Works in Washington State.

16-year-olds are gonna do what they want to do anyway.

16 covers the situation where one graduates from high school before the other. Everything under 16 is governed by the age difference.

less than 14... not allowed

Realistically, I wanted an option for when ones parents says it's okay for it to happen.

That could be bad going both ways...

First, there needs to be a large Romeo and Juliet loophole so we do not criminalize normal stupid teenager sex.

Second, I just read that the average age of losing virginity is 17. Maybe we need to make it 15 or less. We need to stop making reasons to fill the prisons. So if two 13 year Olds hook up it is not a crime. A 20 year old and a 13 year old, that is a crime.

Make it 16 or 18 instead and I can agree completely. Some people who are now on my ignore list seem to think I want to criminalize underage teens for doing what underage teens do with each other.

13 and 13, kids doing what kids do. 20 and 13, no fucking way.

" normal stupid teenager sex" has been prosecuted (in the past few years) ... once involved the prosecution of a Black 16 year old male (15 year old white female lover); the other instance involved the prosecution of a just turned 18 year old female (16 year old female lover).

Just saying ... normal stupid teenager sex is not widely criminalized, just stupid teenage sex where one of the participants is of a marginalized group.

When prosecutors get broad powers the lowest on the totem pole get put in jail.

Fewer crimes, less lives ruined.

as each (most) have a valid and real reason for existing.

If the prosecutor, for one second thought his/her precious seed would be subjected to that which he/she subjects others ... things would balance out.

Eh, I don't.

Did you have sex in high school? I did. So did a good percentage of my classmates, IIRC.

i'm not willing to rely on prosecutors' concerns for their own "precious seed" (your word choice) to ensure reasonable enforcement - or lack thereof- of laws criminalizing what is perfectly normal and fairly common teen behavior.

think there are 'valid reasons' to arrest a 16 & 15 y/o for consensual "stupid teenage sex" ... Now did I?

I have not commented on the efficacy, the legitimacy or the wisdom/stupidity of such laws; but the fact is, those laws exist ... despite your wish that they did not.

I remember awhile back, I commented on an article where a father shot a man that the father found in bed with his 16(?) yr old daughter, in the early hours of the morning. I commented that if I it were me ... unknown man, my teenage daughter, early morning ... I couldn't say that I wouldn't have shot, too.

I believe that it was you, that responded that I was a father attempting to "control (my) daughter's vagina."

You seem to have a pattern of responding to stuff that was only said in your head ... or maybe it's just the way you respond to me.

What you said in this thread was, quote, "each (most) have a valid and real reason for existing." Meaning these laws.

That was a follow up post to one where you specifically brought up an example of a 16 & 15 yo being prosecuted for sex as an example of unequal enforcement of one if these laws based upon race or orientation, which i have no doubt is the case oftentimes.

You didn't specify that laws criminalizing teen sex were exempt from that, but you did say that most of the laws have a "valid and real reason for existing".

but instead often focuses on lowering the age of consent.

Like in this case.

Most of the time, if it's straight white kids, they let it slide, but if it is a black male and white female or even a black male and black female in a lot of cases, or a gay couple, they don't hesitate to all of a sudden prosecute. And when they do, it is to the fullest extent of the law then.

I have a hard time answering this poll because of it.

Convicted of aggravated child molestation which was a law that was supposed to protect children from sexual predators...the prosecutor didn't have to charge him with it; the girl was 3 months away from turning 16, he was 18 and if convicted, 10 years mandatory prison sentence.

Race played a huge factor, the jury believed the sex was consensual and cried when they found out what the conviction meant...they thought he would go home that day.

I was so happy when the GA Supreme Court overturned his conviction.

Dixon was raised in Rome, Ga., by his partly disabled grandmother. With her blessing, a local white Little League coach, Ken Jones, and his wife, Peri, became Marcus' legal guardians when he was 11, and he became part of their family, which includes a teenage son and daughter. Dixon had an almost 4.0 grade point average and a full scholarship to Vanderbilt University.

