Age of Consent Laws - Just How Practical Are They?

[Athena]

Again, this thread was inspired by an article on the front page (http://www.dreamindemon.com/2007/12/27/dwight-toombs-cop-molests-girl-15/#comments).

Here are the current ages of consent by state. Note the lack of consistency.

STATE AGE
Alabama 16
Alaska 16
Arizona 18
Arkansas 16
California 18
Colorado 15
Connecticut 15
D.C. 16
Delaware 16
Florida 16/18 (bill pending)
Georgia 16
Hawaii 14
Idaho 14
Illinois 16/17
Indiana 16
Iowa 18
Kansas 16
Kentucky 16 - [1]
Louisiana 17
Maine 16
Maryland 16
Massachusetts 16/18
Michigan 16
Minnesota 16
Mississippi 16 - [2]
Missouri 17
Montana 16
Nebraska 16
Nevada 16
New Hampshire 16/18
New Jersey 16/18
New Mexico 17
New York 17
North Carolina 16
North Dakota 18
Ohio 16
Oklahoma 16
Oregon 18
Pennsylvania 16
Rhode Island 16
South Carolina 14/16
South Dakota 16
Tennessee 18
Texas 17
Utah 16/18
Vermont 16
Virginia 15
Washington 16
West Virginia 16
Wisconsin 18
Wyoming 16
Puerto Rico 18

FOOTNOTES:
[1]Age 16 if the man is 21 or older.
[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.

...............

While the intent of AoC laws is certainly a noble one, I find that it often causes more damage than good by defining all sexual interaction between adults and minors to be predatory in nature when, often times, this is simply not the case. Sure, we expect adults to have the self-restraint to abide by the law, but when the law is inconsistant and appears to be entirely unnecessary, that can be difficult to do.

Once a child is past puberty, shouldn't sexual activity be the realm of the parent to control? If you don't want your 16 year old sleeping with a 30 year old, you should see to it that she doesn't, be it by values you instill or by supervision/discipline. A broad law that tends to snag non-predatory 18, 19 or 20 year olds in hopes of deterring the occasional predatory old man makes little sense to me.

Perhaps, a solution might be a law that criminalises an adult leveraging authority against a minor to coerce sexual activity, i.e. a teacher and a student, a coach and an athlete, a counselor and a patient, etc.? It seems that these are the detrimental cases, not the 19 year old who must now register as a sex offender because he was unlucky enough to fall in love with his sister's 16 year old friend.

What say you?

[Doc]

My best friend is 18, and his girlfriend is 14. They have wylde secks too.

[Athena]

See? And your best friend shouldn't go to jail simply because he hooked up with a tramp, should he? I mean, you wouldn't consider his behavior to be predatory, would you?

[gprime]

Well put Athena. Rape and molestation are vulgar, and ought to result in strict legal penalty. But outside of that, I sure as hell don't want government anywhere near government. Given how incredibly they fuck up virtually everything they touch, how can we expect them to get this right?

We've seen these laws applied maliciously so many times. I think the story of Genarlow Wilson perfectly proves how fucked up the system is.

[Doc]

See? And your best friend shouldn't go to jail simply because he hooked up with a tramp, should he? I mean, you wouldn't consider his behavior to be predatory, would you?

Absolutely not. He loves his girlfriend, and that's all there is to it. I'm not comfortable with the thought of the Incredible Hulk fucking Smurfette (a fairly accurate comparison), but that's more a personal thing...

[alizardsbet]

hmm so if a parent were to say want to prevent their post puberty child that is still a minor so still technically their responsibility from engaging in said activities what sort of legal actions or routes of punishment should they take if someone were to violate their wishes? i mean say i were to have an underage kid, and i did not approve of the boyfriend/girlfriend or was a prune, i put my foot down but the two hormone heavy little twits want to sneak off and i catch them.

do i:
a.) turn them both over my knee?
b.) sue for deflowering my sweet little angel
c.) give a stern lecture?
d.) kill the hoe and the weak sob who dishonored the family.

my point being there has to be some sort of legal process involved to preserve the rights of all parties, and predominantly that of the parent as any consequences of that little romp will likely fall a financial burden to the parents. the whole process of a minor earning rights at certain check pts of age is a guideline to producing an viable full fledge adult at the end of 18 years.

