Julia Thompson wrote: > Charlie Bell wrote: >> >> On Mar 22, 2006, at 11:02 AM, PAT MATHEWS wrote: >> >>>> >>> And in the UK (lost the attribution) a boy of 13 was accused of >>> statuatory rape for having consensual sex with a girl of 11-going- >>> on-12. >> >> >> But in the UK the age of consent is 16. So if you're under 16, you >> can't give consent legally. So you can't have consensual sex... >> >>> The tabs promptly headlined it leaving off the "statuatory." So >>> she >>> was under the age of consent - so was he! Anyone hear of just >>> grounding them for the semester? >> >> >> Stupid, isn't it? The law should protect the young and newly >> sexually >> aware from predators, not punish them for doing what's natural. As >> the Netherlands has shown, a lower age of consent coupled with >> proper sex education actually raises the average age of first sex >> and reduces the rate of teenage pregnancy. >> >> The UK has a daft attitude to sex. > > The laws in the US vary from state to state. Texas does something > fairly reasonable -- I've forgotten the age of consent, but if one > person is on one side and the other is on the other side, if the > difference in ages is a certain margin or less (again, I've > forgotten > what that is -- I never had reason to worry about it here!), it's > not > statutory rape. So if you're 2 months older than the age of consent > and you boink someone 3 months younger than you (i.e., younger than > the age of consent, but close to you in age) it's OK. And 2 people > under the age of consent going at it isn't considered statutory > rape. > > (I like the Netherlands solution.) >
I'd just like to add that saying the word "Boink" is a lot of fun. xponent Useless Person Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
