The English speaking world has managed to paint itself into a corner of Puritan absurdity with its current legal treatment of sexual activity. This has to cease. Here's how things would work properly :

I. There is no such thing as the crime of "rape". Sexual relationships in and of themselves are natural, necessary and the one true measure of society generally and people individually. As such, they must be legally acceptable. Sexual relations are also designed to be an imposition and function as an imposition, on both genders. As such, merely the argument of imposition is not sufficient for a wholesale criminalisation of sexual activity.

Nobody has to agree to anything - one accepts their gender at birth whether they want to or don't want to ; alongside one's gender one accepts the general ownership of their sexual bits by the other gender, and with that one accepts the occasional inconvenience of unsolicited flirting, and catcalling, and pregnancy whether wanted or unwanted as a female, one accepts the social pressures attendant and the slavery to woman's laughter and tears and all the rest as a male. On this point there may be no debate, irrespective of what people would like reality to be, would prefer to represent reality as being, irrespective of what constituencies think. This is absolute, unchangeable and untouchable reality.

Criminal misbehaviour around sex may be perfectly well prosecuted as what it actually is, without inventing dysfunctional devices of nonsense :

I.a. Sexual battery, which is, like any battery, the crime of applying physical violence. There may be something extra slapped to account for the sex part, but in the sex-and-violence combo it's the violence that's wrong, not the sex. The sex is alright, now and forever. I.b. Sexual assault, which is the crime of creating the apprehension of violence. You know, like any other assault.

Outside of these two there's no possible prosecution for some imaginary "rape". Did he tie you down, honey ? Ok, battery. Did he beat you up ? Also battery. Doctor your drink ? Battery. Did he hold a knife at you ? Assault then. Did he threaten to kill your beloved sheep, in writing ? Also assault. Not in writing but before witnesses ? Not in writing but on tape ? Assault! None of the above ? Nothing. Nothing at all.

If the purported victim willingly followed the purported aggressor to any private place, if the purported victim willingly took steps reasonably conducive to sexual congress (such as, for instance, disrobing), if the purported victim has a history of either sexual promiscuity (such as, for instance, a prostitute or "sex worker") or happy sexual involvement with the purported aggressor (such as, for instance, a married woman to her husband) no crime took place.

If the woman wishes to select her partners she must take the burden of selecting her partners. This means bothering to select men she's getting involved with so that they will respect her wishes, as however she construes them ; this means bothering to scream for help if she's deceived, and in such a way that she may be heard ; this means not going places she may not be heard with people she doesn't trust and on and on ; this means sticking with her selection, and taking responsibility for her mistakes if she's picked wrong. If the woman does not care to select her partners that's also fine. What's not fine is expecting men to undertake any effort to uphold woman's partner selection. What's not fine is that sane people everywhere now have to make any woman swear an affidavit before a notary every single time, and the attendant appearance of all-night drive-through notaries around the motels on the outskirts of major cities.

II. There is no such thing as gender equality in sex. None, none at all. I'm with Taki : a girl has to be of age, but certainly not a boy. Consequently, there exists no such thing as statutory rape involving boys the usual way at any age. Giving blowjobs to toddlers as a relaxant and pacifier is a time honored European tradition, the specialty of wet nurses from Ireland to any other barely civilised outskirt.

Exactly what age a girl is of age is certainly disputable. While twelve is probably too soon, eighteen is indisputably too late. Perhaps the 14-16 dual standard is the best solution, whereby a fourteen years old is presumed too young, unless evidence to the contrary prevails (such as her not being a virgin through voluntary relations, for instance) whereas sixteen years old is presumed old enough, unless evidence to the contrary prevails (such as her being a virgin, living in a convent, being a feminist or a liberal or any other such proof of intellectual immaturity).

I personally have no problem setting the age for boys doing that other thing at 21, but this is mostly on account of me not caring. I imagine the pederast community would be pretty offended, so perhaps the same arrangement could be used, the dual 14-16. Or perhaps a dual 16-18, on account of the historically celebrated retardation of boys. I defer to more knowledgeable parties on the topic, as I've never fucked a boy of any age myself.

To conclude : none of this is some sort of humble proposal. All of this is reality, naked and nude, without possibility of negotiation and with no opening for discussion. It also happens to be the historical agreement of civilised peoples of all races and colors on the topic for millenia, as well as current practice in most of the world. It's not that the English speakers are cordially invited to get off crack and come to sense : it's that they're ordered to. And should they fail to they will be punished for it. That is all.

———