age of consent reform, "half of the country's youth would have to go to jail."

"If two young people decide to have a relationship and one of the parents decides to press charges..., the sentence could be up to 25 years." Rebaza has also stated that age of sexual consent in most Latin American counties is between the ages of 12 and 14.

- related articles -
separator
	Alan Garcia speaks on age for consensual sex (by LIP, Jun 25, 2007)
separator
-

 | |

• TV/Entertainment : Iron Maiden to perform in Lima March 2009
• TV/Entertainment : Enrique Iglesias performs to screaming fans in Lima
• Lima : Peru, Chile companies to launch $160 million project in Lima beach
• Photo of the day : Nidia Vilchez takes oath as new Peru's Housing minister
• Lima : Lima districts to tackle fireworks misuse in Christmas season

# Mike says :
22 June, 2007 [ 09:11 ]

I guess the devil is in the details here.  Who is it legal to have relations with at age 14?  Another 14 year old?

However; if this law makes it legal for a 30 year old to have relations with a 14 year old, that is not only misguided, but speaks of a huge streak of immoral thinking amongst the Peruvian congress!

# Edson says :
22 June, 2007 [ 10:45 ]

Our great congress comitted a big blunder again, now, as Mike said, any 30 years old guy (and even older) can persuade a teen girl to have relations. these Congressmen should protect teens by changing their minds.

# George says :
23 June, 2007 [ 09:47 ]

I am very much in favor of this move by the Peruvian Congress.  Every year thousands of men around the world have their lives ruined because of laws that are in place for the good intention of protecting children. 

Teenagers today are much more sophisticated and cognizant than their counterparts 30, 40, or 100 years ago due to global changes such as readily available information from the internet, television, and mass media.  If a girl as young as 14 makes the choice to willfuly have sex with an older man, is it "moral" to throw him in jail and ruin his life?

# Mike says :
23 June, 2007 [ 09:53 ]

George, you jackass; teenagers are *not* more sophisticated or mature than some decades ago - they are *less* mature and sophisticated.  Back then, life was tougher and you had to grow up faster to help the family.

Keep your comments to yourself paedophile!

# George says :
23 June, 2007 [ 11:05 ]

You still avoid the point I am making and resort to name calling.  My comments about an increase in sophistication amongst youngsters is a generalization about a trend happening globally. 

As far as what you said life was "tougher" and you grow up faster to help the family is completely getting away from the issue.  It's also a much more vague generalization.

Getting back to the point, let me give you a real specific example......

A hard working honest guy goes w/ his budies for drinks at Aura or Gothika in Larco Mar....meets a girl who says she's 18 (but really 16).  They wound up having some casual sex that night, the next week her parents get word, go to the cops and now he's lost his job/business and has his life ruined.  

# Mike says :
23 June, 2007 [ 11:15 ]

The scenario you give is absolutely one that should happen - if you are at all concerned about a woman's age, don't have sex with her.

You are the one avoiding the issue here: adults need to take _absolute_ responsibility for their actions.  If that includes avoiding, or being careful about casual sex, then that is what they must do.

# Bill says :
25 June, 2007 [ 09:31 ]

What right do you, Mike, have to tell others how to live? For every exploitative sexual relationship that may occur, there are literally thousands of non-exploitative sexual relationships that are being denied legallity because of the moralising bullshit from imbeciles like you. Age of consent laws are not needed at all. Rape laws either do or can be adjusted to cover exploitative sexual relationships, regardless of the age of the participants. 14 is still too high.

Suggestion; get a bloody life of your own and stop sticking your nose into other peoples lives.

# Mike says :
25 June, 2007 [ 09:39 ]

Bill;

Perhaps you did not read the thread.  It is not immoral for teens to have sex amongst themselves.  The law adjusted that, and this was certainly the correct thing to do.

Apparently, though, the law does not cover non-teens having sex with teens.  Teenagers need to be protected from predatory adults.

If you didn't read the thread, then I understand why you might be upset with my comments.

If you did read the thread, then you are just another scum-sucking paedophile who needs to be in jail.

# Bill says :
25 June, 2007 [ 10:20 ]

Mike, I did read the thread, thoroughly. You obviously didn't bother reading my post in the same manner though. Teenagers do NOT need to be protected from non-exploitative relationships with an older person. Some teenagers actually WANT to have that type of relationship. My paternal grandmother was married (with parental consent) at age 12, had her first child at age 13, and loved my grandfather passionately until his death some 50 years later. He was 23 when they married.

