but yeah, I love how these threads bring out the horny outraged teenagers in droves. Could you be any less objective, kids?
I love how these threads bring out human beings. We like to fuck. It's sort of what we do.
For the record I'm not a teenager, though still very much horny, but I hate when people try to point at "those silly kids with their fucking and whatnot." It has nothing to do being objective. It has to do with having sexual organs.
Australia (or at least Victoria) has provision in place (at least when I was doing year 12 legal studies) that allowed consensual sex between a male and female of within two years of each other as long as the youngest party was between 14 and 18.
This meant that you could have 19 year old and a 17 year old, 18 and 16.
Thats a load of bull. 2 kids under the age got caught having oral sex IN MY SCHOOL. They were both in the 14-15 age limit. Does it change if it's that way? Or did my school just do a big cover up. Maby it's because i live in Texas.
Wait a sec, I thought oral sex was illegal in Texas?...
Shiekahn_boy on
"your a moron you know that wolves have packs wich they rely on nd they could ever here of lone wolves? you an idiot and your gay, wolves have packs and are smart with tactics" - Youtube Wolf Enthusiast.
Well if the intent is to keep our cherished female innocence intact by making sure the girls aren't being taken advantage of, then shouldn't at the very least the male age be taken into account?
I can't help but think most lawmakers couldn't find their asses with both hands with this kind of crap on the books. 10 years? The guy should have just fled the country. Fuck that.
These people could be college freshmen.
You think they need Sex Ed?
Hell man, people who don't need it are vanishingly rare, even in places not plagued with Ab-only 'education'.
Honestly, I consulted two health/ phys-ed teachers at my school, and couldn't get a straight answer about whether or not guys can get an STI by going down on a girl. Sex Ed is only as effective as its teachers, and the people in places where Sex Ed consists of "DON'T DO IT" and "pre-marital sex is the devil" are screwed.
Australia (or at least Victoria) has provision in place (at least when I was doing year 12 legal studies) that allowed consensual sex between a male and female of within two years of each other as long as the youngest party was between 14 and 18.
This meant that you could have 19 year old and a 17 year old, 18 and 16.
I think we have that here in Canada. If not, Choco is screwed.
Wash on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
You know I'm just going to throw in my immediate reaction but: 10 FUCKING YEARS IN JAIL? BRAVO AMERICA, CLEARLY RUINING YOUNG LIVES IS THE WAY TOWARDS PRODUCTIVE AND EGALITARIAN SOCIETY. WHAT THE FUCK!?
Yes, there are some things wrong with our justice system. This is one of those things.
God, my sex-ed classes here in Melbourne (australia) were pathetic. Basically told that if I have sex with a girl before I turn 18 I will get STI's and I will be a bad person. We weren't even ever shown how to put on a condom for fucks sake, the first time I did the dirty with my chickybabe (I was 17, she 15) I had to look up how to put one on over the fucking internet - clap clap, Sex Ed, real fucking good.
I've talked to blokes at my school who honestly tell me that if the girl is careful to clean up down there straight away then there's no chance of getting her pregnent. We did 2 weeks of sex ed and it basically consisted entirely of "LOLZ DUN DO IT", how exactly can you blame them?
Sex as a teenager is a great thing. Sure, I've hardly got an unbiased opinion, being a member of the horny teenager demographic, but seriously, if you're ready, 'sif waste the time waiting to turn 18. :winky:
It's times like this when I totally understand when people call this country the united states of jesus or whatever, however inflammatory that may be. I wonder if we'll ever have a non-churchgoing president?
PS: Sex as a teenager, in my opinion (which is only so valid, me being a sexed teenager) is awesome. I mean yeah, it can be disastrous and regretful, but so can any sex. I thought maybe it was just me and the people I know that have had an unusually positive experience, but I guess I'm not alone. Cool.
I can solve this with a very simple equation from XKCD.
Your age/2 +7 = youngest age to date.
Yep, its the rule I use. The ole "5 years down 2 years up" (for guys, opposite for ladies) rule doesn't hurt either. Thank the lord my missus's folks aren't christian fundies.
Sex Ed classes when I was in highschool were a freakn joke. Just fear-mongering. If you don't use protection she WILL INSTANTLY become pregnant and WILL INSTANTLY contract thousands of incurable STDs etc. I never will forget that STD "slide show of horrors" though haha.
Not once did they cover the emotional implications sex has.
I'm with Blizzard224, sex as a teenager was pretty fucking great.