i think there should be consequences for both sides of it. no longer should in consensual sex with minors fall the burden of punishment on the older member or typically the male in the case. i can kinda see it like underage drinking or the selling to a minor alcohol. if you are caught there are consequences for all parties involved. i am sick of this bullshit that gets levied onto the males in most of those cases. generally they consider there to be a victim, i would eliminate that except where clearly there is one.

i like that authority idea i.e. teachers, bosses, priests, coaches etc but i think that is something that is already a policy... but i think the charges should possibly be jacked up when pressuring a minor... but then that is one more interference of the gov't in private sectors of my society... so again iffy iffy.

[Athena]

my point being there has to be some sort of legal process involved to preserve the rights of all parties, and predominantly that of the parent as any consequences of that little romp will likely fall a financial burden to the parents.


I think this is a more valid rebuttal than most. Parents DO have a financial interest in regards to their child's reproductive rights. However, I would argue that this interest does not necessitate legal boundaries. Similarly, a parent has financial interest in their child's health, but we don't outlaw skateboarding because a kid might break his neck on his parents' dime. We leave these decisions up to the parents, who we expect to be able to reasonably control their child's actions. I don't see why sex should be any different. After all, if the minor were to get pregnant, the other party is still partially financially responsible. A parent taking on that financial burden is no different than the parent of a 19 year old who does the same thing. They are taking that burden upon themselves as they see fit.

Parents are financially responsible for the consequences of lots of perfectly legal behavior. I don't think their financial liability is enough in this case to justify AoC laws as they are currently applied.

[alizardsbet]

Athena,

Ok…but if a parent wants to limit their skater kid from potentially breaking their neck they simply refuse to allow such objects to be in their house, and bar the ability to be able to buy a skate board. Grant it there is always the influence of the brat’s friends, and then the best way is teaching safety first. Still you are not allowed to put the fear of god in the kid if they still want to be little shits. But failing that, I have always been of the strong opinion that if your kid wants to trump you and do as they please, and then seriously fucks up a parent has the right to divorce themselves of their child… not unlike what the home alone kid did with his parents, but in reverse. A kinda filing for bankruptcy. Yet who then takes responsibility of the cripple? Well personally, the kid wanted so bad to prove how grown up s/he is I say let the them figure it out. Of course that isn’t how it works in reality.

Kids who get knocked up cant really get a job due to child labor laws, and age requirements to perform certain types of jobs, like working a cappuccino maker. Not to mention the requirements of a kid to attend school, or else they are in violation of the law. So really a kid at that age can’t physically take on the full brunt of the responsibilities of an adult and potential parent no matter if the plumbing is right, so shouldn’t engage in said activities until they can take care of themselves. Further if I were to really consider this I would like to make it mandatory that minors who do engage in sexual activities wear or take contraceptives to prevent any sort of um… harm or potential burden coming about till they can prove themselves sufficient, but then we are getting into what does society deem as a viable parent? What sort of consequences or rewards should society or a parent put in place to encourage such desirable acts?

Let’s also consider the possibility of consequences of bad parenting. We already have on the books defining features of abusive parents… and the minimum requirements a parent is to provide a child food, shelter, clothing for 18 years and I think required to give them access to the public education system… but should we expand that to include something like imbuing them with a moral sense, self respect, respect for others, and an ability to reason and care for themselves at a ripening age? Or only in some part? I mean some of these kids for example who shoot up schools and ruin lives it is clear at least to the common observer that the parents failed, and then you want them making more copies of themselves. I am not entirely comfortable with this idea, as I truly don’t think a 16 year old would make a very good parent. a minor wouldnt be able to provide these base necessities and likely doesn't have a full appreciation for the less physical aspects of being a parent.

