How Should Age Of Consent Laws Work?

[Dave1001]

What do you think? How should age of consent laws work?

Should there be a bright line age?

Should there be a bright line age difference?

Should there be a sliding scale of age difference based on age of the younger party?

Or a combination of these?

Should there be a rule that there's a presumption of guilt at a certain age or age difference, but that the burden of proof can be shifted if the defendant can demonstrate that their partner had sufficient maturity and intelligence such that it was consensual non-exploitational sex?

How would you write the ideal age of consent law(s)?

[andyandy]

How would you write the ideal age of consent law(s)?

we already have the best approach - with an arbitrary cut off. Below that age it's illegal, at that age it's not. No ifs, no buts. To approach the issue any other way would be to take the first step onto a very very slippery slope.

[Darat]

What do you think? How should age of consent laws work?

Should there be a bright line age?


Yes. On one side of the line people are children on the other side they are adult.


Should there be a bright line age difference?


No. See above.


Should there be a sliding scale of age difference based on age of the younger party?


No. See above.


Or a combination of these?


No. Guess what? See above.


Should there be a rule that there's a presumption of guilt at a certain age or age difference, but that the burden of proof can be shifted if the defendant can demonstrate that their partner had sufficient maturity and intelligence such that it was consensual non-exploitational sex?


No. And yes again see my first response.


How would you write the ideal age of consent law(s)?

Simple - "Sex with someone under the age of X is illegal". I would suggest that determining what the age of consent should be is a task that should be given to neurologists and behaviourists who can (using science) determine at what age we can assume say at least 90% of children can be considered capable of making decisions as adults [can] do.

[brodski]

we already have the best approach - with an arbitrary cut off. Below that age it's illegal, at that age it's not. No ifs, no buts. To approach the issue any other way would be to take the first step onto a very very slippery slope.
In the UK we have a number of cut off ages (for instance it is a more severe crime to have sex with an 8 year old than a 14 year old) and we have different ages of consent depending on whether the "adult" is in a position of authority over the "minor" (I use quotes for "adult" and "minor" because there are some cases where a person is chronologically an "adult" but they are treated as a "minor" for age of consent laws in some circumstances)

[Darth Rotor]

What do you think? How should age of consent laws work?

Should there be a bright line age?

Should there be a bright line age difference?

Should there be a sliding scale of age difference based on age of the younger party?

Or a combination of these?

Should there be a rule that there's a presumption of guilt at a certain age or age difference, but that the burden of proof can be shifted if the defendant can demonstrate that their partner had sufficient maturity and intelligence such that it was consensual non-exploitational sex?

How would you write the ideal age of consent law(s)?
The line shoudl not be age based, but physically based. Those not having gone through puberty should be off limits. Beyond that, where the age boundary should be is a massively subjective issue that I don't think lends itself to a hard coded answer without creating an immense pile of legal idiocies. (When SC Justice RB Ginsberg suggested the age of consent as 12 some years back, it made bilogical sense, if not social policy sense regarding teenage pregnancies.)

After that, the argument made that with in three years of one another, any damage is de minimus seems to make sense. Two minors, one 16 and on 15, who have been doing it together are hardly sex offenders (they are just horny) and when one of them turns 18, and the other 17, they still aren't criminals.

That they are using poor judgment may be true.

Teenage strikes me as a victimless crime, and ought to be relegated to damned foolishness, not a courtroom. Wait, the victims are the parents, who end up having to raise grandchildren for their kids. :p

DR

[Mid]

we already have the best approach - with an arbitrary cut off. Below that age it's illegal, at that age it's not. No ifs, no buts. To approach the issue any other way would be to take the first step onto a very very slippery slope.

I'm not sure, for example in the UK I don't think a 16 year old who sleeps with her 15years + 364days old girlfriend should be prosecuted, the no ifs no buts approach wouldn't differentiate between a 16 year old sleeping with this 15 year old and a 52 year old sleeping with the 15year old, which in my opinion is daft. I'm not sure if any alternative options are better though; so I'd stick with the bright line cut off and hope for some common sense approach in dealing with the more marginal cases which is what seems to occur.