Teenagers DO NOT want your "protection" and you don't have the right to try to force them accept it anymore than I have the right to try to coerce them into a sexual relationship with me IF THEY DON'T WANT IT.

Almost all countries now include in their rape laws provisions against coercion. That is all the protection anyone of any age needs. Coercing another into a sexual relationship, or worse, is illegal, regardless of the age of the victim. Get your disgusting, interfering nose out of other people's bedrooms.

# Mike says :
25 June, 2007 [ 10:41 ]

Bill;

Teens are still kids in many ways - just because they can have sex does not make them adults.  That is why most first-world countries have laws protecting them.  Peru needs to join their ranks and protect children from adults who would exploit them.

Your grandfather, by all definitions, was a paedophile.  And it seems, so are you.

# Bill says :
25 June, 2007 [ 11:22 ]

Typical of your ilk, Mike. Deny nature, deny reality, never produce one iota of evidence to support your bullshit, just resort to name calling and refuse to allow young people to do what they want with their bodies because YOU want to play God.

Teenagers may be still kids in many ways, but sexually they ARE adults, whether you like to admit it or not. Sexual adulthood begins at puberty. It is just plain crazy to try to deny nature, and to turn kids into criminals for doing what comes naturally.

My grandfather was not a paedophile. My grandmother had her first period 18 months before she was married, just after turning 11, as do a significant proportion of girls. At the time of her marriage she was physically a woman, not a child

If I am a paedophile, then so is every other male I have ever met. I have never known one who didn't find a fully developed 12 y/o sexually desirable.

# Eagle says :
25 June, 2007 [ 11:36 ]

Mike,


why would one need to be an adult first in order to legitimately engage in sexual activity? You're just assuming here, aren't you?

You say childern need to be protected from exploitative relationships. But why does the protection go clearly beyond this? Why are exploitative relationships of all kinds allowed, unless they contain sexual activity? Is it the mere presence of latter, which makes them "exploitative" in the first place? Why, then, is "exploitation" by their peers okay, as you stated before? (Which under most "child protection" laws of this kind isn't, BTW.) Should we even care, if a relationship is exploitative merely in this particular sense of the word -- that is, containing sexual activity?

You see, sticking a gruesome word onto something doesn't actually make it gruesome. I could easily argue that engaging in a match of softball with a child means "murdering their soul" -- whatever.

As for Bill and/or his grandfather being paedophiles by all definitions -- that's plain bullcrap. For by most definitions, especially the scientific ones, the information on both persons available here does not suffice in the least to actually diagnose paedophilia. That's just one of your pi$$-poor attempts at discrediting you opponent because you ran out of arguments.

Sorry, just being frank here.


ps.: Did you know that now, Peru has the same age of consent as Germany?

# Bill says :
25 June, 2007 [ 12:33 ]

And a year older than Spain, 2 years older than The Philippines. That's right! The age of consent in the Philippines is 12! with no conditions with regard to the age of the other party beyond that it must not be for reward, whether pecuniary or in kind, or by the use of force or the threat of force.

# Mike says :
25 June, 2007 [ 12:41 ]

Bill:

1) No one is turning children into criminals.  Adults who seek out children to have sex with are the criminals.

2) Your grandfather was a paedophile.  The definition of a paedophile is someone who seeks out a person to have a sexual experience with from infancy to the beginning of puberty.

3) Teens may look like adults, but mentally and emotionally they are not.  Allowing them to achieve some higher age before socially interacting with older adults in a sexual way is merely allowing them to have a chance to gain the wisdom they need to make adult-type decisions about their relationship with an older adult.

4) Paedophilia is based on actions, not on desires.

Eagle:

1) You didn't read the thread.  I never indicated that I thought sex between teens was a problem.  That's part of life, and certainly the law needed to be adjusted for that.  The reason for my dissatisfaction with the law is that it did not have a caveat to precent adults from having sex with 14 year-olds.

2) We are talking about sexual exploitation.  If a peer does it, than that is a problem also.

3) You can't make strange or bizarre arguments and expect that it is also reasonable.  What is 'reasonable'?  As defined by societies in general.  There is certainly plenty of controvery about paedophilia, but there are also general agreed definitions.  You can find that on wikipedia or a professional psychological or social manual.

4) Bill's grandfather fits the definition of a paedophile.  His grandmother was at puberty, and his grandfather went for her.  No way to argue about that.