I think the laws of consent should only follow suite if the parents feels it should. If the parent is ok with the kid having sex at 12 then woohoo…(of course there are exceptions to this practice) but where a parent deems it inappropriate as they should be able to judge their child’s maturity (as who knows best this kid in question?) then the law is in place more to protect a parents right to govern their child as they see fit. This follows true with drinking, doing drugs, watching R rated movies, and being able to stay home by themselves. The laws should be more like policies, or rules for the wards of the state. I mean if a kid wants to act like an adult, and their parents or the gov’t are just being dicks about it, a kid should be able to in a calm well thought out mature fashion go down to the local courthouse, take a test pay a fee and get a license to practice. Sex should not be a right. It is a right of passage, a privilege.

Then again there is the whole do whatever you want with your body. Yet it isn’t really their body, as they don’t have full independence till about 18 and generally not till about 25 so the checks and balance of two citizens is in place to allow for individuals to declare themselves.

[Nell]

I will totally start this. I am so bored.

I live in Oregon. The age of consent is 18. It is bullshit. I have many friends who date 16 or 17 year olds while 25 or younger (get that, not perverted old men!!!) and they are scared shitless to be found out. It is a dumb ass law and should be reasonabley lowered to 16. Not 13 gprime!

Anywhoo, I love this debate. Thanks Kathy!

[Mom of 4]

Well Whoop Dee doo da day you American's are prudish compared to us Canucks aren't ya? LMAO Ours is 14! Hell our drinking age is 19 and if you don't mind the French you can drink in Quebec at 18!!!

Yep head to any bar in downtown Windsor Ontario and the place will be at least one third Americans aged 19-20.99999 .

Oh and we Canucks also have a 2 year clause in the age of consent. Two teens can have sex or preteens if thats the case with each other as long as the age gap between them is not more than 2 years. This is of course to keep older perverts from preying on kids who may or may not have experienced puberty.:bounce:

For the record I think 14 is too young and as I have stated elsewhere I have hundreds of case files to back that up. Nobody asked me though when they enacted that law.....bastards.:canada:

As a side note I will tell you that I had sex for the first time at the age of 13 and he was 18. Completely illegal at the time but I didn't cry rape. In hindsight was it a good choice? Nope not really for various reasons I wont go into.

[Nell]

I was 14. I feel in retrospect it was 2 early. I honestly just did it cause I could. Not the best idea. And he was also a virgin and 14, so also not the best, you know....

Anyway, made my sister promise to wait until 16. She did and I think that is the best early age.

[Mom of 4]

I was 14. I feel in retrospect it was 2 early. I honestly just did it cause I could. Not the best idea. And he was also a virgin and 14, so also not the best, you know....

Anyway, made my sister promise to wait until 16. She did and I think that is the best early age.



Well I was in the eighth grade and he was Capt. of the high school football team in his last year. He said he loved me, I thought we were going to live happily ever after.:doh:.

Turns out he was a player looking to up the number of virgins he deflowered and comparing notes with his football buddies. Years later it felt good when I ran into him in a bar and he was looking for round 2. I told him he had the smallest dick I have ever seen and that with the experience I had gained since being with him led me to the discovery he was a pathetic lay too.:biggrin1:

[Nell]

Well I was in the eighth grade and he was Capt. of the high school football team in his last year. He said he loved me, I thought we were going to live happily ever after.:doh:.

Turns out he was a player looking to up the number of virgins he deflowered and comparing notes with his football buddies. Years later it felt good when I ran into him in a bar and he was looking for round 2. I told him he had the smallest dick I have ever seen and that with the experience I had gained since being with him led me to the discovery he was a pathetic lay too.:biggrin1:

Weirdo! He musta been small dicked cause I have asked guys if the virgin thing is all it is cracked up to be and 99% say no. They have no experience and you know you are hurting them. How sexy could that be? One guy I knew put it best. He said the first time he and his girlfriend did it he felt like he was splitting her in 2. And that yelling and crying aren't a big turn on.

The guy I lost it 2 told everyone I just laid there, that I sucked! As if he would know! I saw him again in a bar when I was 22 and he tried to get some. But girls have long memories and I told him in no way did I wanna show someone who probably still sucked how great I had gotten!

[Dakota Valkyrie]

North Dakota - 18 - My boyfriend and I were illegal for 4 months when I was 17 and he 18.

The law here is plain old weird. Can you follow this?