God, my sex-ed classes here in Melbourne (australia) were pathetic. Basically told that if I have sex with a girl before I turn 18 I will get STI's and I will be a bad person. We weren't even ever shown how to put on a condom for fucks sake, the first time I did the dirty with my chickybabe (I was 17, she 15) I had to look up how to put one on over the fucking internet - clap clap, Sex Ed, real fucking good.
Ya, I've never been in a class where they've taught us how to put on a condom. But sex ed classes never cover everything, and more often than not miss important points.
A good example would be what happened in the first sex ed class I was in, back when we were being taught reproduction. The teacher didn't even mention sex involved inserting the penis into the vagina. After one particular lesson, some kids were scratching their heads wondering how the sperm got anywhere near the uterus. It took someone asking the very specific question "does the penis go in the vagina" to put an end to the confusion.
This is probably an inappropriate question for this thread but...
I'm 17, girlfriend is also 17 and 2 months older than me. She has overprotective parents. Could this law result in bad shit happening to me?
She will get sent to jail for 10 years before you do. ONOEZ. I have no idea if it works the other way, but you are not 18 so the law does not apply to you.
In Kanada we got the full rundown on Sex-Ed. Condoms, Spermicide, Diaphragms, etc etc. Of course, I really didn't want to look at the quarter meter wooden penis, so I kinda missed that part.
Basically, there are stupid laws in place that no politician has the balls to change because things tend to get blown way out of proportion. If you try to get rid of sodomy laws, you'll be pegged as "the guy who wants to promote the gay sex". If you try to put provisions into statutory rape laws for couples within 2 years of each other, you'll be pegged as "the guy who wants to let old guys molest little girls".
The reverse of that is people putting out propositions and ideas that really have no effect on anything but have important sounding names and get advertised all the time (see: No Child Left Behind).
By what you've said, it would seem that your friend committed neither and would have received an illegally large sentence if convicted of statutory rape in the second degree.
Granted, I'm no lawyer. Just what I found on the state site.
Basically, there are stupid laws in place that no politician has the balls to change because things tend to get blown way out of proportion. If you try to get rid of sodomy laws, you'll be pegged as "the guy who wants to promote the gay sex". If you try to put provisions into statutory rape laws for couples within 2 years of each other, you'll be pegged as "the guy who wants to let old guys molest little girls".
Not necessary. "The guy who wants teenagers to be able to have sex" is fine.
Basically, there are stupid laws in place that no politician has the balls to change because things tend to get blown way out of proportion. If you try to get rid of sodomy laws, you'll be pegged as "the guy who wants to promote the gay sex". If you try to put provisions into statutory rape laws for couples within 2 years of each other, you'll be pegged as "the guy who wants to let old guys molest little girls".
Not necessary. "The guy who wants teenagers to be able to have sex" is fine.
I guess. The same fear of teenage sex is also what has stunted sex ed so much. In my hometown (3,000 people, all Baptist, all white outside of my family) at least half of the girls there had gotten pregnant by their senior year.
but yeah, I love how these threads bring out the horny outraged teenagers in droves. Could you be any less objective, kids?
Well since the OP is about a horny teenager being jailed for ten years for no good reason, the presence of 'horny teenagers' seems quite sensible.
If the OP was about racism or sexism and a bunch of black people or women were posting, you wouldn't question their objectivity so freely, would you?
Don't the other laws against sexual abuse (those that would hopefully protect a 19-year-old) provide sufficient protection?
Is there any good reason for SR laws that can't be achieved without locking up people in non-abusive relationships?
Abloobloo. I'm only attacking the posters who come in here and post nothing contributory. Pro-tip: OMG HOW AWEFULZ THAT SUCKS, while a valid sentiment, is not contributory. Histrionics are meh.
I just wish the courts would LISTEN to the minors involved. As in, listen to whether or not it was consensual. The idea that a 17-year-old is not capable of making a decision like that is total BS. It might be a BAD decision, but they're not unaware of themselves the way a child under puberty is.
As for sodomy laws, we have those in VA...they're basically only used when the state wants to prosecute gay marriage.
There was a case here that got nationwide attention. A 15 year-old sophmore met an 18 year-old senior in a trailer after school for some blowjob action. Completely consensual.
Parents find out, press stat. rape charges, girl says it was consensual, charges dropped.