[RandFan]

From another thread



Depending on the age and the maturity of the individual a child may not be able to reasonably form consent.
Because of the relationship of adults and minors the adult has significant power over the child and can coerce a child even when there is no consent and can pressure the child not to file a complaint.Because of the very real possibility of unwanted pregnancy, transmission of disease that can lead to the sterilization of the child or even cause death and any number of other associated mental problems I think this is one case where we should err on the side of caution. 14 seems way too young for a child to contract HIV or become pregnant and have to deal with terminating a pregnancy not to mention the psychological problems of being coerced into having sex with someone he or she finds repulsive.
I'm largely happy with the laws as they are now in my community Los Angeles County, USA.

[pgwenthold]

I think they should use the "half your age + 7" rule for everyone up to the age of 18.

None of this "18 year old boyfriend jailed for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend" stuff, but does prevent the 20 year old from being with the high school sophomore.

Once you are out of college, high school kids are out of bounds.

[brodski]

I'm not sure, for example in the UK I don't think a 16 year old who sleeps with her 15years + 364days old girlfriend should be prosecuted, the no ifs no buts approach wouldn't differentiate between a 16 year old sleeping with this 15 year old and a 52 year old sleeping with the 15year old, which in my opinion is daft. I'm not sure if any alternative options are better though; so I'd stick with the bright line cut off and hope for some common sense approach in dealing with the more marginal cases which is what seems to occur.

In the UK the police generally only charge someone who has sex with a minor over the age of 13 if the minor themselves makes a complaint, unless there are aggravating factors (such as the adult is the minors teacher).

[ImaginalDisc]

The line shoudl not be age based, but physically based. Those not having gone through puberty should be off limits.

That's really unworkable. Some girls hit menarche at seven, and some never do. Males aren't "finished" with puberty until their early 20's, and females aren't done until their late teens. It's not as iff we suddenly turn blue when puberty is over. Also, so kids are much more physically mature than their peers. Physical maturity has little to do with mental maturity.

[Mid]

In the UK the police generally only charge someone who has sex with a minor over the age of 13 if the minor themselves makes a complaint, unless there are aggravating factors (such as the adult is the minors teacher).

Yep I thought it was something like that, but you do sometime hear stories from around the world of stupid applications of the age of consent laws along the lines of charging a 16 year old for sleeping with a 15 year old (or whatever.)

[Luke T.]

The line shoudl not be age based, but physically based.

That is pure nonsense. Sex is not just a physical issue. "Consent" has nothing to do with one's ability to reproduce.

[ponderingturtle]

we already have the best approach - with an arbitrary cut off. Below that age it's illegal, at that age it's not. No ifs, no buts. To approach the issue any other way would be to take the first step onto a very very slippery slope.

What age should it be? Should say a 13 and 14 year old who have sex both go to prison for statutory rape? If not should a 13 and a 40 year old be OK?

[Darth Rotor]

That is pure nonsense. Sex is not just a physical issue. "Consent" has nothing to do with one's ability to reproduce.
It has to do with rape or not, however.

Prolonged childhood is a fairly recent theory of human development. That said, I am not sure that age 14 consent wouldn't enable the spectre of teenage pregnancy as a norm. The question is: is that bad or good, and why? Depending in circumstances, particularly the extended family model discussed in another thread recently (nuclear family harangue) it just makes people grandparents earlier, providing that is the convention adopted.

I tend to agree with a higher age of consent, 16, than lower, as a nod to the need to develop judgment before "consent" even becomes an issue.

Someone posited the strawman of "teenage versus adult is not a relationship of equals." (might be in the Foley thread)

Most relationships are not relationships of equals. Divorce court proceedings seem to be evidence of that, and my anecdotal observations over a life time are that most two person relationships have one stronger (if only slightly) party than another.

DR

[Darat]

...snip...Physical maturity has little to do with mental maturity.

Going to disagree but only because I think you are limiting what "physical maturity" should mean. Physical maturity isn't about what the person looks like. There are now plenty of studies that show the brain is not fully matured in adolescents and that it takes until late teens for the brain to develop all the same structures etc. as an adult brain does.

When the body including the brain is physically mature is I think a good point to say someone should be considered by society to be an adult and therefore be allowed to do anything they want (caveat - legal/consent etc.)

[Darth Rotor]

That's really unworkable. Some girls hit menarche at seven, and some never do. Males aren't "finished" with puberty until their early 20's, and females aren't done until their late teens. It's not as iff we suddenly turn blue when puberty is over. Also, so kids are much more physically mature than their peers. Physical maturity has little to do with mental maturity.
Men are generally fertile by their mid teens. You seem to be confusing physical maturity with physical development.