Under 15 with someone 18+ is a class A or B felony
15-17 and someone 18-21 is a class A misdemeanor
someone 15-17 by someone 22+ is a class C felony
If the 18+ believes the 15-17 is also 18+ also then it is OK only if there is 4 years or less age gap.

looks as if 15-17 can do it with other 15-17s all they want

It seems they just tacked it together willy-nilly.

Recently here:
A girl got pregnant when she was 15 so there was proof of sexual activity. The father was 18+ (20 I think). Her mother had a fit and had the young man charged with statutory rape.

The couple went to South Dakota and had her father consent to marriage. Despite the marriage, the charges stuck and he was found guilty.

The guy "manned up" and took responsbility for his wife and kid. He faced the courts and served his sentence. Now he has to register as a sex offender and legally can't even be around his wife. (but other than her mom, no one's going to push that) I believe they have since moved out of state.

THAT's fucked up and the girls mom is a class A bitch.

[Jaded]

I live in OR. as well and I am just fine with the age of consent. Why? Because, if there were 25 year old men sniffing around my teen daughters, I'd have to question their intentions. What could they possibly have in common with my teen daughters? Unless said 25 year old is into shoes, shopping, MTV, and hot rock stars that wear eyeliner, there isn't gonna be much to a 'relationship' besides sex.

A 2-year age difference is all I will tolerate in this household. When they are allowed to date. I may be a little more flexible when it comes to my 17 year old daughter...but I don't think I would allow her to date anyone over the age of 21. The same rules apply to my son....no double standards here.

[Athena]

I live in OR. as well and I am just fine with the age of consent. Why? Because, if there were 25 year old men sniffing around my teen daughters, I'd have to question their intentions. What could they possibly have in common with my teen daughters? Unless said 25 year old is into shoes, shopping, MTV, and hot rock stars that wear eyeliner, there isn't gonna be much to a 'relationship' besides sex.

A 2-year age difference is all I will tolerate in this household. When they are allowed to date. I may be a little more flexible when it comes to my 17 year old daughter...but I don't think I would allow her to date anyone over the age of 21. The same rules apply to my son....no double standards here.

If you have rules, why do you need laws?

[Rotten Apple]

If you have rules, why do you need laws?

To help control the adult in the situation. We can make rules for our children, but we have no control over the adult.

A child is more likely to disobey if there is an adult persuading them to do otherwise. That adult is also more likely to persuade the child to go against their parents wishes if there are no consequences.

As far as the laws go, they need to be consistent across the board. Male, female, married, unmarried, straight, homosexual. It all needs to be one age. That way, people would know for sure if they are breaking the law, so when they are caught, there will be no excuses.

[Shadow]

To help control the adult in the situation. We can make rules for our children, but we have no control over the adult.

A child is more likely to disobey if there is an adult persuading them to do otherwise. That adult is also more likely to persuade the child to go against their parents wishes if there are no consequences.

As far as the laws go, they need to be consistent across the board. Male, female, married, unmarried, straight, homosexual. It all needs to be one age. That way, people would know for sure if they are breaking the law, so when they are caught, there will be no excuses.

Another reason, could be that *many* adults do not parent their teens appropriately, allowing them to run hither and yon and not concerning themselves with what their children are up to.


just a thought. :)

~ceisdsgil

[Rotten Apple]

Another reason, could be that *many* adults do not parent their teens appropriately

Yeah, but then you get into that whole "What IS parenting appropriately?" thing. People can't agree on that either. For instance, if it were up to my dad, I'd still be a virgin, while some parents really don't care about the age as long as the kid is safe about it.

[Athena]

To help control the adult in the situation. We can make rules for our children, but we have no control over the adult.

A child is more likely to disobey if there is an adult persuading them to do otherwise. That adult is also more likely to persuade the child to go against their parents wishes if there are no consequences.

As far as the laws go, they need to be consistent across the board. Male, female, married, unmarried, straight, homosexual. It all needs to be one age. That way, people would know for sure if they are breaking the law, so when they are caught, there will be no excuses.

I think control over the child is all a parent should require, past the age of 13 (given the laws shift to focus on the nature of the relationship). Manipulation is usually fairly easy to illustrate; the laws should focus on whether or not abuse or manipulation is present, rather than drawing arbitrary age lines and pretending they make much of a difference.

