Statutory rape - Reflections on violence presumption in libidinous act with a person under the age of consent
Text by Analecto
The text below is shocking and uncomfortable. Because of that, I need to make some warnings before you can proceed. I feel forced, by pressure from friends, to present the conclusion before the development: the parents should decide when a child or adolescent can become erotically involved with someone, not the State, because the parents supposedly know the child's degree of maturity, while the current statutory rape law is problematic for presuming violence in a 'libidinous act' with people under the age of consent, without explaining what 'libidinous' really means. Fact is that age isn't a sign of maturity. Education is. That's the conclusion. Leave the maturity question to be decided between parent and child, that's the point I want to reach. But, to reach that point, I must make several observations that can be ill-received, as they go against established social values.
First, I have to explain the text structure. The first part shows the legal incoherences that come from presuming violence in erotic relationship involving someone under the age of consent. The second part shows my suggestion on how to protect someone under age of consent without presuming violence, by means of triple consent: minor, interested, guardians, no matter if the interested is also under age of consent or not. Before exposing the new, it's needed to criticize the old. Second, the first part, as it deals with facts, has over twenty footnotes, most of them with citations. To not give the impression that I could be pulling these things from thin air or that I'm writing something with my opinion alone, I urge you to read the notes, specially if you can read English. Third, I placed hyper-links in some words. Those links indicate elements that you can read if interested, but aren't crucial to the understanding the text. Last and not least, I may defend a change in the laws, but I don't defend citizens breaking the current, existing laws.
In order to allow this work to be correctly understood, I need to explain some terms I use here. I define 'sex' as phallic penetration through mouth, anus or vagina. It means that I'm using that term strictly for penetration, not including kissing, masturbation or fondling. I define 'erotic relationship' as a bound between two or more people, in which at least one of the participants express their sexuality, be it through sex or not. It could be a date or sharing of intimate pictures. I define 'vulnerable relationship' as an erotic relationship in which at least one, or even all, of the participants is, or are, under age of consent. Those relationships, according to civil law, are all illegal and violent by definition. So, a relationship in which both people are 13-years-old is as criminal as if either of them was a 20-years-old, just as long as one of the participants is under age of consent.
I should present the exposition chronograph, starting from the first part. In 'Presumption of violence', I explain the concept and it's proposal. In 'Is it possible to consent with harm?', I show a consent theory based on the principle that everyone, when saying 'yes' to something, make their choices aiming for benefit, which means that a consented act that ends in damage nullifies the given consent, at same time that it suggests that consent can only be validated by it's consequences. In 'The problem of the person older than age of consent who isn't ready to consent', I speak of people over age of consent who regret what they did after consenting in an erotic relationship, despite being over age of consent. In 'Lacking sexual education', I show how the problems of consenting past age of consent in general, but teenage pregnancy in particular, could be easier solved by the way of education, rather than prohibition, specially when such prohibition is disrespected when the opportunity appears. In 'The problem of the person under age of consent who can consent', I expose the possibility of someone under age of consent consenting to a vulnerable relationship and not suffer because of it, reinforcing my point that consent is a matter of education and not age. In 'Jurisprudence', I expose Brazilian justice reports in which people involved in vulnerable relationships were declared innocent, as well as the reasons for such. In 'What about pedophiles?', I make a controversial exposition of recent data regarding pedophilia, in order to show that pedophiles not always abuse of children and those who abuse seldom are pedophiles, plus rising the possibility of the people who were in vulnerable relationships and were declared innocent for constructing durable relationships of love with a minor could very well be pedophiles, which implies that a pedophile is not always a threat to society even when acting on their attraction, meaning that pedophilia isn't a good justification for such a harsh law. In 'How presuming violence affects parents', I expose a news report in which a parent was arrested for a public demonstration of love to their child, because the law presumes violence in libidinous act without drawing a line on what is libidinous and what is not, which can turn non-passionate kissing a crime worth being punished with up to fifteen years in jail, even if the perpetrator is a parent. End of first part.
Now, the second. In 'Triple consent', I expose my idea of replacing presumption of violence with the guardian's (usually a parent) consent, in a way that the interested person, the minor below age of consent and the guardian should consent together to make a relationship legal, as the parents are in better condition of deciding when a kid can consent and what the kid can consent to. In 'Why is it needed?', I expose my reasons for the use of triple consent rather than feeling satisfied with simple elimination of the practice of presuming violence, as eliminating such without putting something in it's place could sever family bounds. In 'Limitations to triple consent', I show what acts need parent consent, so that my idea doesn't end up keeping teens from dating or building friendships, as the parent should only consent with the kid in potentially dangerous or unambiguously sexual acts.
