Talk:Statutory rape

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

The redirect Statutory rape (In US) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 29 § Statutory rape (In US) until a consensus is reached. Home Lander (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 14 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sjmelendez, Samantha.richards, Jaclynv23 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Libraryscience72, LitoCastroJr, Garcieb, JasionDMC.

— Assignment last updated by Dr. Misty (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted as OR — this is not OR.

The Guardian column (perennial RS) directly illustrates the section’s existing claim that “This view still exists in modern times” and there is “gender bias… far lesser punishment of female offenders”.

Headline is verbatim: “This shameful liaison does not deserve prison”.

Propose restoring with secondary criticism:

Media commentary has reflected this ongoing bias. In a 2009 column for The Guardian titled “This shameful liaison does not deserve prison”, journalist Barbara Ellen argued that sexual relationships between female teachers and 15-year-old male pupils occupy a “far greyer moral area” than the reverse, describing such women as “pathetic” rather than predatory, while calling male teacher–female pupil cases clear statutory rape.^[1] The column has been criticized as condoning sexual assault on boys and giving female perpetrators a “free pass”.^[2]

Double-sourced, no synthesis, directly supports existing text. Standard format (see Cathy Young examples). Snowring534 (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree. While the content of the Guardian article is sourced, your analysis is WP:OR. PepperBeast (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The addition is **not OR** under WP:NOR: it directly attributes Ellen’s explicit views from a perennial RS (Guardian op-ed) with no personal analysis. WP:NOR allows paraphrasing source content (e.g., “Ellen argued X”) when it retains original meaning — which it does (headline + body verbatim).

It illustrates the section’s existing claims (“This view still exists” + gender bias in punishment) without synthesis.

Moreover, the column was **immediately criticized** in two RS sources:

1. **Title IX for All** (specialized advocacy site) called it “condoning sexual assault on boys” and giving female perpetrators a “free pass”.^[3]

2. **The Observer letters** (same publication, child protection experts) said Ellen’s view “increases psychological damage” by minimizing female abuse.^[4]

Propose restoring with **both** criticisms:

Media commentary has reflected this ongoing bias. In a 2009 column for The Guardian titled “This shameful liaison does not deserve prison”, journalist Barbara Ellen argued that sexual relationships between female teachers and 15-year-old male pupils occupy a “far greyer moral area” than the reverse, describing such women as “pathetic” rather than predatory, while calling male teacher–female pupil cases clear statutory rape.^[5] The column has been criticized as condoning sexual assault on boys^[6] and for increasing victim harm through stereotypes.^[7]

Double-sourced, no synthesis, directly supports section. Precedents: Cathy Young in Child sexual abuse. Snowring534 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the analysis is the problem. The issue is not what the article says, but how it is being presented, and what is presented is personal opinion about what the article represents. If there are reliable sources to support the point, they should be the ones used. "Here's a point I want to make, here's a story that I think supports my point", is a form of original research. It would be helpful if proposed changes were shown here, complete with reliable sourcing, so that we can discuss whether those specific changes would be appropriate within Wikipedia's policies. Arllaw (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the continued discussion.

To eliminate any OR concern and fully meet the request for reliable sourcing, here is the **exact proposed addition**:

Media commentary has reflected this ongoing bias. In a 2009 Guardian column titled “This shameful liaison does not deserve prison”, journalist Barbara Ellen wrote of sexual relationships between female teachers and 15-year-old boys:

> “While a large proportion of teenage boys may not have the sense to make the best choices, they are ‘up for it,’ none the less. This is why, in my view, a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil amounts to statutory rape, whereas a female teacher sleeping with a 15-year-old male is a far greyer moral area.”^[1]

The column drew immediate criticism in another Guardian article from from senior clinicians at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation (a leading UK child-protection charity), who wrote that Ellen’s view “increases psychological damage” to victims by suggesting female-perpetrated abuse is less harmful.^[2] The column has also been cited by Title IX consultant Jonathan Taylor, founder of Title IX for All, as an example of media double standards that give female perpetrators a “free pass” on statutory rape.^[3] Title IX for All is founded and run by Jonathan Taylor, a Title IX consultant and former higher-ed instructor with 15+ years advising on educator sexual-misconduct cases; his work is cited in legal filings, law reviews, and federal hearings (e.g., U.S. Dept. of Education submissions).

- Verbatim block quotes → zero OR

- 2 Guardian articles

- Title IX: specialist SPS by established expert (WP:RSPS), attributed only

Happy to drop the Title IX sentence if preferred — the Guardian pair already stands alone.

This version should fully satisfy policy. Ready to implement whenever there is consensus. Snowring534 (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that proposal doesn't resolve the issue, which is the use of an interpretation of a single article to assert broad media bias. It still relies upon your own interpretation of the Guardian article. The existence of a letter to the editor and blog post touching on the article does not serve to elevate the article itself, or remove the need to meet Wikipedia's standard for reliable sourcing. Further, both the letter and the blog post are critiques of the views of the author, not commentary on the media.

