Editorial from The Guide	Editorials Archive

When you read in the paper that "a former scoutmaster was sentenced to fifty years in prison for raping one of his troop members," what do you imagine happened?

For most people, the term "rape" means violent sexual assault, and the images conjured up of the convicted scoutmaster's actions involve physical harm or threat. And indeed, it is possible that the scoutmaster did use violence in his sexual interactions with a nonconsenting troop member. But those familiar with the facts behind such headlines know that often no violence, coercion, nor threat is involved. Frequently, the "victim" in such cases not only consented to the sexual activity involved, he often initiated it.

View our poll archive

Thus, when we read that a person is accused of "raping" someone below the age of consent, a terrible ambiguity exists. Did the accused gag the youngster, violently restrain him, and forcibly penetrate the protesting victim? Or did the pair engage in giggly sex play, each eager for every new caress, both ecstatic in the pleasurable release they gave one another?

Astonishingly, neither prosecutors nor press help us distinguish between violent, nonconsensual assault and playful, fully consensual sex. If an arbitrarily determined age difference exists between those involved, both types of interaction are labeled "rape" and both are punished with draconian penalties.

Clearly, something is haywire.

Reasonable people may debate how the law may legitimately regulate young people's sexual expression. But every rational person must insist that the law distinguish between violent, nonconsensual assault and mutually enjoyed, fully consensual sex.

Tragically, though, today's laws maintain the legal fiction that transgression of arbitrary rules about the ages of sex partners is more important than the commission of real violence. A man who engages in sex play with a fully consenting adolescent is likely to find himself in far greater legal trouble than had he violently assaulted and physically injured that same person.

One of the obstacles we face in getting a more rational legal approach to sex and violence is language. When we allow consensual sex to be labeled "rape," it is difficult to even discuss the issue who wants to argue for a more tolerant approach to rape? Conflating sex and violence into the one word "rape" confuses the issue and renders difficult the very distinction we desperately need to make: that between sex and violence.

Part of the solution, therefore, can come from refusing to use the term "rape." Since its definition has been corrupted to mean either violent assault or mutually consensual sexual rulebreaking, "rape" fails to distinguish sex from violence. Thus, it confuses rather than clarifies the key legal and moral issue: was violence done? was consent violated?

Instead of allowing activities that range from horrific violence to consensual sex to all be labeled "rape," let's insist that the law (and the contemptibly lazy press) say what they mean and tell us what really happened. Let someone be accused of "violent, penetrative assault" or of "consensual sexual activity with someone under the age of X," instead of calling both "rapists." Maybe by abandoning the ambiguous and misleading word "rape," we can get the law to focus on curbing violence rather than scapegoating sex. **