How I use some terms?
Sex: phallic penetration to mouth, anus of vagina.
Erotic relationship: a sexually expressed relationship, with or without sex.
Vulnerable relationship: an erotic relationship in which at least one participant is under age of consent.
Presumption of violence
Violence is presumed in vulnerable relationships. To it's supporters, a person of a certain age can not give meaningful consent in an erotic relationship. It assumes that people under a certain age don't really know what sex is about and what are the consequences, specially in a country with almost zero sexual education. So, that person wouldn't be in position to decide if they can or not have sex. That concept also serves to keep someone from consenting to a lie, that is, from being manipulated into accepting something that would give damage, for example, a minor (12) who consents to have sex with an older minor (13) because they believe it won't hurt and would be fun, but ends up suffering lesion and trauma.
'Consenting' is the act of allowing. But, according to the concept, a consent is only valid if the person is aware of the consequences. In the previous case, the boy consented with a harmless distraction with an older girl. So, if instead of such, he receives a trauma, he received something entirely different from what he consented to. He was betrayed, his consent is invalid. The age under which violence is presumed, in Brazil, is fourteen, but it can be twelve with the New Penal Code. That means that anyone under age of consent isn't in position to consent to erotic relationships, with or without sex, from a strictly legal point of view. A consent-enabled adolescent can consent to an erotic relationship, because, says the law, they are mature enough to do so. But there are limitations from which the minor is freed only at legal age.
So, from a legal point of view, it's assumed that children and adolescents under age of consent can not give meaningful consent in sexual matters. Then, if a child or adolescent under age of consent consents to a vulnerable relationship, it's assumed that they were manipulated or forced to do so, even if they were not. That's specially strange when the case is about two minors under age of consent, with no adult to blame, in which both minors are guilty. If manipulated, their consent is invalid. If forced, there was no consent, but rape or exploration. That's the legal reasoning, materialized in the statutory rape law.
Is it possible to consent to harm?
The problem of consent isn't a widely discussed topic in Brazil, but is very discussed elsewhere, if you read the references in the footnotes. Can someone under age of consent say 'yes' to a vulnerable relationship, with or without sex? It's easier to answer changing the words a little: can a minor consent to harm? Can anyone, no matter the age, consent to harm?
All of our choices aim for a benefit, aim for something we believe will bring benefit. So, let's suppose that a twelve-year-old boy becomes involved with a girl who is also twelve. They develop an apparently loving relationship, the boy sits on her lap, hugs her, they kiss on the lips, even if without passion. One day, the girl asks the boy something about sex and the boy replies: "What about finding out ourselves?" Trusting her friend, the girl accepted and they have sex. Here, we have a simple, albeit not informed, consent. But there's more: the act hurts the girl to the point of making her cry and reconsider the whole relationship up to that point. She distances herself from the boy for a few days to digest what happened. She then says what happened to her parents and the case ends up in court. The boy then argues: "She consented, she said I could". To which the judge asks: "Why did she consent?" That's the key-question.
She consented because she thought it wouldn't bring her harm, as it's obvious that no human being consents to harm, that is, consents to something that causes more damage than benefit. If she consents to something and said something brings her harm, the consent is automatically invalid, because no one consents to harm. That's the problem, either party can lie to the trusting party, in the same way that adults betray trust from each other. If a man consents to having sex with a woman and then the woman records the act and uses the recording to blackmail him, does it nullifies the ability of the man to consent to sex? No, but fact is: he was lied to, consented to something and received something else, which invalidates the given consent. That means that, if a given consent can only be validated after the consequences, there's no epistemological reasons to deny the ability to consent to anyone who can verbalize 'yes' and 'no'. Their 'yes' or 'no' can only be validated after the act, when we will know if they were truly aware of the consequences.
So, harm nullifies a given consent. If there's harm, then it's proven that there was coercion (no consent) or manipulation (given consent, but invalid, because someone lied or omitted details). With that, we can proceed and check if people over age of consent really can consent, as the State says.