As for consistency in the law, I really don't think that's necessary. As the varied consent laws clearly illustrate, the different cultures within the country have different opinions on what is acceptable. That shouldn't be stripped from them. Ignorance has never been a valid defense, and those who actually give a crap about consent laws tend to err on the side of caution, anyway.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Maybe I'm just having a Dee Dee Dee moment, but I don't understand Mississippi (had to say the rhyme to myself to spell that state)

Mississippi 16 - [2]

[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.

I need a clarification. 12-16 is no-no if the girl is a virgin, if not a virgin then is it OK at that age?? What about boys and their virginity status?? I'm sure when someone posts it I will go :doh:

[Athena]

This is what Wiki has to say:

Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Mississippi)

The crime of statutory rape is committed when:[6]

Any person seventeen (17) years of age or older has sexual intercourse with a child who:
Is at least fourteen (14) but under sixteen (16) years of age;
Is thirty-six (36) or more months younger than the person; and
Is not the person's spouse; or

A person of any age has sexual intercourse with a child who:
Is under the age of fourteen (14) years;
Is twenty-four (24) or more months younger than the person; and
Is not the person's spouse.

[w8ng4msrgt]

Now we know why the FLDS's marry them off young.

[Athena]

Now we know why the FLDS's marry them off young.

Yep - in most states, parents can marry their child off at any post-pubescent age (usually 12+).

[TheLittleFriend]

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm


Here's the list of age from other countries. Philippines is at 12 to 18 years old. My neice is 11, going on 12. She's very sweetie girl. She still play barbies. I really can't imagine her, having sex at 12. It must be really frightening for the girls in Philippines.

[Athena]

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm


Here's the list of age from other countries. Philippines is at 12 to 18 years old. My neice is 11, going on 12. She's very sweetie girl. She still play barbies. I really can't imagine her, having sex at 12. It must be really frightening for the girls in Philippines.

Not to say it isn't, but one thing to consider is that different cultures move kids along at different rates. In the Philippines, a 14 year old may be running a farm or caring for a half dozen younger siblings. 12 means something different in other parts of the world than it means, here. In some respects, western civilizations may be stunting our childrens' progression, by preventing them from doing things or having responsibilities they are fully capable of, because we rely too heavily on age to determine what a kid can and can't do, rather than relying on the capacity of the individual.

[CPL CHUD]

They have kids running farms out of neccessity, which is the dreg that their culture surrounds itself arround. Being capable of having sex and reproducing doesn't mean we let minors do so, capacity doesn't dictate moral any more than base primitive instict does. Minors aren't fiscally seperate from the parent, and the reprocussions of sexual conduct have livelong consequences, sometimes not only for the parties involved during the initial conception, but for the lives of those conceived.

I think that if we are going to change the age of consent should only be to reflect the nature of the relationship and be at the discretion of parents of children whom are minors. I don't think thirteen year olds are capable of making life altering decisions, and nature doesn't care either. Nature simply passes on the urge to pass genes as quickly as possible. With high infant mortality rates, the second highest amongst industrialized nations, I think it'd be irresponsible to suddenly start condoning more pregnacies among minors, and lowering the age of minority doesn't seem a pertinent solution given recent scientific discovery that the brain doesn't fully develope untill a little later in life.

[DA Devil's Advocate]

Lost it

[Shadow]

In some respects, western civilizations may be stunting our childrens' progression, by preventing them from doing things or having responsibilities they are fully capable of, because we rely too heavily on age to determine what a kid can and can't do, rather than relying on the capacity of the individual.

I apologize for altering your quote, but I wanted to address, just this issue.
I agree with you that as a society, Western culture tends to retard, the growth of their children, because we do rely too heavily on age. Some 12yrs olds are mature for 12, while some 18yr olds are more immature than the 12yr olds. I wonder if the laws were changed to leave it up to the discretion of the parent, how different the outcome of each child's life would be.


food for thought, in my mind..


