Legal age of Sexual Consent

Hi,

Does anyone else think that getting arrested for having consentual sex with a 16/17 year old is completely ridiculous? I certainly do. I can honestly say that I think most 16 and 17 yeard olds understand the difference between good touch and bad touch! This whole "statutory rape" thing is almost entirely an american manifestation. For example the legal age of sexual consent in canada is 14, in Britain 16, in denmark/france/sweden 15. That means it's legal for an adult to have sex with someone that young. The culture is much different in many countries in Europe. A 16 year old dating a 30 year old is considered completely normal in many free non-repressed countries like Denmark. For example, when Sergie Federov started dating anna kournakova when she was only 15, people in the states said he should be locked up. In Europe, it was considered a sweet romance!(which of course it was!) And in the most hilarious ironic twrist... anna ended up PLAYING sergei and started dating bure when she was about 16 and the played the two of them.

As far as I'm concerned, once somebody goes through puberty, they understand how to consent to sex. Also, calling a 15 year old a "child" is outrageous. In adolecent females, the average age of epyphiseal plate fusion is 15. That means that there grow plates are fused, puberty is over and they are biologically 100% an adult. If you can't tell the difference between a 17 year old and a 12 year old... you have serious problems. If a 17 year old has sex with a 12 year old, their molesting them.

Also, I think that in the United States it's a major possibility that the legal age of sexual consent will move to 21. How can you not see this as a possiblity!? You can't even get into a singles bar until your 21(yet you can get drafted into the military...mature enough to kill people, but not mature enough to drink...what a country!). Did you know that in Colorado and New Mexico, the legal age to purchase pornography is 21? That's the reason on the internet you see messages that say don't enter until your 21. In hippy culture during the 60s/70s it was perfectly normal for fully grown adult males to have sex with "minors". For you older hippies, I'm sure you remember.

I find it disgusting that a man or woman would be locked up for having sex with a "minor" 15 or over. There is no comparison between molesting children. Teenagers understand dating, while children don't understand what it means when someone puts his hand on your leg. A child who gets molested is scarred for the rest of life. He/she had been raped!, but to compare this to someone who clearly knows what's going on and what their doing is outrageous. What happens if two people are in love? Are you actually going to tell me that a 17 year old and an older man can't fall in love? Give me a break!
In american society, Lindsay lohan had to hide the fact that she was dating that 24 year old guy from that 70s show. What the hell is this?

Anothing thing, most people are completely ignorant of the laws. In The United stats the legal age of sexual consent is set by the state, not by the federal governent. For example, the legal age of sexual consent(meaning an adult can legaly have consentual sex with that age) is 16 in Connecticut and 18 in Califonia. Statotory rape is an EXTREMELY difficult case to prosecute(because theirs no victim, it's a morality crime) and it's a quite ineffective law just the way the 21 drinking age is ineffective and stoping younger people from drinking and also ineffective at curbing dui. France has a legal drinking age of 16 and has less dui related highway fatalities than the U.S. does per capita.
For you americinized Canadians, the legal age of consentual sex IS 14 , unless your in a position of authority then it's 18. The legal age to do porn is 18.

 

You know I really find it sad that something as beautiful and natural as sex is constantly being prosecuted. I'm sure many of you might be aware it's still illegal to co-habitate in many states(ie if two people of the opposite sex are living together of any age, they have to be married.) Age has nothing to do with love. Just because theres a large age difference between two people who have gone through puberty means nothing.

Here's the Canadian law:

​

Updated 07-2002:
Source: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/38792.html

Sexual Offences

Consent no defence

150.1 (1) Where an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152 or subsection 153(1), 160(3) or 173(2) or is charged with an offence under section 271, 272 or 273 in respect of a complainant under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.

Exception

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is twelve years of age or more but under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge unless the accused

(a) is twelve years of age or more but under the age of sixteen years;

(b) is less than two years older than the complainant; and

(c) is neither in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant nor is a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency.

Exemption for accused aged twelve or thirteen

(3) No person aged twelve or thirteen years shall be tried for an offence under section 151 or 152 or subsection 173(2) unless the person is in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant or is a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency.

Mistake of age

(4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant was fourteen years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.

Idem

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under section 153, 159, 170, 171 or 172 or subsection 212(2) or (4) that the accused believed that the complainant was eighteen years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.

R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1.