You are telling me that seven year old girls routinely have their menses, or in bizarre cases well beyond three sigma?

Let's work on exotic exceptions only, sure.

I don't think a law is needed, raising one's children well is needed.

DR

[brodski]

Yep I thought it was something like that, but you do sometime hear stories from around the world of stupid applications of the age of consent laws along the lines of charging a 16 year old for sleeping with a 15 year old (or whatever.)

Oh, the UK used to have great "fun" with the homosexual age of consent laws, back when you had to be 21 to consent to "buggery". There where cases where both partners could be charged with unlawful sexual acts because one of them was below the age of consent!
And currently a 16 year old could be charged with having sex with their 15 and 364 day old partner if the younger partner chose to make a complaint.

[ImaginalDisc]

Men are generally fertile by their mid teens. You seem to be confusing physical maturity with physical development.

You are telling me that seven year old girls routinely have their menses, or in bizarre cases well beyond three sigma?

Let's work on exotic exceptions only, sure.

I don't think a law is needed, raising one's children well is needed.

DR


No, I am not confusing the puberty issue here. Children mature at widely disperate rates.

[Mid]

...snip...
And currently a 16 year old could be charged with having sex with their 15 and 364 day old partner if the younger partner chose to make a complaint.

Although hopefully the CPS wouldn't pursue it unless something else had happened

[Darth Rotor]

No, I am not confusing the puberty issue here. Children mature at widely disperate rates.
Your claim of men reaching physical maturity in their early 20's argues that you did just that.

What do you mean by mature? Reach fertility/puberty, or something else?

Where is the mean, and where are the outliers? A little precision would be appreciated.

DR

[Terry]

The line shoudl not be age based, but physically based. Those not having gone through puberty should be off limits.

I agree with that in normal circumstances. I'd just like to make sure that we say that if someone is cronologically an adult, and not otherwise unable to consent, but hasn't gone through puberty then it should be okay to have consensual sex with them. There are medical conditions which require treatment for the person to attain puberty, and often this is not done until quite late, much later than most people's natural puberty. It is an edge case, but such people have enough on their plate without adding a restriction on their behaviour as adults which other people don't have.

[ImaginalDisc]

Your claim of men reaching physical maturity in their early 20's argues that you did just that.

What do you mean by mature? Reach fertility/puberty, or something else?

Where is the mean, and where are the outliers? A little precision would be appreciated.

DR


I was entriely clear enough. Puberty is over for men in their early 20's. Bone growth, for example, continues until this time.

[Cleon]

In Georgia, the Age of Consent is 16 years old.

Which means that I, as a 29-year-old, can have sex with a 16-year-old without any legal repercussions (shotgun-wielding parents notwithstanding). However, it also means that an 18-year-old who has sex with his (it's always "his," for some reason) 15-year-old girlfriend could potentially be tried for statuatory rape. In fact, this happened not too long ago--the 18-year-old boyfriend was sentenced to 20 years. (The boyfriend was black and the girlfriend was white, in a conservative part of the State--I can't imagine that had anything to do with the sentencing. :rolleyes:)

In Pennsylvania, there's no set "age of consent" per se; someone over 18 can have sex with someone under 18 as long as there isn't more than four years' difference. So the 18-year-old can still have sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, but I can't shtup the 16-year-old.

Between the two, I think PA's system is more rational. It allows for the reality that teenage kids will have sex with each other, while protecting them from predators.

[Darth Rotor]

In Pennsylvania, there's no set "age of consent" per se; someone over 18 can have sex with someone under 18 as long as there isn't more than four years' difference. So the 18-year-old can still have sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, but I can't shtup the 16-year-old.

Between the two, I think PA's system is more rational. It allows for the reality that teenage kids will have sex with each other, while protecting them from predators.
PA's makes more sense to me. Of course, if you shtup the 16 year old in Georgia, you still have to put up with a 16 year old, and all the drama and emotional BS that comes with it.

(Note: my daughter is 17, and has many friends of that age. I have been dealing with, on and off, the strangeness that is teenage young ladies for a few years now. In a word, nightmare. )

Those young ladies may be pretty, but the maintenance is waaay to high :jaw-dropp for any sane man to go fishing in that lake.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

In the UK the police generally only charge someone who has sex with a minor over the age of 13 if the minor themselves makes a complaint, unless there are aggravating factors (such as the adult is the minors teacher).