What does the judge do? Pulls ANOTHER law out of his ass from the Georgia code about child molestation. Since the age of consent in Georgia is 16, and this girl was 15, and the guy was 18, he gets hit with CHILD MOLESTATION. Sentenced to 10 years in jail. The state went nuts, everybody called bullshit, and now Georgia finally has a Romeo and Juliet law. But the REAL kicker here is that everybody knows that there's one big reason why they were so hard on this kid, despite the fact that he was a straight A student and star football player.
He's black. She's white.
Hence why so many people got pissed. Most Georgians don't fit the racist stereotype that the rest of the nation likes to pin on the South. But the law enforcement and judges? Many of them stick to the "old ways". Needless to say, most of the money and power in Georgia disagrees with them, so it caused a stir and got some things changed.
I saw a story a few months ago about the kid finally getting let out of jail thanks to the new Romeo and Juliet statute being retroactive.
That stuff just pisses me off. Thankfully, at 23, I can typically tell if a girl is under 18, and I can certainly tell if they're under 16. But when I was 19 and 20, that shit scared the crap out of me.
EDIT: Also, many states (including Georgia) are considering raising the age of consent from 16 to 18. So people start having sex at younger ages, and the states want to RAISE the age of consent? It just doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't need to be lowered, but if your age of consent is 18 and there's tons of 14 year-olds banging each other, there's a bit of a problem.
I can solve this with a very simple equation from XKCD.
Your age/2 +7 = youngest age to date.
Yep, its the rule I use. The ole "5 years down 2 years up" (for guys, opposite for ladies) rule doesn't hurt either. Thank the lord my missus's folks aren't christian fundies.
Sex Ed classes when I was in highschool were a freakn joke. Just fear-mongering. If you don't use protection she WILL INSTANTLY become pregnant and WILL INSTANTLY contract thousands of incurable STDs etc. I never will forget that STD "slide show of horrors" though haha.
Not once did they cover the emotional implications sex has.
I'm with Blizzard224, sex as a teenager was pretty fucking great.
Tangent: So I was reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X the other day, (just wait, this will be relevant soon), and it turns out the Nation of Islam were preaching that the ideal age for a wife was X/2 + 7 back in the forties. I had always assumed the law had grown from the internet, but apparantly it dates back to well before that. I'd do some research on it but I'm too lazy.
I only just recently found out that the age of consent in North Carolina (where I live) and South Carolina (where I go to school) is 16. I had always assumed 18 was nationwide, since everybody talks about 18 as the age you're legal for lots of things, and I never checked up on it because I've never been in a position where I might be gettin' it on with someone who wasn't technically legal. But one of my female friends insisted it was 16 and I looked up the penal code and what do you know, she's right.
Now that doesn't mean I'm gonna go out and immediately start fucking 16-year-olds but it's nice to know I have some leeway, if you will.
What's really confusing is when states have laws stating thing like "if two underage people have sex with each other, they're both committing statutory rape." Can anyone see the point in that? As much as I'd be concerned if, say, two 14-year-olds were going at it, criminal charges for the both of them would accomplish nothing, and a talking-to/counseling would seem to be more the ticket.
When I was 17 and I joined the Navy they gave us sex-ed class in boot camp which showed how to properly place a condom and such... most informative class of that nature that I've had really. I do agree that there really should be discussion on how it affects you emotionally.
On topic though, I believe that is really messed up... being only a month from 18 - it's obvious it was just from the mother and the judge should have seen that.
What's really confusing is when states have laws stating thing like "if two underage people have sex with each other, they're both committing statutory rape." Can anyone see the point in that? As much as I'd be concerned if, say, two 14-year-olds were going at it, criminal charges for the both of them would accomplish nothing, and a talking-to/counseling would seem to be more the ticket.
Anyone remember that group of kids a year or so ago that had charges brought up against them of child pornography (or something akin to it) for having pictures of themselves taken by themselves? This stupidity is along those same lines to me.
As with so many things, the US legal system is outdated in this area.
What other countries do, me being in "other country" is assume sex depends on consent, no matter the age. Now, consent can't be given by people under a certain age. I'm Spanish and it used to be 14 here, then it changed to 16. So kids under 16 can't consent to sex with an adult, so that makes sex with them not consensual sex, hence a sexual assault.
Since that age for consent is under 18, and since you're a minor and don't go to jail under 18, sex among kids is somewhat protected. And you'd have to be 18 and be having sex with a 15 years old kid to have any problems... and in most cases you should have problems in that situation. Waiting till he or she hits 16 is not that hard. Plus, there's some legal wiggle room, where you can find consent in children under legal age if they prove in court that they're mature enough.