~ceisdsgil

[ARedRouletteKiss]

I think the laws are a bit wacked myself. Truthfully, I think it should be more of a girl's choice to press rape charges then a parent's because I see too many girls who have sex with whoever whenever because sex can make a girl feel powerful when it's an older boy/man. I think it depends on the age of the guy involved too. I mean from 18-21, there's not much of an age difference and half the guys I know would probably be in deep shit if the parents of said girl were to decide to press charges. The victim if it were rape involved would know and would hopefully speak out. Age of consent should be at maximum 16 because at 16 most kids I knew were sexually active. By 18, I felt a dying breed, and a few months shy of 20, I felt like an unicorn.

So if most teenagers are sexually active then that is their choice and I'd say the parents should probably be involved, but sometimes there isn't much that can be done to prevent sex. Well, I suppose as a parent you could be aware that most sex occurs at parties, but kids can easily say they are spending the nights at so and so's house. I think sex is a bit stupid to be had at an early age just because the older you get the better you are at getting out of situations you are a bit unsure about, the less peer pressure effects you, and the more you realize how bad sex can turn out in the case of std's and pregnancies you are not ready for yet. Too often though over 18 boys have a record for the rest of their life by a girl with ultra conservative parents. If you want your child to stay out of sex until they are older try to bring them up that way. Of course being too strict can prove to be a disaster.

I admit when it comes to some rape cases I can be a bit dubious about them. Roofies are horrible, but getting drunk and making a bad choice then saying it's rape is also victimizing someone else. Of course I'd count passing out and someone having sex with you rape, but I had a friend who claimed her fling raped her who she had sex with in my bed that night and then passed out next to him when she was drunk and he was high and later said she waked up to him raping her. Although she was 18 and he was 16 so this rape could go either way if the boy's parents got involved...ahhh...laws can just get a little crazy when you find loopholish behavior.

[Athena]

By 18, I felt a dying breed, and a few months shy of 20, I felt like an unicorn.

LMAO...I made it to the dying breed stage. Didn't make it to unicorn, though. :p


I still find it interesting that parents want to rely on laws when laws have so little to do with it. If you raise your child well, it's highly unlikely that they will be manipulated by an adult, unless that adult has some authority over them, which is illegal in and of itself in most states. If they're not being manipulated, then what's the problem?

And don't give me the "what could they possibly have in common" crap. The answer? All sorts of things. Life experience? Probably not, but since when has that been a prerequisite? If at 25, I want to date a 40 year old, our life experiences would be VASTLY different. He may have kids, might have been married once or twice and maybe put 15 years into the military. Meanwhile, I don't have even a decade of work experience, yet. Still, we could have a wonderful, long term relationship because maybe we're into the same music, movies or outdoor activities and we have similar values about personal conduct and child-raising.

Relationships with significant age disparities do not automatically involve manipulation, and if they don't involve manipulation, I don't see what the issue is.

[Rotten Apple]

I still find it interesting that parents want to rely on laws when laws have so little to do with it. If you raise your child well, it's highly unlikely that they will be manipulated by an adult, unless that adult has some authority over them, which is illegal in and of itself in most states. If they're not being manipulated, then what's the problem?

What about the children that have crappy parents? Should we allow them to be manipulated by an adult just because? Who is going to protect them? Is it just not our problem?

[Morbid]

What about the children that have crappy parents? Should we allow them to be manipulated by an adult just because? Who is going to protect them? Is it just not our problem?


Which is why black-and-white laws just do not fit when applied to what is essentially a situation rife with gray areas. The only way to fix the "problem" is to take each and every case and examine it separately and individually before handing out charges\sentences. The only problem with that is that it is impossible to do so. We do not have the time, money or resources to inspect every accusation on a case-by-case fashion. Besides, even if we could, it would look a lot like CPS cases do now.

No matter what way you go, there will never, ever be a solution in which everyone is satisfied or protected.

[Athena]

What about the children that have crappy parents? Should we allow them to be manipulated by an adult just because? Who is going to protect them? Is it just not our problem?

As I mentioned previously, shifting the focus from age to the nature of the relationship would fix this, wouldn't it? And it would prevent us from arbitrarily jailing those who have non-predatory relationships with post-pubescent individuals.