I dislike selective enforcement being the only protection that say two 14 YO's have if they egage in sexual contact

[ponderingturtle]

PA's makes more sense to me. Of course, if you shtup the 16 year old in Georgia, you still have to put up with a 16 year old, and all the drama and emotional BS that comes with it.

(Note: my daughter is 17, and has many friends of that age. I have been dealing with, on and off, the strangeness that is teenage young ladies for a few years now. In a word, nightmare. )

Those young ladies may be pretty, but the maintenance is waaay to high :jaw-dropp for any sane man to go fishing in that lake.

DR
But remember the laws are supposted to be protecting the kids not the adults in these situations.

[brodski]

I dislike selective enforcement being the only protection that say two 14 YO's have if they egage in sexual contact

It's not just selective enforcement. 13 is above the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. If two 14 year olds engage in "consensual" sex, and one makes a complaint against the other, the complained against party could make a complaint against their complaining partner. :boggled:
Um, you know what I mean. You then get into issues of whether there are aggravating factors, where one party used coercion etc. Each case can be judged on its merits in a pretty much apolitical environment.

[ponderingturtle]

It's not just selective enforcement. 13 is above the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. If two 14 year olds engage in "consensual" sex, and one makes a complaint against the other, the complained against party could make a complaint against their complaining partner. :boggled:
Um, you know what I mean. You then get into issues of whether there are aggravating factors, where one party used coercion etc. Each case can be judged on its merits in a pretty much apolitical environment.

That is the point, they are both comiting the same crime, having sex with someone below the age of consent. Saying that both are ciminals seems to be contrary to the whole idea of statuary rape.

Didn't we agrue this a couple of months ago as well?

[andyandy]

I'm not sure, for example in the UK I don't think a 16 year old who sleeps with her 15years + 364days old girlfriend should be prosecuted, the no ifs no buts approach wouldn't differentiate between a 16 year old sleeping with this 15 year old and a 52 year old sleeping with the 15year old, which in my opinion is daft. .

Sure, but the law should be the same for both cases - ie. it's illegal. But then the police/law courts should be able to use their discretion with regards to the prosecution or sentencing (if appropriate).

I'm not sure if any alternative options are better though; so I'd stick with the bright line cut off and hope for some common sense approach in dealing with the more marginal cases which is what seems to occur

That is i think how it works now. in the case of a 16yr old having sex with a girl one day short of her 16th birthday i doubt very much that any action would be pursued.

[brodski]

That is the point, they are both comiting the same crime, having sex with someone below the age of consent. Saying that both are ciminals seems to be contrary to the whole idea of statuary rape.

Didn't we agrue this a couple of months ago as well?

yes, but the point is, if they are both equally criminal in this regard, then effectively neither of them are criminal, and by making a complaint they would be effectively pleading guilty, unless there are aggravating factors on one side. This means that he real abuses of power will probably see the inside of a courtroom, but tiff between 15 year old lovers are unlikely to be settled in court. It seems a typically British solution, we don't like to nail down our laws, I mean, have you ever tried to read on constitution? ;)

I seem to remember several similar threads in the past.

[Darth Rotor]

But remember the laws are supposted to be protecting the kids not the adults in these situations.
Protection is made by Trojan, why are you bringing that up? I was suggesting the Cleon's dilemma holds many a danger not apparent on the outside, dangers to the sanity if not (should one be Christian) to one's soul.

DR

[Cleon]

Protection is made by Trojan, why are you bringing that up? I was suggesting the Cleon's dilemma holds many a danger not apparent on the outside, dangers to the sanity if not (should one be Christian) to one's soul.


For the record, there's no "dilemma" on my end. I don't chase 16-year-old girls.

[ponderingturtle]

yes, but the point is, if they are both equally criminal in this regard, then effectively neither of them are criminal, and by making a complaint they would be effectively pleading guilty, unless there are aggravating factors on one side. This means that he real abuses of power will probably see the inside of a courtroom, but tiff between 15 year old lovers are unlikely to be settled in court. It seems a typically British solution, we don't like to nail down our laws, I mean, have you ever tried to read on constitution? ;)

I seem to remember several similar threads in the past.

Wrong they are both criminal. There does not have to be a victem. Look at antidueling laws, you can not consent to a fight, so it does not matter who won, they are both criminals. So as neither can legaly consent to that situation, both are criminals, as both are old enough to be held responceable for criminal acts.