But in February 2003 Marcus had sex with a girl who was almost 16. According to reports, she told him that if her father found out he would kill them both, because her father was racist. Two days later, she accused him of rape.

In court, however, the principal charge of rape didn't stand up. Wright Edelman wrote, "In May, a jury of nine whites and three blacks took just 20 minutes to acquit Dixon of rape. There was no forced sex, they concluded." The jury was then obliged to consider a lesser charge of "aggravated child molestation." Aggravated child molestation is a charge for adults who prey on children, not usually for teens who have consensual sex.

"This statute had never before been used to prosecute consensual sex between teens with less than a three-year age difference," Edelman wrote, adding that "a majority of states have passed 'Romeo and Juliet' statutes - which deal with teen sex when both partners are close in age - for exactly these types of cases."

And I imagine if you looked at the other discussions taking place when I asked, there is some contest there.

This time.

What prompted it is my 16 year ol niece has a 20 year ol BF. But thanks for implying I am a pervert.

Nailed again.

Different question, yes? Or is Montoowesday the first day of the week?

is 100% completely and utterly different fron asking "what should the age of consent be".

Other discussions going on at the time?

Might be revealing.

It was up to you to provide any context. Who the hell is going to go on that wild goose chase to try to find out what was going on in your head that day?

and did a specific search to find the thread. I don't know how one would even go about trying to find "context" for what you may have been thinking at the time.

As for your inability to think of ways to do things, not sure why you think that's worth discussing.

it's on anyone else to justify your reason for posting anything.

Did I get your implication correctly? Or am I missing something here?

Given that the average age here is like 84.

Anything lower and it is veering off into possible pedophilia territory.

a little more mature

harsher penalties for 15 and under however

Apparently, it should be 17 or something.

Especially when they are of similar age.

It is when an older adult preys on young kids when it breaks the law. Duh.

If the age of consent is set to 18 anyone under 18 that had sex would be breaking the law and subject to jail time.

ok to have sex with and older person.

what if both people are the same age?

if both people are the same age, then no law would be broken. Quit splitting hairs.

You and your semantics.

I guess if you work hard enough at it, you can lower the age to 1 month old. That still doesn't change that 18+ means 18+. Now, I'm thinking I should have said 21+ just to totally fuck your mind up.

...for having sex with another 17 year old kid.

They are not even adults. So, there would be no cops going after them. They are kids doing what kids do, ffs.

You can keep trying to whittle it down one year at the time but that still does not make pedophilia any more acceptable. And that is what these threads are always about, trying to get people to accept pedophilia as A-ok. That is something I won't do. Period.

Tell you what. The legal age in my state is 16. Come find you some 17 year olds and protect them from the law...that doesn't even bother to prosecute pedophiles unless it ends up in the news because the baby had a broken pelvis and people raised hell about it, much less go after teens unless they are making out somewhere where someone called the cops on them. You are being ridiculous.

You most definitely are using semantics and splitting hairs when you come up with such nonsense just to try to pick a fight for no fucking reason.

Learn to read. Quit being ridiculous.

I had a scholarship but otherwise paid my own way. I lived out of my parents house. In fact I had a job at 12 and paid my own high school tuition. I help pay my parents mortgage because my dad got sick.

But of course if I chose to have sex with my boyfriend or girlfriend I would have been a criminal.

The average age of first sex is 17. You want to make half of Americans coming of age criminals.

That is absurd and sick.

because here in CT, until the age of majority was lowered to 16, the police arrested 15, 16 and 17 year-olds for having sex with other 15, 16, and 17 year-olds. In fact, that's the case in many places.

It's not a semantic question, it's a legal one with real consequences. I'm sorry you live in a state where law-enforcement and the courts turn a blind-eye to pedophilia and inconsistently enforces its own laws.