[Athena]

Which is why black-and-white laws just do not fit when applied to what is essentially a situation rife with gray areas. The only way to fix the "problem" is to take each and every case and examine it separately and individually before handing out chargessentences. The only problem with that is that it is impossible to do so. We do not have the time, money or resources to inspect every accusation on a case-by-case fashion. Besides, even if we could, it would look a lot like CPS cases do now.

No matter what way you go, there will never, ever be a solution in which everyone is satisfied or protected.

I can certainly agree with that last sentence.

However, I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with the assertion that examining things on a case-by-case basis is impossible. All sorts of cases are decided after thorough examination. All sorts of charges require intent to be proven. I don't see why these cases should be any different.

[Rotten Apple]

Any relationship between and adult and a child under 16 years of age OR a child under 16 years of age and another minor where the age difference is more than 4 years should be criminalized IMO.

There. I fixed it. :p

[Athena]

Any relationship between and adult and a child under 16 years of age OR a child under 16 years of age and another minor where the age difference is more than 4 years should be criminalized IMO.

There. I fixed it. :p

You mean any sexual relationship, right? Or are you advocating a Lord of the Flies style set up?

Assuming you mean the former - Why? Why do you automatically attach it to age, rather than the nature of the relationship? Your law leaves 16 and 17 year olds open to the manipulation that you feel it necessary to protect 15 year olds from.

A law focusing on the nature of the relationship would protect all of them from manipulation. Wouldn't that be ideal? Or are 16 and 17 year olds "just not our problem"? ;)

[Rotten Apple]

You mean any sexual relationship, right? Or are you advocating a Lord of the Flies style set up?

Assuming you mean the former - Why? Why do you automatically attach it to age, rather than the nature of the relationship? Your law leaves 16 and 17 year olds open to the manipulation that you feel it necessary to protect 15 year olds from.

A law focusing on the nature of the relationship would protect all of them from manipulation. Wouldn't that be ideal? Or are 16 and 17 year olds "just not our problem"? ;)

YES, I mean sexual relationship, smartass. :p

I attach it to age because I believe that most children under the age of 16 are not able to fully understand the consequences a sexual relationship can bring about. Allowing an adult to take advantage of that would be irresponsible.

I guess any potential sexual partners for 16 and 17 year olds should be subjected to the same 4 year age difference rule that those under 16 would. that would keep some creepy 40 year old from trying to get with a 16 year old.

I think concentrating on the nature of the relationship is unrealistic. Young teens fall in and out of love at the drop of a hat. Just because the adult may feel that they truly have something in common with this kid, doesn't mean it is in the best interest of the child.

Children need to be protected, plain and simple. It is our duty to do that.

[Athena]

YES, I mean sexual relationship, smartass. :p

I attach it to age because I believe that most children under the age of 16 are not able to fully understand the consequences a sexual relationship can bring about. Allowing an adult to take advantage of that would be irresponsible.

I guess any potential sexual partners for 16 and 17 year olds should be subjected to the same 4 year age difference rule that those under 16 would. that would keep some creepy 40 year old from trying to get with a 16 year old.

I think concentrating on the nature of the relationship is unrealistic. Young teens fall in and out of love at the drop of a hat. Just because the adult may feel that they truly have something in common with this kid, doesn't mean it is in the best interest of the child.

Children need to be protected, plain and simple. It is our duty to do that.

It's not unrealistic; we already have laws that work along those lines.

The consequences of sex apply whether your partner is within 4 years or not. Yes, young kids do fall in and out of love all the time, but I don't see how the age of the partner makes it any more or less detrimental. There is nothing more damaging, inherently, about falling in "love", sleeping with, and getting your heart "broken" by a 30 year old than by a 17 year old.

If there is manipulation, THAT'S where the damage lies. We should focus on protecting them from that.

[DA Devil's Advocate]

Morality has always been about survival. That which insures survival is moral. There is a progression to that survival but it has a strange duality to it. First being self, then family, tribe, nation, and finally species. What one believed to be important for the survival of self and then family, tribe, nation and species one deemed moral. The duality lies in that we consider it to be moral to sacrifice self for family, family for tribe, tribe for nation, and nation for species if need be. In the beginning the priority was to survive and then to breed to insure the survival to the species. If resources were scarce attack a neighboring tribe and take what you needed; if mates were not available attack a neighboring tribe and take their women.