[ponderingturtle]

Protection is made by Trojan, why are you bringing that up? I was suggesting the Cleon's dilemma holds many a danger not apparent on the outside, dangers to the sanity if not (should one be Christian) to one's soul.

DR

Age of consent laws are intended to provide legal protection for physicaly mature children who are thought to be unable to consent. You are postulateing that the real victem might be the older one and not the younger one. I was pointing out that this is counter to the logic of who age of consent laws protect.

[brodski]

Wrong they are both criminal. There does not have to be a victem. Look at antidueling laws, you can not consent to a fight, so it does not matter who won, they are both criminals. So as neither can legaly consent to that situation, both are criminals, as both are old enough to be held responceable for criminal acts.

They are both technically criminal, but, unlike with dueling laws it is necessary for one of the involved parties to make a complaint in order to prosecute under laws against "unlawful sexual intercourse" (which is having sex with someone between the ages of 13 and 16, lower than the age of 13 is rape). If neither party makes a complaint then there will be no prosecution, and therefore no criminal sanction.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

In Iowa, the age of consent is 16. There's also a five-year age difference clause. The 16-year-old and 30-year old are fine. The 18-year-old high school senior and 14-year-old freshman are fine. The 30-year-old and 14-year-old are not. This seems fairly reasonable.

However, we do still end up with absurdities like a 16-year-old who videos themself masturbating is guilty of production of child pornography and probably old enough to be charged as an adult.

[Darth Rotor]

I was entriely clear enough. Puberty is over for men in their early 20's. Bone growth, for example, continues until this time.
The only bone growth of interest here is (in the mean) taken care of by the mid teens. Comes with the fertility package.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Age of consent laws are intended to provide legal protection for physicaly mature children who are thought to be unable to consent. You are postulateing that the real victem might be the older one and not the younger one. I was pointing out that this is counter to the logic of who age of consent laws protect.
Not hardly, he-who-has-no-sense-of-humor. I was making a jest at Cleon's discussion regarding age of consent in Georgia. Apparently, that was unclear, in transmission, reception, or a little of both. The other jest was in using protection as a pun, as a synonym for using a condom.

DR, he-who-can't-tell-a-joke-effectively-sometimes :)

PS: Presumed, rather than thought, probably clarifies the intent of the laws. The codification of the law is based on a presumption, tied to a "mean" or some such subjective judgment on what is "suitable." I thin we are in general discussion what good criteria for suitable are, and whether there is a universal norm worth adopting.

[ImaginalDisc]

The only bone growth of interest here is (in the mean) taken care of by the mid teens. Comes with the fertility package.

DR



That is not at all consistent with what you said earlier.

The line shoudl not be age based, but physically based. Those not having gone through puberty should be off limits.

Puberty consists of hundreds of changes, large and small, and neither in the case of boys nor girls is it ever clear what day puberty has started on, or when it is over. Puberty isn't over for either most boys or girls, on average, until after they're 18 years old, typically later still.

Some boys are capable of maintaining an errection and ejaculating before they're out of elementary school, but only a great fool would suggest that they are capable of making informed decisions about sex.

Are you a great fool?

[Darth Rotor]

That is not at all consistent with what you said earlier.



Puberty consists of hundreds of changes, large and small, and neither in the case of boys nor girls is it ever clear what day puberty has started on, or when it is over. Puberty isn't over for either most boys or girls, on average, until after they're 18 years old, typically later still.

Some boys are capable of maintainign an errection and ejaculating before they're out of elementary school, but only a great fool would suggest that they are capable of making informed decisions about sex.

Are you a great fool?
No, but you seem to be, since you insist on dealing with the extremes of development timelines, rather than a median or mean.

Raised any children?

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

No, but you seem to be, since you insist on dealing with the extremes of development timelines, rather than a median or mean.

The mean IS that boys are not finished with puberty until after the age of 18. Can you read?

[ImaginalDisc]

Darth Rotor,

Since you appear to be completely ignorant about the facts of puberty, here is a link where you can cure your condition.

Adolescence is a transitional period between childhood and adulthood. The changes of adolescence do not occur on a strict timeline; instead the changes occur at different times according to a unique internal calendar known only to the person. Adolescence can be a very difficult time. You are no longer a child, but you are not an adult yet either.

http://www.coolnurse.com/puberty.htm

To claim that pre-pubescents are off limits, and post-pubescents are a'ok is absurd. Puberty begins at different times for different people, and progresses at different rates. A chronological age benchmark is more fair, and more reasonable.

