Age of consent?

I just suggesting that instead (in addition to) of answering "how old does a person have to be before they are responsible", one should also have to ask "how young does a partner have to be for the older partner to be criminally creepy?"

Current law is flawed in that it doesn't distinguish between the case of two under (legal) age people having sex and the case of an older person preying on the young.

No matter what age is chosen, there has to be a distinction between the scenario of an older person preying on the foolishness of the young and the scenario of two young people engaging in mutual foolishness.

The law needs to protect the young from predators. It should not punish youths for their foolishness. The current law does punish youthful foolishness. Perhaps more often than it protects youths. Does anyone have data on the average age of people convicted of statutory rape?

The lack of distinction between those two cases is, in my opinion, more important than deciding if the number is 18, 17, 16 or whatever.

 

i'm pretty sure most places have exceptions for underage people within a certain age of each other. i think the standard is that it's legal as long as the kids are within 4 or 5 years of each other, or something like that.

 

i was ready at 16. i chose to have sex. i was responsible, and my mom wasnt stupid, she put me on BCPs for my 16th birthday. it was 6 or 8 moths later that i acted on it.

if kids were properly taught about sex, and it wsant so hush hush, and maybe if the boys learned with the girls all of the details, then maybe they wouldnt want to have sex until they were 16 or older. we (as a society,) push the sex stuff, sex is cool, its macho, its attractive, and of course kids want to emulate that.
i never felt a need to fuck early. i found a great book with a great story and a splash of smut when i was 12. if all kids were taught that masturbation is ok then maybe they would satisfy their urges by themselves. boys play with themselves from babyhood, but no one told me i could touch myself.

 

Heh, I had 2 older sisters for that >.>

I too waited until I was 16 but I was fully aware at an earlier age what sex was all about.

 

oh yeah, i knew about it, Joy of Sex was a coffee table book, just nobody told me girls could do it too.

 

what, did you think there was a force shield around your vagina?

 

it just didnt cross my mind until i read about it in a sexy book. seems uncalled for to hijack the topic and insinuate that im a moron.

 

hijack the topic? i made one post, asking about the weird comment that you had made in both of your last two posts.

 

If you never considered it, then I can't see how it was a problem. If there was some burning desire, you would have considered it.

Of course, there's the opposite problem, with a lot of people. I know a particularly crazy woman who tells her young daughter, during totally innocent fidgeting, or in the bathtub, that she can't touch herself there, because it's dirty, or because she'll hurt herself.

Predictably, that child has taken to grabbing her crotch and exclaiming "ow", and predictably, her horrible mother has given her attention for this, reinforcing it.

One of those things where crazy abusive parenting is passed from generation to generation. I'm working to throw myself in it's way, though. It rather bothers me, given that it's my daughter in question.

 

MikeE ...as far as I know - as has been said - the law tends to turn a blind eye if there is a reasonable No. of years between the two.
Obviously, it is different if one is in a position of trust or/and one has mental health issue/learning difficulties etc.
I've never heard of a case where - for e.g - a 15 year old girl had sex with an 18 year old lad, both were consenting participants, and one/both were found guilty of x y or z.
I think it's called something like a 'Romeo and Juliet' law.
Reading a few e.g's around the world were they have found themselves in court - some are charged with statutory rape or a lower charge, but most are not.
I imagine the only cases we tend to hear about are the one where the family get involved.
Ireland had a case http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0223/313813-court/ - but that probably has more to do with Irish sensibilities.

: / sorry, no. Will try and look a little harder later.

 

I saw an episode of COPS where an 18 year old was hauled off in handcuffs for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. You can see just about anything on an episode of COPS.

 

I think 'hauled off' is different to being found guilty of a crime.
To be fair, I do appreciate many of these types of cases are brought to the authorities - I guess they have to - but I mean actual convictions.

 

I know it's off topic, but since we're talking about age of consent. I think they should lower the drinking age in the states to at least 18.

 

I know a fellow who was 19 and in jail because his sex partner was only 17.

In many jurisdictions, it boils down to how mad her parents are.

 

HER? Ok. Yeah, probably, sadly, more rue than false.

 

young!

 

In New Zealand, the legal age of consent is 16. But it happens much younger than that age. Some teens have sex with the girls consenting to it thou. So the legal age for consenting for sex should be a better title?

 

In the US, there's not much choice.

I mean, the prosecutor has some choice. But won't use it. Promise.

He will take a plea that will make him a sex offender and ruin his life, but he will have some sort of supervised release or probation instead of actual jail time once he's bailed or after his court date. He will have maybe two to ten years of that, paying large sums monthly that make it all he can do to keep his head above water all the while having frequent drug and alcohol tests and a curfew and travel moratorium (and if he fails any of these, he serves out his whole sentence from the start, as if he was found guilty), and at the end of it he still won't be able to live or work many places, maybe own firearms or participate in some activities or programs, will have to register when he moves around, and will be seen as a menace.

OR, he could take a jury trial, where the prosecutor brings up the girl's parents to confirm that the two of them had sex (probably not too rarely, either) in all the graphic detail he can squeeze out, he will bring up the girlfriend to ask her if it was rape or if she consented (a trick, she will corroborate the parent's claim by saying it was consensual and she wanted to have sex), he will call up the guy and, just because there's no other option for him at that point and the prosecutor is a sadist, will make him agree with the girlfriend and try to say that there's nothing wrong with it. And then the jury decides wether he had sex with her, but has no input into anything else. They take five minutes to return to repeat what all the witnesses just told them (that they totally banged) and the prosecutor will ask the judge for the maximum sentence, to keep these dangerous pedophilic child rapists off the street (recall, there is no way around it after there's a trial and the jury says yes, because she legally couldn't consent) (of course, he really means we need to teach this little fuck a lesson for daring to question the massive cock of the state by opting for a real trial, instead of swallowing my prosecutorial load and taking my plea bargan), and the judge sends the guy away for like 30 years for the dispicable and violent rape of a minor, with SO much violence that she developed stockholm syndrome and said that she consented and liked it, and that she wanted those whips and chains:2thumbsup:


And that's pretty much a crash course in US law. Prosecutors get elected by locking people up, judges get elected for locking people the FUCK up for the longest time legally possible, and legislators get elected for writing tough law that's going to show all those normal people who have the audacity to breathe, what time it is.

And the people love it, they talk about how great it is and how it will instil decency and morals, as they plan the arranged marriage of their thirteen year old daughters, whilst smoking meth in their trailers.

 

i really don't see what you're getting at here. yes, the age of consent is the legal age of consenting for sex. i'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that some people who are not legally able to consent for sex still have consensual sex.

also, completely off topic, but you know "though" is spelled "though," right? thou is basically old english for "you."

 

Thanks.

All of that sounded like it was very personal.