Deuteronomy 20
13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
15Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

Deuteronomy 21
10When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

As we became more civilized the rules were refined. Women became the property of their fathers and husbands.

Deuteronomy 22
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Yes, times were simpler when all you had to do was rape a woman in the fields and pay her father 50 shekels. Yet even in those times they recognized the weakness of men, the power of women, and the strength of man over women. Women gave consent or denied it. If a man attempted to have sex with a woman and she didn’t cry out and try to stop him they were both punished. If she cried out and there was no one to save her he alone was punished.

Deuteronomy 22
23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

In short the moral code was built on women and children first. Women were to be protected but not entirely trusted. Age was not an issue. Consent was not an issue. If your father thought you were old enough to marry and he made an arrangement you got married. It was a simple as that.

The age at which women married seems to be, historically, as young as 12. In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was 13 going on 14. In 1722 Benjamin Franklin, writing as Silence Dogood, wrote this: “I would advise them to relieve themselves in a Method of Friendly Society; and that already publish'd for Widows, I conceive would be a very proper Proposal for them, whereby every single Woman, upon full Proof given of her continuing a Virgin for the Space of Eighteen Years, (dating her Virginity from the Age of Twelve,) should be entituled to £500 in ready Cash.” It seems there was a problem with women remaining spinsters, having turned away eligible suitors, and thus having no source of income. The Friendly Society was a sort of insurance company that would provide an income if the client reached the age of 30 without finding a husband.

Throughout history and into today women are the one with the true power when it comes to sexual consent. To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, when a girl is ready she can trip a man and beat him to the ground. Men will try and women deny, or approve as the case may be. Some of you have posted about losing you virginity at 13 or 14. I was one of those unicorns, but not by choice. Women are the ones who give thought before giving consent. Ask almost any boy, of almost any age, in private, do you want to _____? Nine times out of ten the answer is yes.

I firmly believe in the double standard when it comes to consent. The age of consent for a male should be after he starts breathing to shortly before he stops. For females the age of consent should vary. Females should be taught from a young age that no one should ever do something to them that they don’t want done. Both should be taught that when she says stop everything stops. Girls should be taught all of the consequences of sex, both physical and emotional. They should be taught that boys and men will lie to them, drug them, beg, coerce, blackmail, and even pay them to get them to say yes. They should be taught that if a boy or man touches them, licks them, threatens them or someone they care about, or sticks something inside of them to report it immediately. Finally they should be taught that once someone gets what they want from them they may, and probably will, break their hearts. They should be tested on a regular basis and once they pass and understand the consequences of consenting and the power they have over men they should be given a license to consent.

If you insist on having an age of consent then it is clearly female who should be punished or educated for having sex below the age of consent. When it comes to sex the male allows his penis to do all of his thinking and relies on the female to be his conscience.

[TheMorningStar]

A young Georgia man whose imprisonment eight years ago sparked a debate over teen sex laws is now graduating from college.The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports (http://bit.ly/17Ko0wC ) 27-year-old Genarlow Wilson will graduate from Morehouse College on Sunday, when the commencement address will be delivered by President Barack Obama.
Wilson was sentenced to 10 years in prison for aggravated child molestation in 2005 because the then 17-year-old high school football player engaged in sex acts with a 15-year-old girl. Georgia changed its teen sex laws and the state Supreme Court overturned Wilson's conviction in 2007, calling it "cruel and unusual."


http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22289337/man-imprisoned-for-teen-sex-graduates

[Krystal]

17 and 15 and he went to prison? Really Georgia, nothing better to do? That is utterly ridiculous.

I will put it right out there, I don't find much wrong with a consensual relationship between a say 16 or 17 year old and someone 21 or 22. Now we start taking teens with 30-somethings and I'm in a gray area. But the reality of it is at 13 I was screwing guys in their mid to late twenties, I have had 1 husband almost 11 years older than me. Do I regret some of my choices now? Absolutely but not enough to think the guys need to be criminally charged, I agreed to it and none of them were my "first".

[Iron Kaiser]

In Spain and Holland the age of consent is 14 and i daresay other European countries too.
In the Middle East they marry at 9 and the marriage is consumated at 12 or 13.