Sex and Age of Consent

[deathofcheese]

SC didn't get anything about marriage definition (and probably never will get the chance; SC's usually pretty solidly red, the upstate is more than enough to counter Columbia- and Charleston-area blue), but we did get this gem:

The amendment deletes the part of Section 33, Article III of the South Carolina Constitution (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/South_Carolina_Constitution) which says an unmarried woman must be fourteen years old or older in order to consent to sexual intercourse. Deleting the section would allow the state legislature to set the age of consent. Currently, a state law sets the age of consent at sixteen, and this section contradicts that law.


A "yes" vote agrees with the idea of deleting the section from the Constitution and letting the age of consent be set at 16.



A "no" vote means the voter wants to leave the section of the Constitution in place which says the age of consent is 14.

So I could've been going around all this time making it with 14 year old girls and I didn't even know?!?

[Seegtease]

So I could've been going around all this time making it with 14 year old girls and I didn't even know?!?


I thought it was like, 18, by national law? Heck, 16? I think 16 in Oregon will get you jail time automatically.

Also, I'm surprised about California. I thought they had a lot of gays there, I figured they'd blow that one out of the water. Guess I don't know much about what's going on in Cali.

[deathofcheese]

I thought it was like, 18, by national law? Heck, 16? I think 16 in Oregon will get you jail time automatically.I think this disparity might be explained by "statutory rape". People over a certain age difference or age threshold will be nailed (hur) by statutory rape, but people that are young enough (i.e. men 16~18 and women 14~18) can legally give consent. I don't know. IANAL. I always thought it was kind of dumb saying "PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T PASSED THEIR 18TH BIRTHDAY CAN'T DO SHIT" it's actually extremely arbitrary. Whatever, I guess it does protect minors in some way.

[Killer_Man_]

It is state run, not national law. I know in that some of the southern states the consent law is 14ish. I know in Wisconsin that the consent law is 18.

[SpaceProg]

14? Certainly not THIS southern state.
Still, the older I get, the older 'young' is...

[deathofcheese]

Ha ha ha, the consent law is NOT 14. The only place it's thought to be 14 is SC, but it's a REALLY old law that is superseded by a new law.

Oh, and statutory rape is adult + minor but only if it's reported (i.e. someone brags about it and someone who cares doesn't particularly see it as "harmless" or "consensual").

[tjkitsune]

14? Certainly not THIS southern state.
Still, the older I get, the older 'young' is...

50 is the new 20! Yay!

[Arainach]

Oh, and statutory rape is adult + minor but only if it's reportedNo, it's statutory rape no matter what. Unreported crime is still crime.

[Killer_Man_]

SP: Perhaps it was marriage then, I don't remember. I can't remember but I heard something to that effect.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/12483-age-consensual-sex/

S.C. 14 f/16 m, no law on homosexual intercourse

See... Unless it's wrong? It says it was updated recently...


Anyway, I never really understood the statutory rape one, to be honest. I think there should be a new law where the parents are able to let children to be able to consent to it.(More like giving their approval of their choice) because really, kids around supposely the age of 12-16 are getting it on right now. So why not let the parents determine if their mature enough to handle the responsibility of sex?

(And I just think I derailed the topic)

[deathofcheese]

http://www.livestrong.com/article/12483-age-consensual-sex/
S.C. 14 f/16 m, no law on homosexual intercourseSee... Unless it's wrong? It says it was updated recently... SC didn't get anything about marriage definition .... but we did get this gem:The amendment deletes the part of Section 33, Article III of the South Carolina Constitution (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/South_Carolina_Constitution) which says an unmarried woman must be fourteen years old or older in order to consent to sexual intercourse. Deleting the section would allow the state legislature to set the age of consent. Currently, a state law sets the age of consent at sixteen, and this section contradicts that law.


A "yes" vote agrees with the idea of deleting the section from the Constitution and letting the age of consent be set at 16.



A "no" vote means the voter wants to leave the section of the Constitution in place which says the age of consent is 14.

So I could've been going around all this time making it with 14 year old girls and I didn't even know?!?Must not have been updated recently enough. This passed.

I could almost guarantee you that if a 14 year old was caught having sex, even with another minor, she would be in pretty serious shit. Besides, we already have another state law which supersedes this, which I said already.Ha ha ha, the consent law is NOT 14. The only place it's thought to be 14 is SC, but it's a REALLY old law [actually, it's apparently in the state Constitution] that is superseded by a new law.