Sexual interference

151. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of fourteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 151; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1.

Invitation to sexual touching

152. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of fourteen years, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 152; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1.

Sexual exploitation

153. (1) Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person or is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency and who

(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person, or

(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Definition of "young person"

(2) In this section, "young person" means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 153; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1.

Sexual exploitation of person with disability

153.1 (1) Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a person with a mental or physical disability or who is a person with whom a person with a mental or physical disability is in a relationship of dependency and who, for a sexual purpose, counsels or incites that person to touch, without that person's consent, his or her own body, the body of the person who so counsels or incites, or the body of any other person, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Definition of "consent"

(2) Subject to subsection (3), "consent" means, for the purposes of this section, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.

When no consent obtained

(3) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of this section, if

(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;

(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;

(c) the accused counsels or incites the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;

(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or

(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

Subsection (3) not limiting

(4) Nothing in subsection (3) shall be construed as limiting the circumstances in which no consent is obtained.

When belief in consent not a defence

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge if

(a) the accused's belief arose from the accused's

(i) self-induced intoxication, or

(ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or

(b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.

Accused's belief as to consent

(6) If an accused alleges that he or she believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

1998, c. 9, s. 2.

154. [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1]

​

 

As you can see, the legal age of sexual consent is 16 in Connecticut. A very resonable law in my opinion. I wouldn't have problem with a legal age of sexual consent of 16, but arresting someone for have consentual sex with someone 16 or over(old enough to drive) is outrageous.

April 11, 1998
From: (http://www.newstimes.com/archive98/apr1198/rgh.htm)
Permanent archive to prevent news article loss

Lawmaker says statutory rape program ineffective

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - The state's pilot program aimed at cracking down on statutory rape has
been virtually ineffective in its first 18 months, a lawmaker says.

The program, approved by the state Legislature, was highly touted in its kickoff campaign - pitched
as a way to reduce teen-age pregnancies and to remind men that sex with a girl under 16 is a crime.

The Hartford Courant reported Friday that since the program went into effect, only one prosecutor
and one investigator have been devoted to the cases and only 22 men have been convicted.

``When you look at the results, they are not that different from what they would have been with or
without this unit,'' said state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, an East Haven Democrat.

Chief State's Attorney John Bailey said that even as a pilot program, the unit has been a success and
will pay off over time. The unit has investigated and prosecuted 164 cases, Bailey said.

Lawlor said that rather than assign a single prosecutor and investigator to work on all statutory rape
cases throughout the state, all local prosecutors should be trained to handle statutory rape cases.

The prosecutor assigned to the statutory rape unit, Sandra Tullius, is capable, Lawlor said, but busy,
sometimes spending much of her time driving for a single court appearance.

Bailey said he would like to have one prosecutor and investigator for each of the five judicial districts,
but he estimate the cost would be about $100,000 per year for each of the
units.


http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/99statutes/35-SexualOffenses.PDF
Sec. 53a-71. Sexual assault in the second degree: Class C felony: Nine months not suspendable.


(a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person and: (1) Such other person is thirteen years of age or older but under sixteen years of age and the actor is more than two years older than such person; or (2) such other person is mentally defective or mentally incapacitated to the extent that he is unable to consent to such sexual intercourse; or (3) such other person is physically helpless; or (4) such other person is less than eighteen years old and the actor is such person's guardian or otherwise responsible for the general supervision of such person's welfare; or (5) such other person is in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person; or (6) the actor is a psychotherapist and such other person is (A) a patient of the actor and the sexual intercourse occurs during the psychotherapy session, (B) a patient or former patient of the actor and such patient or former patient is emotionally dependent upon the actor, or (C) a patient or former patient of the actor and the sexual intercourse occurs by means of therapeutic deception; or (7) the actor accomplishes the sexual intercourse by means of false representation that the sexual intercourse is for a bona fide medical purpose by a health care professional; or (8) the actor is a school employee and such other person is a student enrolled in a school in which the actor works or a school under the jurisdiction of the local or regional board of education which employs the actor. (b) Sexual assault in the second degree is a class C felony for which nine months of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court.

 

Those laws are really to protect young people from exploitation more than they are for keeping kids chaste.... I mean, if your girl's mom is some crazy bitch that wants to put you in jail for sleeping with her, I think that's shitty and abusive of the law.... but if your 16 year old daughter or friend or whatever got raped or taken advantage of, wouldn't you want the person responsible to pay as much as he can for what he did? That's what the law is mainly for. Same thing with sodomy.... it's not really about gay people, but little kids getting molested by people.