But, hey, how can you market, in the US's deficient electoral system that mathematically promotes conservative positions, and with such an active fanatic fundamentalist base, that you should lower sexual consent age to 16? So much needs to change in the way your legal system works (basically, it needs to get working again) before you can fix this rather minor issue. It's not the only law of yours that becomes stale and obsolete but nobody fixes, is it?
As with so many things, the US legal system is outdated in this area.
What other countries do, me being in "other country" is assume sex depends on consent, no matter the age. Now, consent can't be given by people under a certain age. I'm Spanish and it used to be 14 here, then it changed to 16. So kids under 16 can't consent to sex with an adult, so that makes sex with them not consensual sex, hence a sexual assault.
Since that age for consent is under 18, and since you're a minor and don't go to jail under 18, sex among kids is somewhat protected. And you'd have to be 18 and be having sex with a 15 years old kid to have any problems... and in most cases you should have problems in that situation. Waiting till he or she hits 16 is not that hard. Plus, there's some legal wiggle room, where you can find consent in children under legal age if they prove in court that they're mature enough.
But, hey, how can you market, in the US's deficient electoral system that mathematically promotes conservative positions, and with such an active fanatic fundamentalist base, that you should lower sexual consent age to 16? So much needs to change in the way your legal system works (basically, it needs to get working again) before you can fix this rather minor issue. It's not the only law of yours that becomes stale and obsolete but nobody fixes, is it?
Um isn't that exactly the same as the US system except for the ages being younger? I thought statutory rape was exactly as you described - too young to give consent.
And as for this being outdated, minimum acceptable ages for sex have gotten higher over the years, not lower.
When I was 17 and I joined the Navy they gave us sex-ed class in boot camp which showed how to properly place a condom and such... most informative class of that nature that I've had really. I do agree that there really should be discussion on how it affects you emotionally.
To be fair the Navy has an active interest in keeping it's personnel fit and active, and is dealing with sailors.
but yeah, I love how these threads bring out the horny outraged teenagers in droves. Could you be any less objective, kids?
Well since the OP is about a horny teenager being jailed for ten years for no good reason, the presence of 'horny teenagers' seems quite sensible.
If the OP was about racism or sexism and a bunch of black people or women were posting, you wouldn't question their objectivity so freely, would you?
Don't the other laws against sexual abuse (those that would hopefully protect a 19-year-old) provide sufficient protection?
Is there any good reason for SR laws that can't be achieved without locking up people in non-abusive relationships?
Abloobloo. I'm only attacking the posters who come in here and post nothing contributory. Pro-tip: OMG HOW AWEFULZ THAT SUCKS, while a valid sentiment, is not contributory. Histrionics are meh.
There was a case here that got nationwide attention. A 15 year-old sophmore met an 18 year-old senior in a trailer after school for some blowjob action. Completely consensual.
Parents find out, press stat. rape charges, girl says it was consensual, charges dropped.
What does the judge do? Pulls ANOTHER law out of his ass from the Georgia code about child molestation. Since the age of consent in Georgia is 16, and this girl was 15, and the guy was 18, he gets hit with CHILD MOLESTATION. Sentenced to 10 years in jail. The state went nuts, everybody called bullshit, and now Georgia finally has a Romeo and Juliet law. But the REAL kicker here is that everybody knows that there's one big reason why they were so hard on this kid, despite the fact that he was a straight A student and star football player.
He's black. She's white.
Hence why so many people got pissed. Most Georgians don't fit the racist stereotype that the rest of the nation likes to pin on the South. But the law enforcement and judges? Many of them stick to the "old ways". Needless to say, most of the money and power in Georgia disagrees with them, so it caused a stir and got some things changed.
I saw a story a few months ago about the kid finally getting let out of jail thanks to the new Romeo and Juliet statute being retroactive.
That stuff just pisses me off. Thankfully, at 23, I can typically tell if a girl is under 18, and I can certainly tell if they're under 16. But when I was 19 and 20, that shit scared the crap out of me.
EDIT: Also, many states (including Georgia) are considering raising the age of consent from 16 to 18. So people start having sex at younger ages, and the states want to RAISE the age of consent? It just doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't need to be lowered, but if your age of consent is 18 and there's tons of 14 year-olds banging each other, there's a bit of a problem.
I was just about to post this. The state can claim it isn't racist all they want, but they would be full of shit to do so, and there is proof. What;'s the proof? In Georgia, within weeks of that particular event, a white female schoolteacher (In her 30s) was caught having sex with one of her male students.