[Darth Rotor]

The mean IS that boys are not finished with puberty until after the age of 18. Can you read?
Puberty begins at different times for different people, and progresses at different rates. A chronological age benchmark is more fair, and more reasonable.
Besides that being a self contradictory statement, we aren't in disagreement on the non uniformity of change rates. Fair it might be, but reasonable is a load of rubbish since age is but one factor, which you seem to agree with based on some of your other remarks.

Disc, I went through puberty, thanks. Have you? Your are missing the larger point, which is that when you define an age of consent, you begin to define a class of criminals. Regardless of the law, once the initial burst into the phase begins, and fertility stands out as a benchmark, the risks go beyond behavioral and emotional. They become mechanical.

Not quite sure what you are referring to, or why you are obsessing over puberty and its length, and physical maturity.

I toss out a benchmark, based on fertility. You seem to think an age for consent is a fair idea. Fine. What's the mean age of fertility? Work from there. Where do the risks start, and what are they? The mean male adolscent is fertile in his mid teens.

The rest of the hormonal changes aren't what causes teenage pregnancy, Disc, nor does bone growth beyond the bone that grows only at certain times, and in the presence of teen age girls, whose fertility seems to be reaching into the 12's and 13's in the mean.

Our county school district inundates us with such useful information, and has for years.

So, answer the question: have you raised any children yet, or is your abrasive personality consigning you to celibacy?

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

Besides that being a self contradictory statement, we aren't in disagreement on the non uniformity of change rates. Fair it might be, but reasonable is a load of rubbish since age is but one factor, which you seem to agree with based on some of your other remarks.

Disc, I went through puberty, thanks. Have you? Your are missing the larger point, which is that when you define an age of consent, you begin to define a class of criminals. Regardless of the law, once the initial burst into the phase begins, and fertility stands out as a benchmark, the risks go beyond behavioral and emotional. They become mechanical.


Don't be so dishonest. You are the one who brought up physical matruity and fertility as a benchmarl.

The line shoudl not be age based, but physically based. Those not having gone through puberty should be off limits. Beyond that, where the age boundary should be is a massively subjective issue that I don't think lends itself to a hard coded answer without creating an immense pile of legal idiocies. (When SC Justice RB Ginsberg suggested the age of consent as 12 some years back, it made bilogical sense, if not social policy sense regarding teenage pregnancies.)


Men are generally fertile by their mid teens. You seem to be confusing physical maturity with physical development.



"Generally" is not how you write a law. The expection prooves the rule, and in case you were unaware, "proove" in this context means "tests."

What are you going to do when a medically normal 18 year girl has sex with a mentally mature, but infertile and physically underdeveloped 20 year old boy?

What about hermaphrodites, who are often infertile and may not ever ejavulate nor have a period?

What about every possible exception and unusual medical case that comes along? The law must account for them all. Basing a law off of physical maturity is a legal nightmare.

The only remotely enforceable rule is one based strictly on age.

[Darth Rotor]

What are you going to do when a medically normal 18 year girl has sex with a mentally mature, but infertile and physically underdeveloped 20 year old boy?
I am not going to do anything. The 20 year old is an adult.
The only remotely enforceable rule is one based strictly on age.
Uh, that's where we started this thread, but what age?

The only laws in this thread, and the one on Congressman Peda Foley thread, that make sense to me are the ones with a sliding scale. The 3 year or 4 year window for adolescents, with the floor at 13 or 14. (I think PA and and Iowa were cited.) I don't see any point in condoning or encouraging 14 and 15 years olds to have sex, rather the opposite, but I also don't see any point in creating a crime out of normal behavior.

If the intent is to criminalize sex between persons of considerably disparate age until legal majority is reached, at which point you are on your own, a useful law will be flexible enough to preclude normal (if foolish) behavior from being criminalized. From where I sit, a single age line makes no sense, for some of the reasons in variability we discussed.

Criminalizing teenage/teenage sex makes no sense, nor do I think creating yet another law as a substitute for teaching your children well and exercising good judgment makes for good policy.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Not hardly, he-who-has-no-sense-of-humor.

No just a warped sense of humor.

[Darth Rotor]

No just a warped sense of humor.
Ooh, a fellow traveller along the warped way.

*offers secret handshake* :)

DR