 

In Australia, the age of consent is 16, which is a good age. Many are sexually active by then.


There is a Puritannical / Religious streak that the US will never shake off. Prosecuting morality crimes based on consensual sex where the participants are old enough to make up their own minds and where there are no victims is ridiculous. As a father of two teenagers, I am reminded that a 16 year old is well mature enough to make up his or her own mind on sex. And a law is not going to change natural behaviour regardless.

Happy Ha Ha Girl. Sexual assult and rape, once the age of consent is reached can be covered by laws specifically to deal with those issues. Sodomy IS about homosexuality. The Christian church has a big issue with homosexuality. In some States of the US, anal sex between adult homosexuals is illegal, in others it is illegal between heterosexuals as well. Non consensual anal sex can be prosecuted as sexual assult or rape, so there is no need for a specific law to ban it. All other Western countries made it legal many years ago.

Most other Western Countries have also decriminalisted the sex industry (prostitution and brothels). Britain is in the process of doing so now.

So, in Australia, you can pay money to have sex, just to get rid of that unhealthy tension and frustration that builds up when you don't have a current relationship. And the police won't burst through the bedroom door to arrest you. Or you can have anal sex with your wife and be confident that you won't be arrested and charged.

From Australia

 

I agree.

The laws here in the UK need to be changed. The age of consent should go down to about 12 or 13. We have a massive problem here with teenage pregnancy and this could be overcome by lowering the age of consent, as well as making sure kids are better educated about sexual issues. In general, countries with lower ages of consent have better levels of teenage pregnancy.

The thought that you can't legally have sex under 18 in America is laughable and ludicrous! The number of people reading this who are criminals must be beyond count! At least here in the UK the average age people lose their virginity is higher than the age of consent!

 

Laws are implemented to deter perverted bone-heads as yourselves from praying on the innocent children of the world.

 

And they fail miserably.

 

Deciding who is a "child" has been dramtically changed over the years. Not too long ago it was common, and encouraged, that people as young as 15 find mates. We can say, "oh, well, life was different back then." Yup, you're right, doesn't mean 15 year olds now are somehow less capable or unable to understand sex. Lack of education is the cause of that, not age.

I think that drawing lines for the public is hard, because not everything in life is concrete. Obviously, a 8 year old is a child, and there is no interpretation there. BUT, it's true, once you've reached puberty, nature itself is saying, "yup, you're ready, go ahead!" But girls go through puberty at many different ages. I, myself, wasn't a woman until I was 16. I was a late bloomer. So, obviously, for me, 15 was too young. My body hadn't yet matured.

I agree, 18 is too late for legalizing consentual sex. I think legal age, should be when a person has physically turned into an adult. (But, as I said, that varies and it's would be an interesting court room case if the judge said, we'll sit here until you bleed to prove you're a woman! and also in men.. I don't think they have such an obvious distinction.) But, of course, to protect everyone, there should be laws against all forms of rape. People really need to distinguish between consentual sex, and rape.

Nobody likes to be told what to do when they're capable of thinking for themselves and making their own desicions. I think we go to far when we restrict ourselves so much for 'our own good'. Man, good and bad... it's really not black and white. It's totally a gradient between, massivly depending on individual opinion.

 

Those laws are meant to protect minors from being hurt and abused by older partners. They may not be fair, but they exist. Besides, I'm sorry, but I just don't see why a 40 something year old person would want a relationship with a teenager, save for the obvious sexual reasons.

 

12 or 13? Too young!!! There was no way in hell that I was ready for it at that age. I lost my virginity at 14 and I definitely wasn't ready for it then. Ju9st because one is physically ready for sex doesn't mean that they're emotionally ready. I can see 16. Hell, if you can get behind the wheel of a potentially deadly piece of machinery, then you're responsible enough to engage in a little pookie pookie. But 12 and 13? How many people here can actually say they were ready at that age?

 

"Besides, I'm sorry, but I just don't see why a 40 something year old person would want a relationship with a teenager, save for the obvious sexual reasons."

Another "40 year old; dirty old man" cliche!

I'm 21, is there a difference between me and a 40 year old man sleeping with a 16 year old? or a 25 year old? Of course not. And under the law in the U.S., both are stachatory rape(molestation).

