Your talking about having kids in the scenario I presented there is no having them you would be paying for them nothing more.
In my example (of incidents that might not get reported, so not prosecuted), I had been using a state, with a hypothetical, straight age of consent of 18. Your state's age is also 18, btw, but with the exception for 16 & 17 year olds, only if their partner is not more than 5 years their senior (so 21 and 22, respectively). To adapt my example, specifically to your state, we could say that a 16 or 17 year old, having sex with a 15 year old, might well not lead to statutory rape charges, if neither the parents nor the 15 year old reported it, and no pregnancy resulted from the relationship, at that point. So, it is, in practice, not a law against having sex with underage persons, as much as it is, doing so, in a way that upsets them or their parents. If the older person gets parental approval, treats the younger person nicely, and respectfully, and is careful, to avoid insemination, the odds of prosecution are almost nil. It is against the older person who is only taking advantage of the younger person's naivety, to use them for sex, who these laws are more truly aimed.
As I've already said: in court, yes, that is exactly what it means. Since the legal term in question is "age of consent," it should be clear that it is an incredibly imprecise way of speaking, for you to claim that a fourteen or fifteen year old, had consensual sex (which means that they had "consented" to it), and so that word should be included in the legal charge (instead of "statutory rape") but, at the same time, say that you are not advocating a lowering of the legal age of consent, to allow the minor to legally consent. IOW, you can call it consensual, as long as you are not talking about a case that winds up in court. As soon as the law becomes involved, you should change the word you use to describe the younger person's willingness, from "consensual," to something else, which cannot be confused with the legal "age of consent." This should be obvious.
then we agree on consent, real life vs in court just like one can be considered innocent by the courts... yet still have done the crime in real life
Of course. I had been explaining to you, where I (with good reason) got the idea that you had been advocating a lowering of the age of consent. Now I see that you had not realized that you couldn't use non-legal terminology, within the language of a legal, criminal charge. Since your "consensual sex with an underage minor," was suggested as something that would, specifically, only come into play in criminal cases, which would be charged in court, it would be contradictory language, if this did not jibe with age of consent.
so we are really expanding on degrees of rape, i actually worked in recovery and a per-relise house for convicted sex-offenders, one can sence the creepyness in some, but many were convicted because a mother pressed charges (age), and as i said the difference is easily apparent
Right-- that is what I have just said, in post #53. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/women-raping-men.606511/page-3#post-1074016618 "Statutory rape," is meant to apply, in practice, not just when a person is underage, but when that person or their parents, becomes unhappy about the situation. So it is very unwise to have sex with an underage person, if you have any doubts about the parents being cool with it. As I had earlier pointed out, the driving force behind this being the law, no doubt, are parents of underage children, not wanting older children or adults, having sex with their children. EDIT: Granted, that is sometimes only the parents' opinion. But they are the ones with political influence-- not the kids.
guess i missed it oops, the local tv station interviewed a local resident complaining about the rehab house, and all we could ssay was "but your children sell crack"
as long as we understand what each was trying to say now, we all good - it is a hard topic to discuss even harder issue to fix, as don't want to create loopholes that real sex offenders can use, but don't want to punish teens inappropriately and ruin their lives either
You summed it up, perfectly. Going back to this case, my first impression is that the older person may have just chosen an exploiter, herself, with whom to have her illegal affair. Note that, though it has reportedly led to a cash settlement, there is no word of a criminal prosecution.
17 should not be underage. My grandmother was MARRIED by 17. No kidding. In perspective, at 16, my grandmother was married, and my uncle enlisted!