Age Of Consent - 13?

[Bigbazz]

You said 16 was "a reasonable compromise":It should be easy to provide reasoning for something that is reasonable.

If you're unable to provide reasoning, it's not reasonable. If you're unwilling to provide reasoning...So, after saying that there's no logical reason for the age of consent to be 13, you've yet to provide a logical reason for the age of consent to be 16.

Surely if you have an opinion that is strong enough that you have to express it, it's strong enough to stand up to scrutiny? It's surely got reasoning behind it that's so strong that your adult mind - the one that has the ability (and right - and responsibility) to elect representatives based on its reasoning - has determined it's the only reasonable position?Then stick to the comments section on the BBC's website or Daily Mail online. They really like fire-and-forget unsupported strongly held opinion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny but is expressed anyway. .

Was it www.bbc.co.uk? I'l give it a look. Reasonable compromise I would have thought would be an absolutely obvious no brainer in reading my post, but with no surprise from you if every word of detail is not accurate and articulate you won't give it a rest.

At 13 some are sexually and mentally mature enough, but that number is what I believe to be pretty small. At 16 I believe everyone is sexually mature outside of very rare cases, and assuming they are not mentally disabled are also all mentally mature enough to know what they are doing, a "reasonable compromise" good enough for the majority when it comes to being old enough to agree to have sex.

Now tie that in with what I quoted myself saying in my very last post.

This is a forum. For discussion

And how much a person decides to discuss is entirely optional, based on his/her desire. If I go into a pub for a drink, am I then forced into being goaded/pushed into continuing to drink against my will?, because "this is a pub, for drinking". You had a discussion going with others, but yet all of you in this thread prefered to bang on at me for a response instead of continuing the discussion amongst yourselves.

 

[Famine]

Reasonable compromise I would have thought would be an absolutely obvious no brainer in reading my post, but with no surprise from you if every word of detail is not accurate and articulate you won't give it a rest.

Yeeees and when we're done with how it's somehow a shortcoming as a person on my behalf, we're still stuck on the part where you've given no reason for something you say is reasonable.

It should be readily apparent - or a "no brainer" - that something reasonable needs reasoning...

At 13 some are sexually and mentally mature enough, but that number is what I believe to be pretty small.

Belief is fine, but it's neither logical nor reasonable.

At 16 I believe everyone is sexually mature outside of very rare cases, and assuming they are not mentally disabled are also all mentally mature enough to know what they are doing

As above.

Still, at least we have reasoning based on belief now. A much better start point than stating your conclusion and telling everyone it's reasonable.

a "reasonable compromise" good enough for the majority when it comes to being old enough to agree to have sex.

Now the problem.

The age of consent for sex is a law. That law says that below (x age) you are incapable of giving permission for your body to be used for having sex even if you are, but above that age you are even if you are not. What we're talking about here is an absolute black and white demarcating line that says before here you're not allowed, after it you are.

If the intent of the law is to protect children from exploitation, why are children between the ages of 16 and 18 not protected by it? That small number of kids you believe exists who are not physically or mentally prepared for the consequences of sex aged 16y0m0d are not protected from exploitation - but they are aged 15y11m30d.

Even if you completely disregard the personal choice and personal freedom angle and blow away the fact it's an individual's decision, not a majority's, to decide what to allow their body to be used for, it's patently obvious the law is wrong because it still allows children to be sexually exploited on the basis - the belief - that a majority of their peers won't be.

This is why it's only reasonable to set it at 18 - the current definition of adult, to protect every child - or allow it to be informed personal choice. Anywhere between those - any age set that's not "adult" - is unreasonable. Some adults aren't even ready for sex, but they're adults and the limitations on their freedoms should be zero.

And how much a person decides to discuss is entirely optional, based on his/her desire. If I go into a pub for a drink, am I then forced into being goaded/pushed into continuing to drink against my will?, because "this is a pub, for drinking". You had a discussion going with others, but yet all of you in this thread prefered to bang on at me for a response instead of continuing the discussion amongst yourselves.

You're welcome to stop drinking any time you wish. Personal choice and all that.

Of course in your metaphor what you've actually done is go into a crowded pub, tell everyone what you'd drink if you were drinking and that they're drinking the wrong thing and gone out, only to keep popping in to remind them they're wrong because you say so.

 

[Bigbazz]

Yeeees and when we're done with how it's somehow a shortcoming as a person on my behalf, we're still stuck on the part where you've given no reason for something you say is reasonable.