You are being ridiculous about this. What do you want? No age of consent laws at all? Does that make sense to you? Any age someone picked in the poll, by your logic, you would argue one age lower and say they wanted to jail teens. You ARE splitting hairs.

While I certainly understand that there are simple minded people who cannot deal with a rule that cannot be stated in five words or less, it's as easy as this sort of thing:

You can't have sex with someone under 18 if you are more than two years older than that person.

Is that too hard to wrap your head around? Too "semantic" or "hair splitting"?

It is common in these laws to have a Romeo and Juliet exemption...similar ages do not get prosecuted. So seem to be advocating that anyone over 18 cannot have sex with anyone below 18. That creates an absurdity that if 2 kids have birthdays a few days apart have sex the older can be charged with a crime if it falls in the few days when one is 18 and the other 17.

Most states give a 2 or 3 year cushion, where a 19 year old can have sex with a 16 year old or so.

I am correctly stating your position?

Just keep adults from preying on kids. Age of consent should be for that purpose, to keep pedophiles away from kids, not to aggravate teenagers under the age of 18. Eighteen is what most consider adulthood. So, the 18 year old shouldn't be going after 13 year olds. They should learn to control themselves better than that. But, if they were close enough in age, the Romeo and Juliet exemption would kick in. It's not rocket science.

Here in NC, the age of consent is different than in SC. I live less than 5 miles from the SC line. In NC, it is 16. In SC, it is 18, or at least it was at the time. Back when I was 18, I could not date a girl who was 17 and was from SC. When she visited NC, I had to seriously think what to do. Legally here, I could have probably dated her, but not in SC. I ended up erring on the side of caution and just stayed friends with her with no relationship and no sex. By the time she was old enough in her own state, we had ended up just being friends. It wasn't the end of the world. It wasn't that hard to do. I had to be the adult and make an adult decision. It might have been different if we had met and started dating when we were both underage, but because I was the legal adult, I decided not to break the law. I don't see how that is so hard.

It's been that way forever. They actually tried to raise it to 18 in SC about 10 years ago but the bill failed.

Both NC and SC are 16, you may have missed your opportunity

Crap, I did miss a good opportunity. She was really sweet.

so no crime.

Pedophilia is defined by sexual attraction to a PRE-pubertal child. So, approximately twelve-years old and younger in most cases. Sexual attraction to YOUTH is ephebophilia. I would think that ephebophilia isn't at all uncommon. There are just morays and legal issues with acting on these desires. (I do love my Merck Manual [although no in "that" way].) Ha.

I would still argue that ephebophilia (thanks for the terminology, I love stuff like that too), is pretty popular. I just don't want to see people preying on young kids or younger teens. Older teens 18 and above, are usually considered adults. So, that would still be my best guess as to what I personally would think it best.

paedophilia has a clinical meaning; it refers pretty specifically to sexual attraction to a prepubescent child. Most 15-year-olds are sexually mature. An adult who is sexually attracted to a 15-year-old isn't a paedophile. It's creepy for all sorts of reasons that have to do with power imbalances and maturity and the ability to make a freely informed choice, but it's not really sexually abnormal the way that actual paedophilia is.

Just to be safe. Some folks take a long time to grow up.

That's what I want to know.

And is that supervisory position going to be a paid position, or volunteer?

Are you expected to give them pointers to make sure they don't 'do it wrong'?

Or expected to bring their own?

(Gods only know, if there had been observers the first time I did the deed, there would have been much laughing, and I probably wouldn't have had the nerve to ever do it again...)

This is why I hope this "virgin shaming" bit is MRA exaggeration. Nobody should feel pressured or made fun of for being on higher end of ages on this.

entering into binding legal contracts, and any other type of thing we put an age limit on with a given reason of 'being mature enough to do'.

If we're going to arbitrarily choose a single age for defining minor vs adult, let's have that be the one single age at which everyone is considered switching from minor to adult for every purpose.

Two 14 year olds having sex is not the same as a 19 year old having sex with a 14 year old. You need to account for what is normal activity within peer groups.