I don't remember the specifics, but I know her sentence was a hell of a lot less severe. I think she only got a jail sentence, even.
Um isn't that exactly the same as the US system except for the ages being younger? I thought statutory rape was exactly as you described - too young to give consent.
And as for this being outdated, minimum acceptable ages for sex have gotten higher over the years, not lower.
As usual in law, devil is in the detail. In the US (in most of the US), the 18 years old is a solid limitation, which means 17 years 364 days with 18 years is automatically a crime. Here it's left to the discretion of the court wether the minor was able to give consent. If he could give consent, regardless of age, there's no rape. That 16 mark is just that, an indicator, and there is discussion about how far back it can go. You can leave home at 16, even without your parents' consent, so I'm pretty sure it's not gonna go higher.
Your second claim, though, makes no sense. It's not minimum acceptable ages for sex that matter, right? I thought you agreed it was minumum ages for consent to be valid. That's not on the rise. If you separate sexual consent from other types of consent you're being hypocritical.
Let's put it this way: if a Jehova's witness kid that's, say, 16 wants a transfusion but their parents forbid it due to religious reasons would you be in favor of considering him or her an adult? I know I would. Why can't you consider that same kid an adult when choosing to have sex? That makes no sense. Can that person be judged as an adult if he commits murder but not if he chooses to have sex? That doesn't make sense if you accept that consent is the only reason to forbid underage sex, not morality.
You create room to fix all of that in court on a case by case basis by focusing on consent. That is not how it's actually working, in practice, over there, correct me if I'm wrong.
By the way, consent age has gone up because it was the catholic curch that insisted that marriage was valid from 14 years up. Modern countries have decided it's closer to 16 than 14. Then again, some countries are more coherent than others about adult age. We get everything at 18: jail, driving, voting... but we can drink and have sex from 16.
By what you've said, it would seem that your friend committed neither and would have received an illegally large sentence if convicted of statutory rape in the second degree.
Granted, I'm no lawyer. Just what I found on the state site.
IIRC, and one of the reasons this is up for appeal, is that some other charges were also pegged on. Honestly, I didn't realize it could only be 7 years so unless the entire court system missed something, then some of that time was added from the other charges (I don't remember them exactly but I do remember the mom actually pushed for 'kidnapping', though I'm not sure it stuck).
From what my friend tells me is that the judge (once again, no names) is a very pro-punishment, pro-'moral' type who has been known for trying his hardest to punish those 'evil evil sinner types'. There doesn't seem to be a way to avoid actually being named a sex fiend but he may get out on parole.
I mean, I'm all for judges who actually try to uphold laws and stuff but this seems a bit off. Sorry for the confusion.
Also for the guy who asked: My friend just turned 19. He was around 18 and a half when it happened.
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
Man that really is a shame. Ten years? Good God. Glad I live in Minnesota, our stat-rape laws are relatively sane here apparently. Age of consent is 16, which I personally believe is just about right. I don't even want to think about 15 year olds and younger having sex with anyone. I think there's some parental responsibility when you are talking about kids that young, shouldn't have to leave it up to the state.
Statutory rape is a real concern that needs to be addressed by the law. The concept that some people are mentally incapable of giving consent is perfectly valid, and one of the main determinants of that ability is age. It's just that a lot of actual statutory rape laws are incredibly bad, especially in certain parts of the U.S. Fortunately, I live in Canada where we have some laws that work pretty well. They have a lot of shades of grey that I think do a good job of handling the complexities of the issue, which is why the age of consent is sometimes given as 12/14/18. I'm going to explain them to show it's perfectly possible to make statutory rape laws that don't suck.
The basic age of consent is 14, which strikes some people as low but seems to me like a pretty good measure of when a normal person is fundamentally capable of consenting to sexual activity. Remember that the average age of first sexual intercourse is 14-15. A 25 year old and a 14 year old having sex is creepy but it's not actually so bad it should be considered a form of rape and prohibited by the law, except under certain circumstances. There's also a exception even to that if they're within two years of each other and both over 12, or if the accused is 12 or 13. Of course, a person 14-18 may be able to understand sex and consent, but they're still much more vulnerable mentally and socially to being sexually exploited. That's why the age of consent is 18 if the accused is in a "position of trust or authority" or "is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency". And it counts as child pornography if the depicted is under the age of 18.