5) Germany's laws have many caveats that would be appropriate for Peru, and certainly are needed in Peru.  See this link:

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Read footnote #5 in regards to Germany specifically.

BTW, did you notice that the *vast* majority of countries make it illegal for an adult to have sex with children?  Did you notice that the most common age of consent is 16?

# Eagle says :
25 June, 2007 [ 13:21 ]

Mike,


AFAII, you've got some pretty off-beat definition of paedophilia there. However, I don't want to lecture you on the scientific definition I'm used to. So, yes, by your personal definition, Bill's grandfather appears to have been a "paedophile".

As for your other points:

1) You didn't read my post. It was exactly my point that you apparently DO NOT consider exploitative relationships between teens a problem -- which I find bewildering.

2) Yeah, but as soon as a peer has a sexual relationship with a child, that's exploitative, isn't it? If not, we're talking double standards or age-based disrimination respectively. If it's okay for a peer to have a non-exploitative sexual relationship with a child, why is it not for an older person?

3) I'd prefer you look up some definitions (such as of paedophilia) yourself to begin with. It's funny though that you've basically just admitted that the gruesomeness of such "sexual exploitation" is merely a matter of definition, meaning it's not based on any further facts.

4) See above.

5) So bottom line, non-exploitative sexual relationships between adults and "children" above 13 are perfectly legal in Germany. Making 14 the relevant AoC over there. Juuust as I stated.

# Mike says :
25 June, 2007 [ 13:33 ]

Eagle;

I'm not sure why you state that I believe exploitive relationships are OK.  They aren't.  And to protect children, in this case, teens, the laws should not allow adults to have sexual relations with them.  If there are other forms of exploitation that need to be protected from, then certainly laws need to be enacted for those also.  The issue at hand, though, is a proper age of consent for teens (and who the consent can be with).

Did you read that footnote all the way through?  It says, in part:

"In Germany, sexual intercourse is legal from the age of 14 provided the older partner is aged under 18"

Which means you were not right - you were wrong.

So there.  :p

# Bill says :
25 June, 2007 [ 13:33 ]

My grandfather was not a paedophile by any definition. My grandmother was a fully developed woman when he met her, not a child. They were married 3 months after they met, with her parents' blessing. In her day 12 y/o girls often married. In fact if a girl was not either married or engaged to be married by 14 she would be very fortunate to find a husband at all, back then.

On a population basis, more than half of the world's population live in countries where the age of consent is 14 or below.

There is very little actual research into the physical and mental development of kids, but the little there is points to kids today actually developing faster than they did 50 years ago, so why do they now need more protection than they had 100 years ago?

Age of consent laws are a very recent development, only about 200 years old in Europe where they were first introduced, and in most countries, they have been in existance for less than 50 years

I am so sick of religious bigots and feminist extremists wanting to play God and tell everybody else how to live. Kids are people and should have all the rights they want to have, including the right to vote, and the right to work, IF THEY WANT TO!!!

I've worked with kids and teenagers most of my life. I have kids of my own, now grown up. I know how they think and what they want. What they want most of all these days is for ignorant assholes to stay the hell out of their lives! They want the freedoms "guaranteed" by the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Kids and teenagers are human, too, you know.

Take your ignorant opinions and shove them where the sun don't shine!

# Eagle says :
25 June, 2007 [ 14:04 ]

Mike,



My statement about you believing exploitative relationships among peers were okay resulted from the assumption that it's the sexual activity which makes relationships with children exploitative. Thus, sexual relationships among peers are exploitative and thus, they're okay for you (because they're among peers).

As for the footnote you're apparently relying on, it's partially misleading, partially plain wrong:

In Germany, sexual intercourse is legal from the age of 14 provided the older partner is aged under 18 and provided they are not "exploiting a coercive situation" or offering compensation.

That's to say that BOTH criteria -- the older partner being above 18 AND coercing OR compensating (binary logic ;-) ) -- must be fulfilled in order to make the sexual relationship illegal. 

In addition, sex between one partner aged 14-15 and another aged under 21 is legal unless the older partner "exploits the victim's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination".

That's incorrect. It should say: "In addition, sex between one partner aged 14-15 and another aged ABOVE 21 is illegal, should the older partner exploit the vicitm's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination."

