If an 18 yr old has sex with a 17yr. old.... - Trust (2011) Discussion

Yes, it is.

reply

[–] TruthPredator 11 years ago

Thanks.

reply

you're welcome.

statutory rape n. sexual intercourse with a female below the legal age of consent, but above the age of a child, even if the female gave her consent, did not resist and/or mutually participated. In all but three states the age of consent is 18, and the age above which the female is no longer a child varies although 14 is common. The theory of statutory rape is that the girl is incapable of giving consent, although marriage with a parent's consent is possible in many states at ages as low as 14. Intercourse with a female child (below 14 or whatever the state law provides) is rape, which is a felony. Increasingly statutory rape is not charged when there is clear consent by the female, particularly when the girl will not cooperate in a prosecution. Controversy continues over what constitutes "resistance" or "consent," particularly when some men insist a woman who said "no" really meant "yes."

reply

[–] transmentalist 11 years ago

Some states have "romeo & juliet" laws that excuse statutory rape when the "adult" is 18 and the "child" is 17.

Other states have prosecuted 18-year-old offenders with 17-year-old victims who are now registered sex offenders for life

It's a giant fuzzy area; we're a funny nation when it comes to sex. Still, better safe than sorry, I guess.

(Gotta admit, as a new father of twin girls, I've already changed my view on this topic - parenthood leads to hypocrisy, I guess)

reply

[–] Tracey73 11 years ago

Some states have "romeo & juliet" laws that excuse statutory rape when the "adult" is 18 and the "child" is 17

Great point - I'm going to copy/paste the law in my state:

Individuals under 14 years of age cannot consent to sexual activities, with the following exception:

If the victim is at least 12 years of age and less than 14 years of age and the defendant is no more than 3 years older than the victim
If the victim is less than 12 years of age and the defendant is no more than 3 years older than the victim
In addition, children less than 16 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity if the defendant is at least 20 years of age

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/statelaws.shtml#Arkansas

(If you scroll up and/or down, other state laws regarding stat rape is listed.)

Some hurt, some love, some shout. I fought the world and I lost that bout. ~ Blue October

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 10 years ago

Wrong most states the legal age of consent is 16

reply

[–] cardinalsfan27 10 years ago

Not necessarily. It depends on the age of consent. It varies from state to state.

reply

[–] Minerva_Meybridge 10 years ago

You don't know what you are talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

reply

[–] rosie-rocks-282-826753 11 years ago

Well, where i live and a lot of other places that's 100% legal. In the UK the age of consent is 16, which is a lot more reasonable than 18 really. Personally, a year difference? it shouldn't be. it'd be different like 5+ years older (but still love someone) which shouldn't be called rape but something that doesn't have the ability to ruin someone's life just for having 100% consensual sex. Personally, i think consent ages should be lowered as most girls/boys i know lost their virginity at around 14/15 and knew 100% what they were doing.

Well, Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming? - Hannibal Lecter.

reply

[–] Tracey73 11 years ago

In most states, it would not be considered statutory rape. Many (if not all, but not sure on that) states have an age of consent, but give exclusions regarding a 2 to 3 year age difference. I posted in another post on this thread a website which gives the details in every state regarding statutory rape laws.

Some hurt, some love, some shout. I fought the world and I lost that bout. ~ Blue October

reply

[–] lazarillo 10 years ago

There's nothing wrong with an age of consent of 18, but they should expand the "Romeo and Juliet" thing a little. How about, say, 25. I went out with a 16-year-old when I was 23 (even met her parents and everything). It was no big deal. If I did that NOW though, I would definitely have myself thrown in jail.

I also read in "The Economist" a story of a twenty-something WOMAN who is a registered sex offender because at 18, she had sex with her 16-year-old boyfriend when she was 18 or 19. That's just plain stupid.

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 10 years ago

romeo and juliet laws only protect the older individual from being charged with rape they still are charged with unlawful sex with a minor

reply

[–] Chellench 10 years ago

I absolutely do not think it's statutory rape. First of all, you should understand the gist behind protecting minors. Let's set this to a high school setting. Usually only in the event that one side is in a position of power, such as teaching assistant(18) and a high school student(17), then this may be seen as a statutory rape.
However, if both are high school students and in a stable relationship, then it is hardly questionable.
I believe that even if both sides are under the age of consent, as long as there's not a great difference in age and both are committed to each other then it should hardly be a problem.

reply

[–] Minerva_Meybridge 10 years ago

No, it is not; not in any state or country. Generally the rule is three years age difference is acceptable. But in most states, the age of consent is 16 or 17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

reply

[–] borimor 8 years ago

I doubt if it's illegal in America, I am not sure if people know the law. It's not make sense, in my country there's a 3 years gap.

reply