However, there's at least one giant flaw still on the books: the age of consent for anal intercourse is 18. It's been found unconstitutional and struck down in Ontario and Quebec, and the same will likely happen in any other province where someone is stupid enough to try enforcing it, but it's technically still there. Plus Harper tried to screw things up last year to appease the more religious elements of his base, but the bill died at the end of session. Nonetheless, I think the basic setup is ideal, with a base age of 14, exception for people close in age, and most of all actual consideration of whether the specific relationship was exploitive.
What I don't understand is where they got this magic number 18 from, like they just picked a number out of air when you suddenly become an adult and can have sex which completely goes against the fabric of human nature and ..hell nature for that matter. I am not condoning all teenagers being able to have sex freely whenever they feel the urge, but if they do don't blow a gasket. It's build into the DNA of almost every living being to have sex so it's going to happen but don't blow a gasket when it does. If they want their kids to use their head in regards to sex they need to talk to them instead of wishing the problem away with laws that ruin peoples lives before they start. Problem is these parents have gone from protecting their children to vengeful fear-mongers who are willing to destroy anyone and anything that doesn't wash with their ethical standard. And the laws that are created aren't created with common sense, they are created to please the ones that are willing to bitch the loudest. Our laws regarding sex in general are antiquated and in need of a serious overhaul. And there definatly needs to be some leeway to people who are only a few months up to a couple years apart.
Posts
Well since the OP is about a horny teenager being jailed for ten years for no good reason, the presence of 'horny teenagers' seems quite sensible.
If the OP was about racism or sexism and a bunch of black people or women were posting, you wouldn't question their objectivity so freely, would you?
Don't the other laws against sexual abuse (those that would hopefully protect a 19-year-old) provide sufficient protection?
Is there any good reason for SR laws that can't be achieved without locking up people in non-abusive relationships?
I love how these threads bring out human beings. We like to fuck. It's sort of what we do.
For the record I'm not a teenager, though still very much horny, but I hate when people try to point at "those silly kids with their fucking and whatnot." It has nothing to do being objective. It has to do with having sexual organs.
This meant that you could have 19 year old and a 17 year old, 18 and 16.
Wait a sec, I thought oral sex was illegal in Texas?...
I can't help but think most lawmakers couldn't find their asses with both hands with this kind of crap on the books. 10 years? The guy should have just fled the country. Fuck that.
Honestly, I consulted two health/ phys-ed teachers at my school, and couldn't get a straight answer about whether or not guys can get an STI by going down on a girl. Sex Ed is only as effective as its teachers, and the people in places where Sex Ed consists of "DON'T DO IT" and "pre-marital sex is the devil" are screwed.
I think we have that here in Canada. If not, Choco is screwed.
The fact that you guys are more progressive than us scares me. Thankfully Washington state has something like that on the books, I believe.
I've talked to blokes at my school who honestly tell me that if the girl is careful to clean up down there straight away then there's no chance of getting her pregnent. We did 2 weeks of sex ed and it basically consisted entirely of "LOLZ DUN DO IT", how exactly can you blame them?
Sex as a teenager is a great thing. Sure, I've hardly got an unbiased opinion, being a member of the horny teenager demographic, but seriously, if you're ready, 'sif waste the time waiting to turn 18. :winky:
PS: Sex as a teenager, in my opinion (which is only so valid, me being a sexed teenager) is awesome. I mean yeah, it can be disastrous and regretful, but so can any sex. I thought maybe it was just me and the people I know that have had an unusually positive experience, but I guess I'm not alone. Cool.
Yep, its the rule I use. The ole "5 years down 2 years up" (for guys, opposite for ladies) rule doesn't hurt either. Thank the lord my missus's folks aren't christian fundies.
Sex Ed classes when I was in highschool were a freakn joke. Just fear-mongering. If you don't use protection she WILL INSTANTLY become pregnant and WILL INSTANTLY contract thousands of incurable STDs etc. I never will forget that STD "slide show of horrors" though haha.
Not once did they cover the emotional implications sex has.
I'm with Blizzard224, sex as a teenager was pretty fucking great.
Ya, I've never been in a class where they've taught us how to put on a condom. But sex ed classes never cover everything, and more often than not miss important points.
A good example would be what happened in the first sex ed class I was in, back when we were being taught reproduction. The teacher didn't even mention sex involved inserting the penis into the vagina. After one particular lesson, some kids were scratching their heads wondering how the sperm got anywhere near the uterus. It took someone asking the very specific question "does the penis go in the vagina" to put an end to the confusion.
EDIT: Although I had managed to figure out on my own by like 6th grade how sex more or less worked, and then porn filled in the rest.