The problem of the person older than age of consent who isn't ready to consent
Many people over age of consent aren't ready to consent. The boldest proof of that is teenage pregnancy, which I'm going to focus on. If a teenager becomes pregnant, she still has to attend to classes at school. Balancing studies and care-giving is very hard, so much that the girl may sacrifice her studies or leave the baby under care of her own parents, because a consent-enabled who isn't done with studies probably doesn't have a job either. Worth noting is that leaving the child under the grandparents care increases the chance of a girl getting another pregnancy before 18. It's not fair that the parents have to pay for the child's mistake.
That's social harm. An adolescent, at least in our society, isn't supposed to take care of a child, specially if theirs. Raising a child is a lot of responsibility, which can hinder progress in studies and, in turn, reduce the chances of finding a job that could provide the child and their adolescent parents with satisfaction for basic needs. Now, a girl over age of consent can legally consent to sex. Yes, that's true, but consenting to harm is always invalid. Of course, teenage pregnancy is only one example of negative consequence of a choice after age of consent.
Lacking sexual education
The law says that a person can consent at age of consent without providing them with enough education to consent at that age. The consequences of sex, it's causes, procedures, those things should be contents to be taught in school, as well as means to report abuse. There would be knowledge for a more refined consent if sexual education had a stronger presence in the child's development. Knowing the consequences of a ill-planned pregnancy, a teen would think twice before starting an erotic relationship, specially if it could culminate with unprotected sex.
There seems to have interest in keeping the child naive, that is, in keeping the child as a child, but the child is a potential adult. If education doesn't serve the purpose of preparing a child for the adult world, to exercise their citizenship, what is it for? That's why humanities in general and philosophy in particular have the role of moral improvement, so that the school isn't down to producing erudite babies.
The problem of teenage pregnancy could be more easily solved if teens understood the social consequences of pregnancy and were stimulated to a sincere reflection on the subject. It's ignorance that allows a subject of such magnitude, such as sex, to be taken carelessly. In fact, if sexual knowledge were stimulated earlier at school, presuming violence in vulnerable relationships would become a less common practice, until it's eventual extinction. That's how we don't hear much about child sexual abuse or teenage pregnancy in better developed countries, even if their minors can consent quicker than in Brazil. It's Japan's case, where age of consent is 13 and, despite that, only four in every one thousand births are from mothers under age 19.
The problem of the person under age of consent who can consent
On the other hand, while there are people past age of consent who aren't ready to consent, there are justice reports of people under age of consent who could prove that they knew what they were doing. That's only possibly because there's no consensus about the presumption of violence being absolute or relative. If absolute, every vulnerable relationship, with or without sex, is criminal at the moment of the first contact, usually the kiss, even if there's no real violence, even if both people consented and even if there's no harm from the relationship, thus validating consent. If it's relative, the hypothetic violence isn't the only factor to be considered. For some judges, relativeness is a matter of common sense.
All reports below were taken from the same Internet page, an article in the news site G1, by Globo, which must be read before reading this section. (url: g1.globo.com/brasil/noticia/2012/05/tribunais-absolvem-acusados-de-sexo-com-menor-apesar-de-nova-lei.html) With that, bear in mind that the number of cases that concluded that the parties are innocent may be much higher. That, of course, without counting the cases that are not reported.
According to the article in G1, some judges report that people under age of consent could consent, be entirely conscious of the consequences and, what's more impressive, be the party to initiate the act, asking for sex to the older party, even if the older party is over age of consent. The reports often refer to minors who are 12 or 13-years-old, mostly girls. The allegation of 'liking' the other party is taken in consideration in matters of declaring someone innocent. The victim's virginity also seems to play a role.
Another interesting data in the same article is that, sometimes, the family defends the vulnerable relationship, with or without sex, upon realizing that there's love between the involved parties, with the most extreme case involving a 29-year-old man who was reported to police by his 12-year-old girlfriend's mother. The mother regretted doing so, probably after realizing the emotional harm caused to the girl. The adult was declared innocent. There's pressure to open harm analysis, that is, if there was violence or if both are in love. In addition, the article also mentions reports in which both parties are under age of consent, cases in which it's hard to find the guilty party, as you must presume violence from either side, even if there's no violence.
