and I agreed with you where I could, this is the part I took offence with ""What you seem to be arguing, is for a lowering of the age of legal consent"" as I never said that or insinuated it
I explained that, as well, and there was no justification for you to take offense, as it was the only logical conclusion, from what you'd written. You had suggested a new criminal charge, you called, "Consensual sex with an underage minor." This title, itself, is an oxymoron. You understand, don't you, that "consensual" requires the giving of "consent," right? So if an "underage minor," can have consensual sex, she must not be underage, at least in regard to giving consent; IOW, you would need to lower the age of consent, in order for that minor, to have "consensual sex." Are we clear on that, now? P.S.-- In my prior post, I'd had some technical trouble, getting one of your quotes to show up, which I hadn't fixed, until after you'd taken my quote; so what I had been saying, in the latter half of that post, should be clearer, if you take a look at it again, now. P.P.S.-- Should I take it, from your ignoring of my questions, that you are really not sure if 16 is the starting age, or ending age, to which the 5 year buffer, applies? Or do you think that your state is the odd situation, of that buffer applying only to 16 year olds, and not to either 15 year olds, or 17 year olds?
it was not a logical conclusion as nowhere in my post did I say that, not insinuate that, but we can move on as to your second question, I believe 16 is the min, so a 16-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old may be guilty of statutory rape, but not 100% sure, even if it was consensual
@FreshAir The other atypical element of this law, is that it is not uniformly enforced; that is, as long as no one has any cause to report it to police, a case of an 18 year old boy, with a 16 or 17 year old girl, is unlikely to come to the notice of law enforcement. Though the older person does take a risk, it can be greatly reduced by, first, making sure the parents have no objections, and then by not giving the younger lover, any reason to feel she (or he) has been f'd over.
in my State, the age is 16 with a 5 year buffer, so a 18-year-old having sex with a 16 or 17 year old girl is 100% legal... when I was growing up, the age was 14, as I said, I think raising the age was a good thing
I'll just put it to you like this fellas...... If you're in your 40s or older it's time to leave those young girls alone! What you need is a woman that recognizes the signs of a stroke!!!! I have always preferred my female company to be older than I. I don't just look for a woman that's good in the sack I want a woman that has some life experience as well. I don't have children therefore I don't wish to be a father.
In that state, the age of consent must be 18. What that means, legally, is that a 17 year old is not considered able to give consent, just as they might not be held to a legal contract, at that age. So, being under the age of "consent," precludes one from the possibility (again, legally speaking), of having "Consensual Sex"-- see your quote, above. A 17 year old, in that situation, could only have what you see as consensual sex, if the 18 year old age of consent, is dropped to 17. This is an unambiguous truth. I will assume you were only speaking carelessly, but you would need change the name of your suggested replacement, for statutory rape (so that it does not include the word "consensual," which is derived from the word "consent," which the person in question could not give, without a lowering of that state's age of consent-- the mere mention of which idea, had led you to take offense).
I said consensual sex should not be called rape, did not say anything about lowering the age of consent if a 16-year-old has consensual sex with a 15-year-old, they are having sex with an underage child... can still be a crime, only changing the wording - if that 16-year-old raped the 15-year-old, would still be rape - get it now?
So I am now getting a new idea of what that "5 year buffer" actually means. It doesn't, as I'd first thought, add five years to the age of the younger person: it means that as long as both people are between the ages of 16 and 21, it's legal. Now that sounds sensible. But it doesn't answer, when the actual age of consent, is. If 16 we're the age of consent, that would make it legal for anyone, regardless of age, to be with the consenting 16 year old. So, is the age of consent now 18 (can 18 year olds legally be with people over 21)? I don't think I've ever heard of an AOC, higher than 18.
nope, if a 17-year-old and a 22-year-old have sex, it's legal due to the 5-year buffer. And yes, as you say, 18 is an adult, so there is no age restrictions after that so you could say 22 is the highest, but a 22-year-old could not have sex with a 16-year-old, as that would be 6 years, the buffer only covers 5 years
*And you said it, about the case in the OP, in which the younger man was 17. What makes sex, "statutory rape," is that one partner's age, by statute, makes it impossible for them to give legal "consent." Therefore, no sex, they are involved with, is legally "consensual." One must be able to legally give consent, to have consensual sex! In a way, this is only a semantic issue-- but it is a very important semantic! You can't talk about a legal issue in loose, non-legal language, without muddying the waters. Consensual means both parties having given consent. This requires that both parties are old enough, statutorily, to give consent. For this to have been true, in the case you were referring to, would have meant that the state would've needed to lower its age of consent, to at least 17.
in that case was it rape, did he consent? or was she having sex with an underage child that consented yes, it's sex with an underage child as they can not consent (even though a 17-year-old can consent to it and not be forced), but is it really rape (forced sex) "One must be able to legally give consent, to have consensual sex!" so can a 17 year old give consent, yes, does the court count it as consent, not legally (in some States) - this is where the confusion of the terms comes in and what I was referring too
Bravo-- you finally got it. "Sex with an underage child," or minor, but without the word "consensual." Do you really feel that sounds any better than statutory rape? Personally, I don't. In the latter case, one would clearly just emphasize the word statutory; in your suggestion, whether one emphasizes "sex," "underage" or "child," it is no better, and possibly worse (in the case of "child") than just saying "statutory rape."
They're the ones that pregnancy trap men. Also available with companies to falsify information saying that the child they're pregnant with is yours. Do you really like that idea?
NO, LEGALLY HE CANNOT, in a state in which the age of consent is 18. You are trying to use "consent," in two different ways-- both in legal and layman's terms-- in the same example. A 17 year old can have "willing" sex, or "agreeable," sex, but not "consensual" sex, before he is legally old enough, to consent to sex. Please, this is getting ridiculous. That is all that matters, when discussing matters of law.
Not particularly. I'm in my early 40s and have no children. I made a series of bad choices in my younger years but having a child wasn't one of them. I was too busy destroying my own life to bring another one into it. Now that I have stabilized my own life I'm of the age where that ship has done sailed for me
I wasn't talking about you-- it was Polydectes' comment to Esau, I'd been answering. But all of our minds, I think, have their scary places.
seems you might be getting close to getting it, it can be consensual, just not legally recognized - vs forced neither sounds good, but I think it better describes it - rape to me is forced sex, not a 19-year-old having consensual sex with a 17-year-old (even though the court doesn't recognize the consent legally in some States, the consent did exist, it's just ignored)
we are discussing real life, a 17-year-old boy can in real life consent to having sex with his girlfriend of 19 yes, the court may not recognize that consent in some States, doesn't mean in real life there was not consent