She will get sent to jail for 10 years before you do. ONOEZ. I have no idea if it works the other way, but you are not 18 so the law does not apply to you.
In Kanada we got the full rundown on Sex-Ed. Condoms, Spermicide, Diaphragms, etc etc. Of course, I really didn't want to look at the quarter meter wooden penis, so I kinda missed that part.
The reverse of that is people putting out propositions and ideas that really have no effect on anything but have important sounding names and get advertised all the time (see: No Child Left Behind).
Why? America is a pretty stubborn country.
Statutory rape in the second degree is when someone 21 or older has sex with someone under 17. It's a class C felony with a maximum penalty of 7 years in prison.
By what you've said, it would seem that your friend committed neither and would have received an illegally large sentence if convicted of statutory rape in the second degree.
Granted, I'm no lawyer. Just what I found on the state site.
Not necessary. "The guy who wants teenagers to be able to have sex" is fine.
I guess. The same fear of teenage sex is also what has stunted sex ed so much. In my hometown (3,000 people, all Baptist, all white outside of my family) at least half of the girls there had gotten pregnant by their senior year.
Anal sex is dirty sex.
I didnt even know what sex was!
[/tangent]
Abloobloo. I'm only attacking the posters who come in here and post nothing contributory. Pro-tip: OMG HOW AWEFULZ THAT SUCKS, while a valid sentiment, is not contributory. Histrionics are meh.
As for sodomy laws, we have those in VA...they're basically only used when the state wants to prosecute gay marriage.
http://thornsbook.com online novel
There was a case here that got nationwide attention. A 15 year-old sophmore met an 18 year-old senior in a trailer after school for some blowjob action. Completely consensual.
Parents find out, press stat. rape charges, girl says it was consensual, charges dropped.
What does the judge do? Pulls ANOTHER law out of his ass from the Georgia code about child molestation. Since the age of consent in Georgia is 16, and this girl was 15, and the guy was 18, he gets hit with CHILD MOLESTATION. Sentenced to 10 years in jail. The state went nuts, everybody called bullshit, and now Georgia finally has a Romeo and Juliet law. But the REAL kicker here is that everybody knows that there's one big reason why they were so hard on this kid, despite the fact that he was a straight A student and star football player.
He's black. She's white.
Hence why so many people got pissed. Most Georgians don't fit the racist stereotype that the rest of the nation likes to pin on the South. But the law enforcement and judges? Many of them stick to the "old ways". Needless to say, most of the money and power in Georgia disagrees with them, so it caused a stir and got some things changed.
I saw a story a few months ago about the kid finally getting let out of jail thanks to the new Romeo and Juliet statute being retroactive.
That stuff just pisses me off. Thankfully, at 23, I can typically tell if a girl is under 18, and I can certainly tell if they're under 16. But when I was 19 and 20, that shit scared the crap out of me.
EDIT: Also, many states (including Georgia) are considering raising the age of consent from 16 to 18. So people start having sex at younger ages, and the states want to RAISE the age of consent? It just doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't need to be lowered, but if your age of consent is 18 and there's tons of 14 year-olds banging each other, there's a bit of a problem.
XBL: QuazarX
Tangent: So I was reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X the other day, (just wait, this will be relevant soon), and it turns out the Nation of Islam were preaching that the ideal age for a wife was X/2 + 7 back in the forties. I had always assumed the law had grown from the internet, but apparantly it dates back to well before that. I'd do some research on it but I'm too lazy.
Now that doesn't mean I'm gonna go out and immediately start fucking 16-year-olds but it's nice to know I have some leeway, if you will.
On topic though, I believe that is really messed up... being only a month from 18 - it's obvious it was just from the mother and the judge should have seen that.
Anyone remember that group of kids a year or so ago that had charges brought up against them of child pornography (or something akin to it) for having pictures of themselves taken by themselves? This stupidity is along those same lines to me.
What other countries do, me being in "other country" is assume sex depends on consent, no matter the age. Now, consent can't be given by people under a certain age. I'm Spanish and it used to be 14 here, then it changed to 16. So kids under 16 can't consent to sex with an adult, so that makes sex with them not consensual sex, hence a sexual assault.
Since that age for consent is under 18, and since you're a minor and don't go to jail under 18, sex among kids is somewhat protected. And you'd have to be 18 and be having sex with a 15 years old kid to have any problems... and in most cases you should have problems in that situation. Waiting till he or she hits 16 is not that hard. Plus, there's some legal wiggle room, where you can find consent in children under legal age if they prove in court that they're mature enough.