It should be readily apparent - or a "no brainer" - that something reasonable needs reasoning...Belief is fine, but it's neither logical nor reasonable.As above.

Still, at least we have reasoning based on belief now. A much better start point than stating your conclusion and telling everyone it's reasonable.Now the problem.

The age of consent for sex is a law. That law says that below (x age) you are incapable of giving permission for your body to be used for having sex even if you are, but above that age you are even if you are not. What we're talking about here is an absolute black and white demarcating line that says before here you're not allowed, after it you are.

If the intent of the law is to protect children from exploitation, why are children between the ages of 16 and 18 not protected by it? That small number of kids you believe exists who are not physically or mentally prepared for the consequences of sex aged 16y0m0d are not protected from exploitation - but they are aged 15y11m30d.

Even if you completely disregard the personal choice and personal freedom angle and blow away the fact it's an individual's decision, not a majority's, to decide what to allow their body to be used for, it's patently obvious the law is wrong because it still allows children to be sexually exploited because a majority of their peers won't be.

This is why it's only reasonable to set it at 18 - to protect every child - or allow it to be informed personal choice. Anywhere between those - any age set that's not "adult" - is unreasonable.You're welcome to stop drinking any time you wish. Personal choice and all that.

Of course in your metaphor what you've actually done is go into a crowded pub, tell everyone what you'd drink if you were drinking and that they're drinking the wrong thing and gone out, only to keep popping in to remind them they're wrong because you say so.

Can you give logical reason why 16 is not the correct age? What about the 19 year olds and 20 year olds?

And oh look we did a loop back to what I said earlier. I don't consider 16 year olds children, I consider them young adults, they leave school at that age, get jobs and are part of the adult world.

You're talking about protection, this isn't about rape here, this is about 16 year olds saying "Yes tommy I want to **** you", and they are perfectly old enough to give that consent. This isn't a discussion of "how old until its legal to rape me".

 

[Famine]

Can you give logical reason why 16 is not the correct age?

I have. Several times.

What about the 19 year olds and 20 year olds?

They're adults.

I don't consider 16 year olds children, I consider them young adults

"Young adult" = child. Would you be fine with 16 year olds in porn?

they leave school at that age

Nope.

get jobs

Kids do that at 12.

and are part of the adult world.

Except the parts of the adult world that involve drinking, driving, serving in the armed forces, smoking, hang gliding (no, really), gambling, owning a house, owning a shotgun or crossbow and having a full time job...

Go young adults!

You're talking about protection, this isn't about rape here

Yes it is. The age of consent is the minimum age someone can give consent for sex. The offence committed by someone who has sex with someone who cannot give consent is..?

this is about 16 year olds saying "Yes tommy I want to **** you", and they are perfectly old enough to give that consent.

No they aren't. Some are. You believe a majority are - and a minority aren't.

This isn't a discussion of "how old until its legal to rape me".

Which is fortunate as rape is never legal. Also according to you it's not a discussion.

 

[Bigbazz]

I have. Several times.They're adults."Young adult" = child. Would you be fine with 16 year olds in porn?Nope.Kids do that at 12.Except the parts of the adult world that involve drinking, driving, serving in the armed forces, smoking, hang gliding (no, really), gambling, owning a house, owning a shotgun or crossbow and having a full time job...

Go young adults!

Why is a 16 year old a child and a 18 year old an adult? The law sais? well good one, the law also sais 16 year olds are old enough to have sex, but that isn't convenient to your arguement?

Armed forces? 17 year olds can join the armed forces.
Smoking? A very new law, 16 year olds can't buy them anymore but no police officer will stop a 16 year old from smoking, no more than he will an 18 year old.
Full Time Job? You can't be serious, 16 year olds can and do have full time jobs, never heard something so ridiculous and wrong.
Driving? They can drive scooters and some disabled are also able to obtain a car licence, at 17 (still not an adult by your logic) everyone is able to get a full licence.
Owning a House? A 16 year old can own a house, it's very unlikely due to money.

16 is fine, didn't you go to school? Half the 16 year olds in school with me had boyfriends in their 20s.

 

[Famine]

Why is a 16 year old a child and a 18 year old an adult? The law sais? well good one, the law also sais 16 year olds are old enough to have sex, but that isn't convenient to your arguement?

You know that "reading too much into" thing you keep whining about other people doing? Try "reading what's actually there":

This is why it's only reasonable to set it at 18 - the current definition of adult, to protect every child - or allow it to be informed personal choice. Anywhere between those - any age set that's not "adult" - is unreasonable. Some adults aren't even ready for sex, but they're adults and the limitations on their freedoms should be zero.