So something like: 13-18 years old no violation if they are within 24 months of age with each other.

So a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old is ok- and pretty well normal- but a 21 year old having sex with a 16 year old is not. Likewise a 17 year old with a 13 year old is not typical.

It sounds to me like some want no age of consent laws at all.

in my daughter's case, two years after I die. Make it three for my son

The maturity of those younger than 18 (actually many older but we have to declare people adults at some age) is not typically sufficient to make a reasoned choice. I think relative ages should be considered when deciding punishment for those who violate the laws.

It spreads diseases and causes unwanted pregnancies as well as overpopulation. It leads or at least contributes significantly directly or indirectly to much if not most mental distress and personal quarrels. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people during the most sexually active periods of their life - Prior to and after the most sexually active period periods of peoples' lives we see far less violence, crime and discord. It is perhaps the single greatest contributor to unnecessary and frivolous spending as well as posing, posturing and provocative behavior. Sex and the sexual urge simply makes life far more complicated in all respects. Let's be as responsible with humans as we are with animals. Neutering and spaying prior to the onset of puberty should be mandatory and the moral and ethical responsibility of everyone.

where would babies come from?

provided there is some legal leeway for close-in-age consent so that shit like this doesn't happen. I'm not a huge fan of statutory rape laws, I think coercive or predatory activity ought to be covered under actual rape or pedophilia laws, but if we must have them, there needs to be enough wiggle room so we're not telling the teenagers who are ready that their consent doesn't matter.

Delicate balance, there.

I agree with you. I think 16 is an appropriate age.

I would like to know what psychologists around the world think about this question.

I'd like to know if having 18 as a legal age is actually appropriate or if it's because of sexual puritanism.

Not between adults and teenagers.

If you search for 'age of consent' and 'misandry', or 'age of consent' and 'MRA' you will see why we have the laws, and it isn't Puritanism.

The way that would work is this. The age of consent is 18; however, a 19 year old won't face charges for sleeping with an 17 year old; an 18 year old won't face charges for a 16 year old; a 17 year old won't face charges for sleeping with a 15 year old.

chances of having a deformed baby are 1 in 5,000. By age 40, the chances
have become as high as 1 in 50. That's 100 times!

Instill sense in them, challenge them, be close to them. Then let them make their own decisions.
I told my daughters (2) to wait to have a child, wait until your education is accomplished, your adventures (the youthful ones) are over.
You have money in your bank account, etc. My eldest daughter fell for a guy four years ago on a trip to Alaska. She came home and asked for birth control. She waited.
My point is that your contact, as a parent, is the most positive way to insure that your kids will do it right.
The age of consent? whenever they can be responsible for what might happen.

"Here" being the UK.

and 16 is the lower limit of that.

It is much preferred to cuss at someone who does not agree with you.

(OK, that got the cussing out of the way)

The question, especially for girls, is whether or not their bodies can survive a complicated pregnancy without being torn apart.

That's 16. I'll leave it to other people to supply anecdata about why 16 is too young and 12 is old enough.

Last edited Sat May 31, 2014, 03:31 AM - Edit history (1)

So 'legal age of consent' is a complex question.

It was pretty normal, when I was growing up, for 15-16 yr olds to have sex with each other. I think there are 2 questions, one being what should be the legal framework around teens having sex w/ each other, and then should there be (I think there should) a bright legal distinction for adulthood, starting at 18?

than their specific age. I don't know the specific age but I'd have a "Romeo and Juliet" thing of 3 or 4 years.

18, unless the all of the involved parties are within 4 years of age. If they are close in age, something around 14-16.

I believe it's generally healthy or at least not detrimental. Clearly a 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old is different than a 15 year old having sex with a 20 year old.

I think it's kind of odd that people don't understand that adolescent sexuality in not only potent but normal.

Not sure what definition of 'normal' you're using there.

This was decided hundreds of thousands of years ago. Clearly evolution got this one wrong.