Mutually Pleasurable Experiences? A Partial Explanation of Why Courts Ignore the Victimization of Male, Teenage Victims of Statutory Rape

• In Event: Masculinities at the Forefront

Abstract

Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (450 U.S. 464, 1981) paved the way for the states to enact statutory rape laws that presumably would protect young girls from the predatory behavior of men. This important milestone later resulted in a number of reforms at the state level that would make statutory rape laws gender neutral. Notwithstanding this fact, many teenage boys seem to fall beyond the scope of protections of these laws for two important reasons: 1) the prosecution of women who have sex with (victimize) teenage boys is rare and 2) these teenage boys (victims) are doubly punished in that they are required to pay child support to the women who, legally speaking, victimized them. This paper will explore how ideas of hegemonic masculinity shapes how the legal response to these victims. Additionally, this paper will explore how the courts ignore the well-being of these teenage boys in the pursuit of other important public policy goals.

Author

• John Burrow, University of South Carolina