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

Reply via email to