[Killer_Man_]

I think it should be the parents job till they are 18 to rule rather or not the child can consent or agree to consenting. It would give a reason for parents to be more involved. Cause I can assure you that if my child regardless of age was having sex with someone close to his or her age and was a decent person. I wouldn't really care as long as she knows the pros and cons of it.

Even then by the time they are 10-14 I'd more than likely be preaching to them about it to get them informed.

[Arainach]

....wait, are you saying that the parents should control whether the kids are considered to be consenting to sex? Please tell me I misinterpreted your post. Alternatively, please tell me that you have no idea what the word 'consent' means.

[Arainach]

To elaborate more on my last point: While law has two types of consent, implied consent (such as knowing you might get hurt when you play sports) and express consent (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/express+consent). Sexual laws, specifically things like rape and statutory rape, all rely on express consent. Consent consists of a person of sufficient mental capacity and stability making a knowing decision to agree to an act.

Other people cannot consent for you. Minors are considered mentally unable to consent to sex with people over 18, that's statutory rape regardless of whether both parties consider it consensual or not. Similarly, other people cannot decide that you consent to something for you; you either do or you don't. Just as it is the victim of a rape or sexual assault who decides whether he/she consented to an act, it is only the child who can decide if they are consenting to something.

[Killer_Man_]

I wasn't talking about anything else but sexual consent. I'm talking about if both parents are ok with it. Yes I realize it seems foolish but the kids are going to do it anyway, why should the child be it male or female(Usually the older one is punished) should get statutory rape charges and all these negative issues about it.

[Arainach]

I'm not denying that most statutory rape laws should be overhauled to include an exception for people within 2-3 years age of each other (several states already have such provisions), but parental consent is entirely the wrong direction.

[Killer_Man_]

You are right Ary, I know of this I just couldn't put it into words. It just seems foolish that anyone gets slap with a 'rape charge' because Jack and Jill decided to find out what so fun about sex... But I think BC is going to yell at us for derailing the topic. (Especially since some parents don't take the time to inform their kids. I know in HS a few males who was the same age or at least one year older. The parents pressed charges and said that the kid raped their daughter blah blah even thouhg it was lowered to statutory rape. It's still on their records even after they turn 18. Even though the girl wanted to cause she loved him)

Though I am curious to what direction you would take on this subject? Cause I can see why giving parents permission would be bad because I know this girl who had parents were just weird and so was she. When she was 17 she was dating some 25 year old. When things went sour she threw such a massive fit said he did this and this but no one really believed her save her parents cause we all knew better that she liked to hmm blow things up a bit. Regardless, her parents were allowed to press charges of 'rape' even though she was dating this guy from 17-19. Or something to that manner, I don't think they won but it still freaks the fuck out of me. It's the reason why I didn't do anything in HS and waited till I was 18 and said ok, only date people who are 18+ no matter what my wang tells me to do.

That and some girls/women use it as a weapon such as the previous description(the 17 year old). Then again I guess doctors can tell if there was 'forced entry'.

[Gio Takahashi]

Thread split, merged, etc.

[dinowoman]

Forced entry wouldn't be adequate evidence in cases like this. If I understand the idea of statutary rape, then it's to protect minors who are not mature enough to make a rational decision. An older guy could sweet-talk his way into getting a naive, underage girl to have sex with him. There's no forced entry, but the girl was still abused.

Parental consent would definitely not work as a practical way of controlling the age at which a teenager could have sex. If they want to have sex and think that their parents wouldn't approve, they'd just try to make sure their parents didn't find out (as happens now).

I don't really know what would be the best age for sexual consent. In Britain it's 16, and that generally seems to work pretty well. An Aussie friend told me that in Australia it's 14 so long as there is no more than 2 years' difference in age between the partners. Since a lot of teens will experiment with sex regardless of laws about age, I think setting the age relatively low, but stipulating that the partner should not be more than a few years older, is probably the most effective way of protecting youngsters from predatory adults, while recognising that laws are not going to prevent them from acting on their instincts.

[Seegtease]

I'm pretty sure, at least in Oregon, you can't charge somebody with statutory rape if they themselves are under 18. Also, I think we have a 2 year limit. Like, an 18 year old guy and a 16 year old girl ok. Likewise for 19/17.