If personal freedom isn't your thing, the age of consent should be "adult", whatever the definition of "adult" is.

Armed forces? 17 year olds can join the armed forces.

16 year olds can't. Remember your argument?

Smoking? A very new law, 16 year olds can't buy them anymore but no police officer will stop a 16 year old from smoking, no more than he will an 18 year old.

So... 16 year olds can't do something adults can. Like I said. Woo.

Full Time Job? You can't be serious, 16 year olds can and do have full time jobs, never heard something so ridiculous and wrong.

You might want to check on that, since they're legally required to be in full time education still. Might be different in Wales.

Driving? They can drive scooters and some disabled are also able to obtain a car licence, at 17 (still not an adult by your logic) everyone is able to get a full licence.

So... 16 year olds can't do something adults can. Like I said. Woo. You're really going to have to work at this "16 year olds are in the adult world" thing you're trying to prove.

Owning a House? A 16 year old can own a house, it's very unlikely due to money.

And due to the fact mortgage lenders won't lend to a 16 year old. Due to not being in the adult world. And not having a job.

16 is fine, didn't you go to school? Half the 16 year olds in school with me had boyfriends in their 20s.

And the half that didn't? And those that did but shouldn't have?

16 is fine only for the 16 year olds it's fine for. Which is what I've been saying since post 11.

 

[Bigbazz]

You know that "reading too much into" thing you keep whining about other people doing? Try "reading what's actually there":If personal freedom isn't your thing, the age of consent should be "adult", whatever the definition of "adult" is.16 year olds can't. Remember your argument?So... 16 year olds can't do something adults can. Like I said. Woo.You might want to check on that, since they're legally required to be in full time education still.So... 16 year olds can't do something adults can. Like I said. Woo. You're really going to have to work at this "16 year olds are in the adult world" thing you're trying to prove.And due to the fact mortgage lenders won't lend to a 16 year old. Due to not being in the adult world. And not having a job.And the half that didn't? And those that did but shouldn't have?

16 is fine only for the 16 year olds it's fine for. Which is what I've been saying since post 11.

School finishes at 16, any further education is optional. (Edit : to not know this, is really quite strange of you, I'm not sure what to think)

So I understand now, your idea of what is reasonable is whatever you believe to be reasonable, based on things unrelated to sex in the adult world, and anything that does not agree with you is logically unreasonable? Now my reasonable compromise which is based on sexual maturity of the absolute majority of people (and nothing to do with whether they can get a mortage on a house) is a logical compromise.

Situation lets say 99% or more of 16 year olds are ready for sex, but by your logic they can't because the 1% or less isn't ready for sex. Now lets forget the fact that the 1% or less is quite capable of saying no, and that rape is still rape, you're saying that the better compromise is to change the law to a different number so that it falls in line with other completely unrelated laws, for completely unrelated situations? Looping in back to the spiral effect, whatever age you set it at is a compromise and 16 is a reasonable one.

Yours is an unreasonable compromise from my point of view, it isn't logical at all, and you haven't said anything that would make me see your point of view. Its all just a load of ****e.

I think I'm just going to agree to disagree with you, and leave it at that.

 

[Famine]

School finishes at 16, any further education is optional.

Nup. Does in Wales though - of course that means someone who turns 16 on 1/9 can't get a full time job for the majority of their 16th year, while someone who turns 16 on 31/8 can (while milling about for 2 months as their peers do). Yay, aged based limitations!

So I understand now, your idea of what is reasonable is whatever you believe to be reasonable, based on things unrelated to sex in the adult world, and anything that does not agree with you is logically unreasonable?

Apparently you don't understand, since I've not cited belief at any point (you have) or pretended that beliefs are reasonable (you have - they aren't). Not everyone has the same poor standards of proof you know.

Now my reasonable compromise which is based on sexual maturity of the absolute majority of people (and nothing to do with whether they can get a mortage on a house) is a logical compromise.

It's not logical nor reasonable. It's belief posing as it. And it's demonstrably unsupportable.

Situation lets say 99% or more of 16 year olds are ready for sex, but by your logic they can't because the 1% or less isn't ready for sex. Now lets forget the fact that the 1% or less is quite capable of saying no, and that rape is still rape, you're saying that the better compromise is to change the law to a different number so that it falls in line with other completely unrelated laws, for completely unrelated situations? Looping in back to the spiral effect, whatever age you set it at is a compromise and 16 is a reasonable one.