If you know some German, you can check out the actual law text yourself:

http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/182.html

# Laura says :
25 June, 2007 [ 15:57 ]

Hi Mike...

you`re a real sweetheart, aren`t you? ;-)

I`ll tell you something you maybe don`t like to know. At the age of 13 I had a boyfriend. He was my second one. He was 24. We were together for about 3 1/2 years. Then we split (so life goes...), later I had a boyfriend at my age, and he had a girlfriend in his. But we stayed friends until now, 9 years later. This years were the best time of my life :-)

Of sure we had sex, and it was fantastic, again and again. The first time was two days after my 14th birthday, because of the law (we`re from Germany).

So what?
We had a real good time, love, tenderness and sex.
And you, Mike?
You will bluster and rant. You`ll tell me that he abused me. But I think you know who doesn`t care anyhow about your rage *g*

sincerely yours
Laura Neumann, Hamburg, Germany

# luck florence says :
25 June, 2007 [ 16:35 ]

Hi Mike
thanks for your messages and answers, in the name of all the parents, of all the kids and teens of all ages -- especially 14 and above -- the ones who did not ask anything: THANK YOU  for speaking up as YOU seem to be the only one with decent thoughts and right beliefs here... you are right from the beginning to the end.

# Eagle says :
25 June, 2007 [ 19:15 ]

Oh me oh my, Laura!

I think you just scared the ***** out of some few concerned parents reading here. Naughty girl. ^^

# Bill says :
26 June, 2007 [ 08:46 ]

luck florence, it would be kids like yours that come to me and tell me they want to divorce their parents because they are such interfering ********. Given your obvious attitudes, do you honestly believe your kids would ever consider talking to you about how they feel on such subjects??? 

People like you have no idea how kids feel about these subjects because you are closed minded and unapproachable on the subject. You are also totally wrong!

# Mike says :
26 June, 2007 [ 10:12 ]

I was raised in a family where we talked about such things, Bill, and I am not close-minded.

What it comes down to is that, obviously, there a number of people in Peru who want to promote child promiscuity and to harm children by making them victims of adults.

And I will point out again that I think that it should not be illegal for teens to have sex amongst themselves.  Only that adults should keep to adults.

Thankfully, President Garcia seems to agree.  I hope he follows through and does not sign the bill into law.

# Eagle says :
26 June, 2007 [ 11:26 ]

"
What it comes down to is that, obviously, there a number of people in Peru who want to [...] harm children by making them victims of adults.
"

And who would that be? Those who are in favour of the reforms? Right, they must be child-hating sadists who wish nothing more than their children to suffer.

Similar to how a woman sleeping with you, Mike, must be a thouroughly disturbed masochist, huh? I mean: There's no other explanation, right? ;-)

"
Only that adults should keep to adults.
"

And black people to black people an Jews to Jews. Yay for age-based racism!

# Mike says :
26 June, 2007 [ 11:55 ]

Eagle;

I think anyone reading this thread will see how you interpret things to suit your purposes, and not rational thought.  Typical of a troll.

# Eagle says :
26 June, 2007 [ 12:31 ]

Mike,

insinuating their opponent was just spin-doctoring and trolling is typical of an online panelist squeezed into a very tight corner.

So much for that.

# luck florence says :
26 June, 2007 [ 13:53 ]

Well Bill, how would you know??! yes I do consider my kids would ever talk about this --and so much more-- with me:they already did... and their attitude and opinions, along with the ones of many of their peers coming from very different backgrounds and origins would surprise you so much.
There is not much more to say about this controversial law than what has been written so far in the previous emails. It is controversial for a reason, even the President himself seems to openly disagree, let's just face the facts: many people are against it for legitimate reasons that few others try to avoid and minimize.

# Laura says :
26 June, 2007 [ 14:10 ]

Hi luck florence,

you seem to be a good mom. Just like my mother. She knew from the beginning about the relationship between me and my boyfriend, and though I was only 13 and he was 11 years older, she accepted it.
My mom was (and still is) a woman with a deep knowledge of human nature. And so she knew that he was a good guy with a deep-rooted love for me, and not a child molester.

Do you know the difference, Mike and luck florence?

Laura

# Eagle says :
26 June, 2007 [ 14:58 ]

"
he was a good guy with a deep-rooted love for me
"

Hahaha! Great pun. :-p

# Steve2 says :
15 July, 2007 [ 01:59 ]

Many teenagers LIKE going out with adults for whatever reasons, that is not important here. Many Adults LIKE teenagers. What is the big deal.
For thousands of years the world lived without the morally screwed up US and it's English speaking surrogates. The harm that puritanism has caused is far greater then those that come together for mutual need.