With that, it's possible to deduce that the line of thought of those more liberal judges could be summed up as: 'if there's no violence, that is, if the minor doesn't feel bad for what happened, and there's no harm, neither in physical (lesions, for example) nor psychological (trauma, guilt or shame), at the same time that both parties consented, where is the victim?' If there's no victim, there's no crime. Those judges are analyzing not only the age of the parties, but the nature of the act.
Supposing that the presumption of violence ceased to exist, we could allow vulnerable relationships just as long as it was positive, but we would punish relationships that are harmful just like we punish harmful relationships between adults, except that a harmful relationship with a minor would be punished more severely. But, by presuming violence, we punish both harmless and harmful relationships. Plus, in those reports, victims alleged that they 'liked' the older party. So, if a judicial rupture occurs in a loving and harmless relationship, how much damage can we cause to the minor? Thus, punishing harmless relationships could harm the minor, case in which justice would be offering a disservice.
Someone could ask: if the victim loves the older party to the point of being the agent to initiate sexual contact, asking for such, doesn't that imply child grooming on the older party's part, even if they are also under age of consent? Not necessarily. In this century, pornography is few clicks away and youngsters engage in producing, sharing and receiving intimate pictures and videos, at same time that laws overprotect children even from their parents and teachers, in a way that dialogue becomes hard. That means that there is child porn made by children and adolescents without adult intervention. Minors nowadays don't need adults to groom them; they groom each other. And that's not good, because youngsters could feel tempted to learn from each other, by trial and error, as sexual education is insufficient for the curiosity felt. With that, imagining a surreal scenario in which a 13-year-old girl has more sexual experience than her 18-year-old boyfriend is not hard. Wouldn't it be so much better if youth could learn from eroticism from a scientific point of view, by means of inclusion of sexual education contents as mandatory in school? If people under age of consent can consent, even if just in certain occasions, wouldn't it be better if that relationship started with the correct principles? In the end, if the main argument against consent emitted by someone under age of consent is disinformation, at same time that State doesn't presume violence after age of consent, the state was supposed to prepare children to consent at age of consent. But on the contrary: the New Penal Code bill, if approved, lowers age of consent to 12 without putting pressure on State to prepare the youth to consent at 12, as if age meant maturity. If people under age of consent were more sexually informed, they could consent with property, but it's much easier to forbid than to educate.
With that, when a minor enters a vulnerable relationship and the cases closes with a justification of 'the minor consented', it means that the minor said 'yes' to an act and received exactly what they wanted from it, be it pleasure, satisfaction of curiosity, attention or emotional bounding. The other party didn't betray the minor's trust. If a person under age of consent consents to something, that's because they think it would bring benefit. If that consent is validated, it's proven by syllogism that they got what they wanted. Some may say that it's doesn't prevent harm from happening and that's true: you can't punish a rape that didn't happen. With or without age of consent, a violation only exists if brought to justice. That means that justice doesn't really prevent anything, as it only acts after the act is done. The problem is that it currently punishes both good and bad.
How the presumption of violence in statutory rape law affects parents
It's no secret that some parents shower together with their children or kiss them on the lips. Is it a legally correct attitude? The statutory rape law makes no distinction about the 'libidinous' act being perpetrated by mother, father or complete stranger. That means that public displays of affection given by parents to their children can be punished with jail, for a time that ranges from eight to fifteen years, even if the act is a 'quick peck'. That happens not only because violence is presumed, but also because the law presumes violence in a 'libidinous' act without explaining what does that mean. What is libidinous and what is not? The law draws no line on that issue.
All those acts that we consider 'sexual' when done by strangers to our children can also be considered sexual if done by parents. And even if the minor isn't being harmed, violence is presumed. It turns several parents into statutory rapists. If the law was perfect in it's application, how many families would be destroyed that way? Would it be healthy for children to deprive them from their parents over things so small, such as 'quick pecks', which the assumed damage isn't even felt by them?
With that, I conclude that presuming violence in erotic relationships with minors aged under age of consent can be harmful to the minor, to the parents and the judge's common sense. Presumption of violence has no reason to exist and must be discarded in favor of harm analysis, ways through which we can safely say what kind of relationship really harms the minor and what kind does not. An erotic relationship between two people aged under age of consent or between one person under age of consent and another over age of consent, that is consented, and that brings no harm, has no reason to be punished. The most effective way to fight abuse or teenage pregnancy would be by means of education, rather than prohibition.
And what about pedophiles?