Your statement is a statement of MORALITY(and I disagree with your morality), not of criminal nature. Plus, the same thing could be said about a 50 year old with a 22 year old, no? Are you going to arrest people simply because of a large age difference. Also, the fact that a "40 something year old" can't be in love with a teenager(16/17, I don't like the term "teenager" because there is no comparison between 13/14 and 18/19) is closed minded and absurd. Of course a older man could fall in love with a young person!

Stachatory rape is supposed to protect "Children" against being molested, not against some guy "who takes advantage". If this was the case, a 35 year old playboy lying to a 20 something year old girl about loving her just to get into her pants could also be prosecuted. The fact is that by 16/17 young people know exactly what sexual behavoir is. I also agree with the other post that throughout history, what constitutes an adult has changed. Also, lets not forget what happens to these people who are convicted of stachatory rape. Their sent to a prison with rapists and murderers and they will most likely not survive prison(since their normal and will have a problem stabbing someone to death with a shank-what you have to do to survive the inhumane conditions of prison). If they do stab someone, they get 25 to life. Prison is a inhumane cruel disgusting place. In reality, they will most likely be REALLY raped(not "stachatory raped") and get hiv. If they do manage by some miracle to get out of prison, their life IS OVER. There now convicted sex offenders. GOOD LUCK GETTIN' A JOB!

Think about yourself at that age-16/17, if an older adult had sex with you, were they molesting you? OF COURSE NOT. You knew what was going on.
Now think about yourself at 10 or 12, same scenario. Of course you didn't have the capability to understand what your consenting to.

I don't agree that the age should be lowered to 12/13, this is WAY TOO YOUNG and would allowed children to be molested and violated and is just as ridiculous(actually more ridiculous because your legalizing pedophilia) as the age of 18.

 

There is a BIG difference...

True. Most people are physically prepared to have sex at the age or 15 or even 14. But the mental development between a 15 year old and a 21 year old is huge. 15 and 40 is not anywhere in the same ball park if even the same planet. there is even a large gap between 18 and 21. Yes some people may be ready around the age of 15 or 16 but not everyone is... And I think that its better to tell those people to wait than let the ones that are not be prayed on. My point is that everyone matures at different rates so you cant really label and exact age of when your ready to have sex. its different for everyone.

You remind me of the guys who cant get women their own age so they hang around their old highschool and pick up on girls knowing they have a good chance of sleeping with them. I think its pretty sad....

 

Does anyone know where a good site is where it lays down all the laws for each state, I live in ohio if anyone knows the off hand. Thanks

 

Just offhand try ohio.gov Hey I live in Ohio too... where at? I'm from around findlay myself. As well, although I have never slept with anyone under 17, I think it would be alright for me to go as low as 15, but any lower then that and they still seem like children. Hell they still seem like children at 15, but atleast a little more endoughed.

 

see the difficult thing is that its pretty hard to make laws based ion morals, because theyre all circumstancial and they vary from person to person.

 

Im from Strongsville- Its a suburb of Cleveland. Heres a site I found it looks pretty reliable- All the US is on the bottom listed by states which give legal consent ages-http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm- I've personally have the 3 year limit, I only go 3 years older mabey 4 if he's special. But i agree that it's your own personal choice on what you do, if your old enough to understand what sex is and you are mature enough to engage in such activity than no way should the goverment interfer with your personal decisions.

 

I think it is really rediculous. It makes some of my relations with dudes illegal. Bullshit. Like just because I have dated 18 & 19 year olds, they have the risk of being thrown in jail!?!?

 

I don't flirt with anyone under the age of 18. The idea disgusts me. I don't care if they're physically ready, or the plates of their skull have closed in; indicating that they're grown-up, or that they've gone through puberty. It's their mentality; most are very immature emotionally - thus their probably not ready to be intimate; most people associate with true love and stuff. It'll crush them when they find out that isn't what it's about anymore. However, unbeknownst to them, there are vindictive fucks out there that are after their innocence, and *tightness*.
About the "tadpole" situation, yes my belief is still applicable. Where I am, 16 is the age of consent; as long as the partner is up to six years older. There isn't anything else to write that hasn't already been written. What other people do isn't my business. It's just some people can't keep it that way, and they have to announce it to everyone. Eh.

 

see how vulnerable some are? Doesn't that matter?