And for those that are so interested in 'protecting' adolescents, where are the same hypocritical voices when it comes to giving teenagers the death penalty as low as 14 in the US? Interestign. is it not??

# Hadrian says :
16 November, 2007 [ 09:48 ]

Such interesting debate that's sprouted on this thread, and I'm happy to see that most of the comments are down to earth and rational.

I would like to add that medically speaking pedofilia is considered a mental disorder, while ephebofilia is -medicallly speaking- normal. The two terms are often grouped together by the sensationalist/moralist media as pedofilia, but for those that dont' already know: pedofilia is sexual attraction towards individuals that have not begun puberty (children), while ephebofilia is attraction towards those that have begun puberty (adolescents).

Biologically, a 14 year old is a sexual person, and thus it is biologically normal for any grown-up person to find themself sexually interested in a 14 year-old, let a lone a 15-, 16-, or 17-year old.

Some people have a problem with the idea of a teenager being sexually active, let alone with an older person, just like there are people who have a problem with other people being homosexual, or promiscuous, buying or selling sexual services, going to- or working in strip clubs, watching or making pornogrpahy, having sex before marriage, or even just masturbating.

But although people have a *problem* with something, it doesnt make the activity a *crime*. Vices are not crimes.

The law easily can take measures to prevent and punish the sexual abuse and maltreatment of other people -young and old-, but consentual sex  between an adult and a teenager can and should be legal, and the law should not try to control natural sexual urges of neither teenagers nor older people.

Sex between an adult and a teenager can be beautiful, enjoyable and constructive to both parties, and the government should not automatically group all such relationships as harmful -for doing so would inevitably involve punishing normal, loving, innocent people for having perfectly healthy relationships.


Lysander Spooner, the 19th century political philosopher studied a great deal the state's role in controlling the behaviour of the individual:

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness.

Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In vices, the very essence of crime - that is, the design to injure the person or property of another - is wanting.

# shay says :
14 January, 2008 [ 02:05 ]

Thank you Mike and Luck Florence! God bless you!  

# mericorps says :
14 January, 2008 [ 06:54 ]

There seems to be no understanding that sexual preditor laws are created not becuase they think children are not sexual beings, they are created becuuse until a child understands sexuality and all its implications, they need to be protected from preditor adults and while the laws might be able to tell the difference between rape and consensual sex, it is a far more difficult line to draw when an adult is being manipulative or otherwise emotionally abusive.

Consentual acts does not mean simply that two people agree, but also that both have the ability to fully understand the reprecussions and consequences of what they are agreeing to, and a 13 year old, under no circumstances has that ability and is therefore violated, no matter the cirucmstances.

What age does that magically change?  That is unkown and since the law is not under the ability to judge that fully on a case by case basis, they have set up guildelines that are generally true for most people.  While I will admit that there may be a 16 year old that might have the ability to understand completely and next to him or her a 22 year old that still does not get it in general the case is reversed.

Excuses for molesting children are simply excuses to justify sexual preditory practices.

# Hadrian says :
17 February, 2008 [ 09:59 ]

Mericorps:

True, some young people don't understand the reprecussions and consequences of agreeing to sex. Some don't have this understanding at 13, others don't have it at 16, and yet others dont' have it at 35.

And there will always be people advocating freedom-limiting laws that protect people from "their own decisions", for "their own good".

Some say that a person is a "child" until he's 18. Others would say 12 is the limit, and in many western countries people are in many parts of the law "children" until they're 21 (e.g. when they want to buy alcoholic beverages and firearms or get particular licenses).

There will always be people advocating a wider and wider definition of what's a child, wanting to over-protect, and delay the age at wich people have to take responsibility for their own actions. (and never do these same people find it necessary to make laws that limit their own way of life)


While such laws may protect some of us (the more dense of us, to be frank), they work to severely restrict the freedom of the rest of us. The freedom of many is sacrificed to protect the few from their own bad decisions and immaturitiy.


What is more -you can not deny that there do exist normal, enriching, healty sexual relationships between "adults" and individuals under 14. If you automatically criminalize all and any such relationships you're in fact deminishing the quality of life of both involved, and effectively punishing two people who have done no harm.

The law can easily become so much more dangerous than any possible risk of sexual abuse.