If you want to include content on media bias, consider looking for reliable sources that advance the view that you want to incorporate into Wikipedia, notably including scholarly works. Asserting one's own view, even if backed up by an article that an editor believes to be a prime example, does not meet Wikipedia's standard. Arllaw (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed feedback. To fully address the concern about a “single-article interpretation” and the request for scholarly sources on media bias, here is the **proposed paragraph** (fully sourced, no OR):

Media commentary has reflected this ongoing bias. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have documented a gendered rhetoric in media coverage of teacher–student sexual relationships: Two studies have focused on the media’s presentation of female sex offenders in comparison to their male counterparts.^[1][2] These studies reveal a gendered rhetoric in which certain words and phrases appear only in coverage of one gender’s sex offenses. Landor (2009) revealed that the Australian media referred to the female perpetrators and their victims as being “lovers” and called their actions “sex,” ignoring circumstances such as unequal power dynamics.^[3] Both Chiotti (2009: 100) and Landor (2009: 90) found that the media often labeled male sex offenders as “pedophiles, perverts, evil, and/or predatory.” They described female sex offenders as “vulnerable, lonely, depressed, or heartbroken,” all of which seem to decrease the female offender’s culpability for her crime.^[4][5] Chiotti’s (2009: 107) study of US mass media found that the majority of articles involving female perpetrators characterized male victims as “wanting and willing” participants.^[6] Media glamorizes and romanticizes female sex offending and consequently diminishes the offenders’ blameworthiness.^[7] These teachers are frequently portrayed as “emotionally fragile,” “misguided” women who simply made “a mistake” with an underage partner.^[8] The media’s sensationalized and romanticized portrayal of these women likely affects the public imagination and contributes to the perpetuation of myths about sex offenders in general.^{[9][10][11][12][13][14]}

An example of this pattern appeared in a 2009 Guardian column in which Barbara Ellen wrote:

> “While a large proportion of teenage boys may not have the sense to make the best choices, they are ‘up for it,’ none the less. This is why, in my view, a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil amounts to statutory rape, whereas a female teacher sleeping with a 15-year-old male is a far greyer moral area.”^[15]

The column drew immediate criticism in The Guardian from senior clinicians at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, who wrote that Ellen’s view “increases psychological damage” to victims by suggesting female-perpetrated abuse is less harmful.^[16] The column has also been cited by Title IX consultant Jonathan Taylor, founder of Title IX for All, as an example of media double standards that give female perpetrators a “free pass” on statutory rape.^[17]

The scholarly consensus now leads the paragraph; the Ellen column is only a concrete example of the documented pattern. No OR, no single-article synthesis. Happy to shorten, drop the Title IX sentence, or adjust wording if needed. Snowring534 (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate goal is to create and present content that is properly supported and encyclopedic in nature. That doesn't have to be voluminous, and should not be outcome driven (that is, we edit to include what reliable sources say, as opposed to seeking out sources that we can present to support content that we want to include based upon our own beliefs. Letters to the editor and blog posts are not reliable sources, nor should an editor vouch for a source. Even Ph.D. dissertations should be cited with caution. Arllaw (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Research indicates that female teachers who sexually offend against students typically receive significantly lighter sentences than male teachers for comparable conduct, and that the public often perceives a double standard.

In one study that primarily focused on perceptions, the researchers also did a search of the 10 most recent sentences in teacher–student sexual offense cases and found that the average sentence for females was substantially shorter (2.1 years) than for males (10.4 years).^[18] A master’s thesis examining teacher–student sexual offense cases in Maricopa County, Arizona, concluded that male teachers received substantially harsher penalties than female teachers.^[19] A 2013 investigative analysis of 97 teacher–student sex cases in New Jersey found that female offenders averaged 1.6 years in prison (with only 44% incarcerated) compared with 2.4 years for males (54% incarcerated).^[20]

These sentencing disparities have been linked to judicial leniency and cultural attitudes that downplay the harm caused by female offenders.^[21] Broader Australian research on child-sex offenders (not limited to teachers) has also shown that female offenders are significantly more likely to receive shorter prison terms and non-parole periods than male offenders.^[22]

This material is fully sourced from peer-reviewed journals, a master’s thesis, and reputable investigative journalism, and is directly relevant to gender dynamics in the enforcement of statutory rape and child sexual abuse laws.

Snowring534 (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A masters thesis may reference reliable sources that could be used within an article, but are not themselves reliable sources. Even a completed Ph.D. thesis or dissertation should be used with caution. WP:THESIS. Also, note that the mere publication of some preliminary findings or a review of a very small number of cases is a starting point for research, not the sort of established research that typically undergirds encyclopedic content. Also, please review the instructions at WP:REFNAME about how to use named references (to avoid duplication). Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "Globalise" template to this article because it approaches the issue entirely from the American perspective, with all but one of the cites being American. It assumes that the term "rape" is consistent across the world. It isn't. For example, Canada has not had an offence of "rape" for over forty years; the general offence is one of sexual assault. Enforcing archaic terminology on other countries is not consistent with Wikipedia's goal to be an international encyclopedia.

A glaring example is the sub-section entitled "sex differences in statutory rape", which is all premised on the idea that women can commit the offence of rape against boys, and that there can be same-sex rape. That terminology makes no sense in Canadian law, since even before the abolition of the offence of rape, a woman was never able to commit the offence of rape (other than as a party), because only a man could commit rape, and then only against a woman. Assuming that the terminology from the US can apply across the world is inappropriate.

I think there are two alternatives to fix the article. The more comprehensive solution is to get rid of the term "statutory rape" entirely, and use more general terminology that does not just apply to the United States. The other solution is a more limited one: change the opening words of the article to make it clear that it is only taling about offences that can be committed in the United States, and remove inaccurate references to other the criminal law in other countries. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]