But, hey, how can you market, in the US's deficient electoral system that mathematically promotes conservative positions, and with such an active fanatic fundamentalist base, that you should lower sexual consent age to 16? So much needs to change in the way your legal system works (basically, it needs to get working again) before you can fix this rather minor issue. It's not the only law of yours that becomes stale and obsolete but nobody fixes, is it?
Um isn't that exactly the same as the US system except for the ages being younger? I thought statutory rape was exactly as you described - too young to give consent.
And as for this being outdated, minimum acceptable ages for sex have gotten higher over the years, not lower.
To be fair the Navy has an active interest in keeping it's personnel fit and active, and is dealing with sailors.
And patronizing them is contributory how?
I was just about to post this. The state can claim it isn't racist all they want, but they would be full of shit to do so, and there is proof. What;'s the proof? In Georgia, within weeks of that particular event, a white female schoolteacher (In her 30s) was caught having sex with one of her male students.
I don't remember the specifics, but I know her sentence was a hell of a lot less severe. I think she only got a jail sentence, even.
As usual in law, devil is in the detail. In the US (in most of the US), the 18 years old is a solid limitation, which means 17 years 364 days with 18 years is automatically a crime. Here it's left to the discretion of the court wether the minor was able to give consent. If he could give consent, regardless of age, there's no rape. That 16 mark is just that, an indicator, and there is discussion about how far back it can go. You can leave home at 16, even without your parents' consent, so I'm pretty sure it's not gonna go higher.
Your second claim, though, makes no sense. It's not minimum acceptable ages for sex that matter, right? I thought you agreed it was minumum ages for consent to be valid. That's not on the rise. If you separate sexual consent from other types of consent you're being hypocritical.
Let's put it this way: if a Jehova's witness kid that's, say, 16 wants a transfusion but their parents forbid it due to religious reasons would you be in favor of considering him or her an adult? I know I would. Why can't you consider that same kid an adult when choosing to have sex? That makes no sense. Can that person be judged as an adult if he commits murder but not if he chooses to have sex? That doesn't make sense if you accept that consent is the only reason to forbid underage sex, not morality.
You create room to fix all of that in court on a case by case basis by focusing on consent. That is not how it's actually working, in practice, over there, correct me if I'm wrong.
By the way, consent age has gone up because it was the catholic curch that insisted that marriage was valid from 14 years up. Modern countries have decided it's closer to 16 than 14. Then again, some countries are more coherent than others about adult age. We get everything at 18: jail, driving, voting... but we can drink and have sex from 16.
IIRC, and one of the reasons this is up for appeal, is that some other charges were also pegged on. Honestly, I didn't realize it could only be 7 years so unless the entire court system missed something, then some of that time was added from the other charges (I don't remember them exactly but I do remember the mom actually pushed for 'kidnapping', though I'm not sure it stuck).
From what my friend tells me is that the judge (once again, no names) is a very pro-punishment, pro-'moral' type who has been known for trying his hardest to punish those 'evil evil sinner types'. There doesn't seem to be a way to avoid actually being named a sex fiend but he may get out on parole.
I mean, I'm all for judges who actually try to uphold laws and stuff but this seems a bit off. Sorry for the confusion.
Also for the guy who asked: My friend just turned 19. He was around 18 and a half when it happened.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
The basic age of consent is 14, which strikes some people as low but seems to me like a pretty good measure of when a normal person is fundamentally capable of consenting to sexual activity. Remember that the average age of first sexual intercourse is 14-15. A 25 year old and a 14 year old having sex is creepy but it's not actually so bad it should be considered a form of rape and prohibited by the law, except under certain circumstances. There's also a exception even to that if they're within two years of each other and both over 12, or if the accused is 12 or 13. Of course, a person 14-18 may be able to understand sex and consent, but they're still much more vulnerable mentally and socially to being sexually exploited. That's why the age of consent is 18 if the accused is in a "position of trust or authority" or "is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency". And it counts as child pornography if the depicted is under the age of 18.
However, there's at least one giant flaw still on the books: the age of consent for anal intercourse is 18. It's been found unconstitutional and struck down in Ontario and Quebec, and the same will likely happen in any other province where someone is stupid enough to try enforcing it, but it's technically still there. Plus Harper tried to screw things up last year to appease the more religious elements of his base, but the bill died at the end of session. Nonetheless, I think the basic setup is ideal, with a base age of 14, exception for people close in age, and most of all actual consideration of whether the specific relationship was exploitive.