I don't think you've understood a single word, since I've pointed out that any set age is unreasonable and you've argued against that.

The only two logical positions are "when an individual is ready" (freedom of choice) or "adulthood". Not any set age where some kids are and some aren't. I'd argue for the former, you seem to think I'm arguing for the latter and you're going for a third position that's not logical but you're pretending it is.

Yours is an unreasonable compromise from my point of view

Probably because it's not a compromise.

it isn't logical at all

Except where it is...

and you haven't said anything that would make me see your point of view

Because you're fuelled by rabid belief. Nothing will ever be said to make you see another point of view.

Its all just a load of ****e.

You're truly not cut out for reasoned debate, are you?

I think I'm just going to agree to disagree with you, and leave it at that.

And since you were leaving it at that 12 hours ago, there's no reason to think that's going to turn out true.

 

[Bigbazz]

Nup. Does in Wales though - of course that means someone who turns 16 on 1/9 can't get a full time job for the majority of their 16th year, while someone who turns 16 on 31/8 can (while milling about for 2 months as their peers do). Yay, aged based limitations!Apparently you don't understand, since I've not cited belief at any point (you have) or pretended that beliefs are reasonable (you have - they aren't). Not everyone has the same poor standards of proof you know.It's not logical nor reasonable. It's belief posing as it. And it's demonstrably unsupportable.I don't think you've understood a single word, since I've pointed out that any set age is unreasonable and you've argued against that.

The only two logical positions are "when an individual is ready" (freedom of choice) or "adulthood". Not any set age where some kids are and some aren't. I'd argue for the former, you seem to think I'm arguing for the latter and you're going for a third position that's not logical but you're pretending it is.Probably because it's not a compromise.Except where it is...Because you're fuelled by rabid belief. Nothing will ever be said to make you see another point of view.You're truly not cut out for reasoned debate, are you?And since you were leaving it at that 12 hours ago, there's no reason to think that's going to turn out true.

The hypocrisy in your posts is almost deafening, I'm amazed you could write that not hear yourself. I think you're too busy thinking about how awesome and clever you must look to really realise it.

Nothing more to say to be honest.

 

[Famine]

The hypocrisy in your posts is almost deafening, I'm amazed you could write that not hear yourself.

What, like continually posting to discuss it despite saying you're not interested in discussing it and then posting again after saying you were leaving it? That level of hypocrisy?

Let's make this easy for you.

Your position is:

• Most kids are ready for sex at 16 (unsupported belief, no evidence offered)
• 16 year olds are adults and operate in the adult world
• The age of consent for sex should be 16

Contradicting that is:

• Some kids are not ready for sex at 16
• 16 year olds are not adults and face a number of restrictions that actively prevent them from operating in the adult world

Rendering your conclusion inept. Any age-based limitation is similarly an inept conclusion, making the restriction-based argument you're proposing only rational if the restriction is "adulthood". That isn't 16, as you have demonstrated while trying to argue against it.

Mine is:

• The point at which someone is ready for sex is down to the individual
• The point at which someone is capable of acting as an adult is down to the individual
• The age of consent should be down to the individual.

You've actually already argued for this without realising it. Twice. Which is impressive.

Nothing more to say to be honest.

And, as above, there's absolute no reason to think this will turn out to be the case.

 

[Spoil-t]

When I was in school living in my old bad town the kids were pregnant in middle school already, 6th grade. The age of consent will always be a gray area that dirty old perverted politicians, that all probably banged a "kid" under 18, set a limit they see fit.

At the end of the day most laws have their flaws & we either have to deal with them or break them with the hope of not getting caught.

 

[homeforsummer]

I love how you're prepared to say this, Bigbazz:

never heard something so ridiculous and wrong

...having said this a sentence earlier:

Smoking? A very new law, 16 year olds can't buy them anymore but no police officer will stop a 16 year old from smoking, no more than he will an 18 year old.

Law doesn't stop and end with the police. If it did, then any crime you didn't get arrested for wouldn't technically be a crime...

In the above scenario, whether you think a police officer will stop people from smoking or not at 16 is irrelevant. Slightly more relevant is the fact that any sales assistant in a shop caught selling anything age-restricted to anyone below that age can face a £2,000 fine and potentially prison time.