But eliminating the presumption of violence doesn't make children easy prey for pedophiles? First, it's important to understand that pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children, that is, people under 12. To qualify as pedophile, the person must be, at least, 16-years-old, the child they like must be at least five years younger and the desire must last at least six months, even if not towards the same child.
The reports in the jurisprudence section show that a vulnerable relationship, even if one of the participants is an adult, doesn't always end in harm. This is also how science views things. A study made in 1998, with child sexual abuse victims, shows that 11% of the surveyed women and a little less than 40% of the interviewed men, report that the vulnerable relationship with the adult ("abuser") was 'positive'. It's hard to call it "abuse". Another good percentage, bigger among boys than girls, show indifference to the act, but a large percentage of girls report the experience as 'negative'. On the other hand, the same study reports that the damage caused by child sexual abuse rarely is long-lasting or pervasive.
(Citation:) 'The controversy is engaging some researchers at top universities. "I think the evidence has been clear for some time that child and adolescent sexual abuse does not always do harm in the long term," says David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, one of the nation's foremost researchers on the sexual abuse of children. "That is the good news." One question now, he says, is determining if some youngsters are more mature and "able to consent to sexual relationships with older partners."'
Of great relevance is the last question pointed in the citation, which our more liberal judges already answered: yes, there are reports of meaningful consent emitted by someone below age of consent. The nausea people feel when hearing the word 'pedophilia' mostly comes from the belief that all pedophiles want sex from children and, when we think about sex, we tend to think about penetration. But the pedophile associations around the world agree that every vulnerable relationship, with or without sex, that causes harm to the minor is abominable and that an adult who gets involved with a minor still owes respect to the minor's physical and mental integrity. So, those 'grade A pedophiles' would also feel that nausea upon hearing of an act of penetration done to a kid who isn't ready for that. There are other ways that can be employed to show eroticism in a vulnerable relationship, such as kissing, hugging, sitting on the lap, massages, sleep or shower together, caressing and fondling. So, if you feel startled by the affirmation that vulnerable relationships don't always end in harm, that might allow you to better understand how, that is, that an erotic relationship doesn't have to include sex, specially if either partner is just far too young.
The involvement between child and pedophile is also emotional, they often get crushes, build friendship, which means that it's in their best interest to care for the kid's health. There are also pedophiles who, despite craving, abstain entirely from any sexual contact with a minor, with or without sex, opting for alternative means of satisfaction, rather than molestation or child porn consumption.
But if those 'A class' pedophiles don't defend irresponsible sex with children, at same time that there are pedophiles who control their desire to achieve sexual satisfaction without actually breaking the law, what's the profile of the child abusers who are arrested? Most of them don't have a primary attraction to children, at least from what we can observe in North-American data, that is, most of the people who molest children aren't pedophiles and fail at the diagnosis. Most of the times, the reasons for abuse are rooted in other tendencies, substance abuse or desire for revenge. That means that situational offenders can pose a much bigger risk to a kid than a pedophile, who can be harmless or, depending on their ideology, chaste towards children. However, popular belief dictates that all pedophiles cause harm, acting on the attraction or not, and that all those who cause harm are pedophiles, in a way that the pedophile is always the one to blame, even without committing a crime, which is unfair.
But, considering the reports exposed in jurisprudence section, the changing scientific views towards adult-child sex, and the actual position of pedophiles on the subject (no matter pro-contact or anti-contact), there's a faint chance of a pedophile be a functional member of society, have a vulnerable relationship and still abide to the law, if not now, in the future. I know it's shocking, but pedophilia isn't the same as abuse. There's no need to presume violence because of it. Without presumption of violence, the rape law still does a good job punishing those who cause actual harm to children, not to mention laws against child grooming, child trafficking, child pornography, child prostitution and several others that stay in effect without presumption of violence.
Presumption of violence has another grave problem that I try to address with my triple consent proposal: it puts State where parents are supposed to be. State has no authority to say that everyone consents at age of consent or 12, because our politicians don't live with every child and adolescent in particular. The parent is in better position to judge when the child is ready for an erotic relationship, as well as saying if the consent may be invalid, that is, if the kid won't be harmed by what they are getting themselves into. Family may pose a good way to exercise some kind of prevention. Plus, a parent can sound the real intentions of an interested minor or adult, to judge if they are a worthy partner for their kid.
My proposal is to give juridical value to parent or guardian consent. That way, we would replace presumption of violence with triple consent: minor, interested, guardian. That would solve the problem of the family that defends the relationship.
Why is it needed?
Supposing that presumption of violence was abolished today, a person under age of consent could legally say 'yes' to an erotic relationship, as long as it was harmless. Where's the harmed party? The parents, because, even if there's no harm in the relationship, the child's love is divided. In practice, it could very well push parent and child apart, deepening the family crisis.
On the other hand, as it already happens in the case of a person over age of consent who becomes pregnant, parents still have the duty of providing the kid with means to educate themselves. So, a 13-year-old who becomes pregnant could coldly give their child for the grandparents to rise with the excuse that she has to study. With that, she is quick to be impregnated another time. Because of that, eliminating presumption of violence without putting something in it's place would be unfair to the parents. To make them justice without presuming violence with someone below age of consent, we must make the parents participate in the kid's consent.
With that, there must be consent between three parties for a relationship to be considered fair for all. The parent could say at what age a kid can consent and what they can consent to, in order to assure that the interested person won't happen to cause harm. The parents could also suspend their consent, case in which the child's consent won't be valid alone (but, if a kid doesn't want, parent consent alone also is not valid). I believe that it provides enough balance between interest and control. Parents could open concessions as the child matures, while still evaluating if the interested minor or adult is someone worth being trusted.
Limitations to triple consent
However, submitting everything to the consensus between three parties could also allow easy abuse, if the parent is too rigid or conservative. It could enable parents to obtain juridical means to keep a kid from dating or building friendships. That's the same problem of the 'libidinous act' in the current statutory rape law. It's needed to draw a sharp line between what is and what is not sexual in law terms. The triple consent would only be needed in potentially dangerous or unambiguously sexual acts.
As examples, I cite sex, masturbation, undressing, recording of nudity and sexual activity, pornography sharing and intimate caressing (fondling). If only those items were submitted to parent consent, things like holding hands, sitting on the lap, kissing, hugging and several other things that parents and friends do would be still liberated despite the guardian's political orientation. But said guardian would still retain full control over the child's physical integrity in crucial points.
But nothing of that would work if sexual education wasn't brought to the status of priority. It's necessary that the kid knows how to report abuse. So, in sexual education lessons, it's also needed to teach the kid how to report an abuse in order to give them means of defending themselves not only from strangers, but also their very parents, in case of them being truly sick. One shouldn't avoid talking about abuse in school, but bring the abuse to reality, as a controllable element, against which the minor can fight. Plus, having means of self-defense, the minor's consent can be further refined.
After all that was exposed in this text, we can replace presumption of violence against minor under age of consent with alternative forms of protection. First, we have to define exactly what is an erotic relationship. Second, we have to stipulate an age past which the child no longer needs their parents to consent with them (14 and 12 are good numbers, but it can be 16 or 18). Third, we need to determine under which conditions the consent is invalid, recalling that a consent can only be validated after the consequences.
I would number the following points to be added to the law:
- 1. A relationship is erotic when it involves more than one person and at least one of the following acts: phallic penetration to mouth, anus or vagina; mutual masturbation; watching the other party masturbate; mutual nudity; watching the other party's nudity; mutual recording/photographing of nudity or sexual activity; pornography sharing; caresses delivered to genitals, anus, breasts or nipples; contact between body and the other party's nude genitals.
- 2. Every non-consented erotic relationship, that is, without all parties agreeing with the act, is criminal.
- 3. Every erotic relationship, even consenting, involving someone under age of consent requires parent/guardian consent as well.
- 4. Every erotic relationship that causes harm to the minor automatically nullifies their consent in said relationship.
- 5. Are considered harm for purpose of consent nullification: lesion, illness, death, parental alienation, psychological damage, low grades, teenage pregnancy, infamy and contraction of illegal behavior.
- 6. The harm only nullifies consent if it happened during the relationship or in consequence of it.
The punishments for consent violation vary according to the age of the harmed party. The younger, the harsher.
source: Article 'Statutory rape - Reflections on violence presumption in libidinous act with a person under the age of consent'; Translated from Portuguese by 'Apertado'; www.boychat.org/messages/1500040.htm; Original text: pedrapapeletesoura.wordpress.com/category/saude-e-bem-estar/; Translation from 14 July 2017; Analecto; 13 June 2017