Funnily enough, the parallel here is an 18 year old sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend (with consent) is breaking the law. Which begs the original question, why is the law set at 16? There's not really a crime being committed (no more than a 16-year old smoking a cigarette is a crime, since it's their lungs to do with as they please) but there's an arbitrary age set at which point something becomes illegal.

I don't think the issue here is the age of consent any more. It's that you seem to have very little grasp of the logic of this discussion.

 

[ShobThaBob]

I suppose this is where I should point out that most news stories I read regarding statutory rape involve a female teacher and an underage male student.

 

[homeforsummer]

I suppose this is where I should point out that most news stories I read regarding statutory rape involve a female teacher and an underage male student.

It would be crass to say those stories amuse me, but legalities aside they always do make me think "yeah, because no teenage boy has ever thought about boning their hot blonde history teacher before".

Of course, throw in an education environment and the goalposts shift anyway. A lecturer sleeping with his or her student at university would be entirely legal, but probably still get them fired.

 

[ShobThaBob]

For sure, but not plastered all over the news and have the rest of your life ruined with a felony conviction and the title 'sexual offender' following you around.

 

[Crash]

I guess the odd cases are when the teacher and child claims to truly love each other and end up getting married and having kids.

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/justice/florida-teen-sex-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Current case involving an 18 and 14 year old in consensual sex. The 18 year old was just over 100 days too old for it to be legal. She is now facing up to 15 years in a federal prison. There is a bit of a twist to the case but you'll have to follow the link to find out.

 

[Slash]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/justice/florida-teen-sex-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Current case involving an 18 and 14 year old in consensual sex. The 18 year old was just over 100 days too old for it to be legal. She is now facing up to 15 years in a federal prison. There is a bit of a twist to the case but you'll have to follow the link to find out.

Didn't see that one coming.

 

[BobK]

Legally though it's not consensual, 14 year olds can't give consent; at least not in that jurisdiction.

And yet if her partner were 16 somehow it's all OK.

As for the motivations of her parents, I believe just about every couple I've ever known who had a 14-year old daughter would get just as upset if she were getting it on with an 18-year old (or 15-year old for that matter, but there's no legal recourse there), regardless of who/what the 18-year old is.

 

[Tesla]

Perhaps there needs to be some sort of amendment to the law that states that if there has been sexual intercourse before the age of 18, it's okay. Although that could lead to a 17y11m30d aged person having sex with a much younger person then still being allowed to have sex with them in their twenties and beyond...

 

[Johnnypenso]

Legally though it's not consensual, 14 year olds can't give consent; at least not in that jurisdiction.

And yet if her partner were 16 somehow it's all OK.

As for the motivations of her parents, I believe just about every couple I've ever known who had a 14-year old daughter would get just as upset if she were getting it on with an 18-year old (or 15-year old for that matter, but there's no legal recourse there), regardless of who/what the 18-year old is.

Legally it's not consensual, but I would assert as others have already, that an aribtrary determination of the legal age of consent that applies equally to everyone is going to make criminals of people who aren't really engaging in criminal activity or doing anything wrong if you will. In Canada that age of consent was 14 for 140 years until very recently. An 80 year old could sleep with a 14 year old and it was ok. It wasn't an issue and most people didn't even know about it.

It just doesn't seem fair that in this case for example, something that is legal for a century and a half, could the next day lead to a 15 year prison term for the exact same activity because of an arbitrary decision on the part of the legislature.

 

[ShobThaBob]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/justice/florida-teen-sex-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Current case involving an 18 and 14 year old in consensual sex. The 18 year old was just over 100 days too old for it to be legal. She is now facing up to 15 years in a federal prison. There is a bit of a twist to the case but you'll have to follow the link to find out.

The twist is that it's a pretty white girl. World wouldn't care if it was a guy. It has nothing to do with 100 days. If either one of them was 100 days in either direction, it'd just be another 100 days BEFORE it became illegal. Parents didn't want the girl around their daughter. They tried to get them to stop seeing each other. It didn't work. There were shenanigans. Parents went legal. Nothing about this is special, unheard of, or unique. Only special thing is that they're not straight. Except that doesn't mean anything.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The twist is that it's a pretty white girl. World wouldn't care if it was a guy. It has nothing to do with 100 days. If either one of them was 100 days in either direction, it'd just be another 100 days BEFORE it became illegal. Parents didn't want the girl around their daughter. They tried to get them to stop seeing each other. It didn't work. There were shenanigans. Parents went legal. Nothing about this is special, unheard of, or unique. Only special thing is that they're not straight. Except that doesn't mean anything.

So if your son or daughter was 17 years, 11 months and 29 days old and had a consensual relationship with a 14 year old for a couple of months and everything was fine and legal, do you think that he or she should face 15 years in prison because they have the same consensual relationship two days later when they are 18 years and 1 day old? Because legally that's the same scenario this person is facing.

 

[BobK]

The problem with any arbitrary age limit, no matter where you place it, is there are just too many cases where common sense would say otherwise.

I find it very troubling that a 15-year-old can legally give consent to a scheming manipulative 17-year-old but can't legally give consent to a loving, caring 20-year-old.

Actually I have trouble with the fact that the age of the person receiving the consent determines whether the consent giver can do so or not. They do so to avoid criminalizing normal teenage behavior, supposedly. Logic be damned, I guess.

What I wish we could have is some sort of "sincerity of consent" but I haven't a clue how to do it. Heck, I'm not even sure what I mean by that.

 

[Keef]

Perhaps we should remove sexual consent age laws. Then, whenever there is a complaint it should be judged in court on a case-by-case basis, which frankly is a better way to make judgements in almost all civil and criminal cases. We need to radically improve out methods for weeding out frivolous cases of various types, making more room and time available for cases that matter, and we need to get all of this done in a simpler, more efficient manner.

As for judging these sexual consent cases, perhaps the focus should not be on the legal side but on the psychological side. Psychiatrists should be used to judge, like you said, wether or not the older person was being manipulative or honest, and if the younger person really understood the situation, and determine actual consentuality, etc. The psychiatrists could present their findings to the judge and recommend whether or not it should be pursued legally.

Clear explanations should be provided to guardians as well, in a way that does not hamper their trust in the legal system but also does not reward them for frivolous complaints. Frankly, I think the latter is more important and I think those who push frivolous complaints should face some sort of penalty for wasting the public's resources. There are more than a few cases of people abusing our civil system for personal gain, and the system is set up in a way so that anybody who argues against those people becomes a bad guy.

 

[Johnnypenso]

...snip...good points...

..snip...well said...

I'm a big fan of sorting things out through mediation. In this particular case, throw everyone in the room, swear them in, make them hash it out. According to the Mom of the 18 year old, she was never contacted by the Mom of the 14 year old. It's easy to dislike or distrust someone you've never met, a lot harder to not have at least some empathy and find common ground with another parent and child sitting across the table from you.

 

[playnthru]

Yeah not according to the 14 olds parents. They claim they asked the 18 year old to stay away. She didn't listen, now she's claiming she's the victim?

The case is pretty straight up. I'm not sure why everyone confusing the facts? 18 and 14 is illegal in Florida, has been for awhile.

If this were an 18 year old boy, and 14 year old girl, case closed...That's statutory rape in most US states I believe.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yeah not according to the 14 olds parents. They claim they asked the 18 year old to stay away. She didn't listen, now she's claiming she's the victim?

The case is pretty straight up. I'm not sure why everyone confusing the facts? 18 and 14 is illegal in Florida, has been for awhile.

If this were an 18 year old boy, and 14 year old girl, case closed...That's statutory rape in most US states I believe.

I said the Mom of the 18 year old was never contacted, not the 18 year old herself. So are you saying that an 18 year old in a consenting relationship with a 14 year old should go to prison for up to 15 years?

 

[playnthru]

I said the Mom of the 18 year old was never contacted, not the 18 year old herself. So are you saying that an 18 year old in a consenting relationship with a 14 year old should go to prison for up to 15 years?

No, I'm not saying that. That's up to a judge.👍

Why would the mother need contacting, The daughters 18?

What I'm saying is, no matter how you slice it. 14 and 18 cannot consent, so there is no "consenting relationship" (by law). It's a moot point.

If it were a guy! We would take the plea deal, Get community service and be done with it. Because it's a woman it's plastered on the news, And made into a ACLU case. Go figure?

 

[arora]

I'm a big fan of sorting things out through mediation.

I'm a big fan of raising your children(responsibility), a big fan of parental rights(not to be stripped by the state), a big fan of communication(also responsibility), a big fan of leaving the courts out of it(especially the media court lol), a fan of self defense which might not seem to fit but it does to me(your children are your property and yours to protect).

I don't know the answers for this case, I think the younger's parents are failing but that is just imo.

I'm sorry if I keep saying it but if we don't take things upon ourselves, then the gov will step in and dictate what/when/how we should do 👎