Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:
Well I suppose part of the problem is that it varies state to state. Where there isn't confusion between states though and that they all agree on is that 18 and 14 is going to get you charged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
You no read good.

Or you no write good, so your point is muddled.

 Alfndrate wrote:
The OP said 17, but the two links provided don't say anything about her being under 18 from what I read.

That is because they both explicitly state she was 18 at the time.

If you're 18 years old in Ohio, and you marry a 14 yr old, it's totally legal and okay to have sex with that person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just read the melon fething link I posted instead of arguing my point being muddled which it wasn't sorry for not using Miss Hunt 3 times in 2 sentences!

From the HuffPost Article I linked wrote:Update: May 22, 11 a.m. -- According to an arrest affidavit obtained by CBS affiliate WTSP, the girls began dating in November 2012, when Kaitlyn Hunt was 18 and the other girl was 14. In a news conference Monday, Indian River County Sheriff Deryl Loar said that age difference, not sexual orientation, determined prosecution of the high school senior.

emphasis mine

 Alfndrate wrote:
If you're 18 years old in Ohio, and you marry a 14 yr old, it's totally legal and okay to have sex with that person.

Which is irrelevant in this case because;
a) They are not in Ohio,
b) They are not married

 Alfndrate wrote:
If you're 18 years old in Ohio, and you marry a 14 yr old, it's totally legal and okay to have sex with that person.

Which would be a meaningful argument if we were talking about married couples, which we aren't. I also believe you have to have parental consent to get married at that age in every state that would even allow such a marriage, which I don't believe all do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Just read the melon fething link I posted instead of arguing my point being muddled which it wasn't sorry for not using Miss Hunt 3 times in 2 sentences!

I didn't say your article, or the author of that article had done a bit of muddled writing, as I read it and it was quite clear. Your truncation of the point was what was shoddily written and made it appear as if you were contradicting yourself. Emphasis mine.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
If you're 18 years old in Ohio, and you marry a 14 yr old, it's totally legal and okay to have sex with that person.

Which is irrelevant in this case because;
a) They are not in Ohio,
b) They are not married

I was replying directly to Ahtman's statement of, "Where there isn't confusion between states though and that they all agree on is that 18 and 14 is going to get you charged." I was providing a direct counter that the state of Ohio has an explicit law that allows an 18yr old to do something with a 14yr old (all the way down to a 13 yr old). And yes I realize that we're not talking about Ohio. Which is apparently just as muddled and unclear. Why make a vague point of all the states not being confused on relations with a minor when at least 1 state has laws allowing relations between a married couple when one of the married people can be under the age of 14. And yes you do need parental consent when under the age of 18 in Ohio.

My girlfriend is 3 years younger then me and we've been together since she was 16.

So alf, I win.

 Soladrin wrote:
My girlfriend is 3 years younger then me and we've been together since she was 16.

So alf, I win.

I didn't realize statutory rape was a prize to be won. And according to wikipedia, age of consent is 16 in your country.

Well yeah, because we aren't nutters.

I feel this is appropriate.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I was replying directly to Ahtman's statement of, "Where there isn't confusion between states though and that they all agree on is that 18 and 14 is going to get you charged."

And that was an incredibly silly rebuttal, as we aren't talking about married people. It gives the appearance of grasping at straws.

 Soladrin wrote:
My girlfriend is 3 years younger then me and we've been together since she was 16.

And what would have happened if she was 14 at the time instead of 16, and you were 19? If the age of consent there is 16 then it would seem you would also be in trouble there as well if you broke that age limit. If you read other posts you also would have noted that the age of consent is 16 in many states here as well, in fact it is the majority of states. The problem isn't the age gap itself, it is the youth of the other participant. No one is going to arrest a 24 year old for sex with a 20 year old.

In my state 16 is the age of consent, and a 16-17 year old can have sex with as young as 14 w/o fear of the law, but 18+ needs to steer clear of below 16.

It's only an issue if someone makes it an issue. It's that simple.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I was replying directly to Ahtman's statement of, "Where there isn't confusion between states though and that they all agree on is that 18 and 14 is going to get you charged."

And that was an incredibly silly rebuttal, as we aren't talking about married people. It gives the appearance of grasping at straws.

Except that I'm not. You said that that all the states agree that 18 and 14 is going to get you charged, I pointed out a pretty specific and clear example where an 18yr old and a 14yr old can enter into a relationship with each other and have it completely legal, which would show that the states cannot all seem to agree that unlawful sexual conduct with a minor of the age of 14 will get you charged if you're over 18. That is all I was trying to point out with my post. If you feel that I'm making wild and desperate claims in an attempt to make a point (i.e. grasping at straws) you should re-learn what the words, "all" and "agree" mean. I do realize the state of education in the US isn't that great but I'm sure you're older than me, and thus I would expect a higher quality education to have been passed down to you from your educators, but it seems that a single example that goes against your point is a silly rebuttal. I believe actually in this point it is you that has managed to create a muddled point since you weren't being clear about what will get you charged with a sexual offense.

But I'm done with this thread, I'm going back to the Boy Scout thread where at least I know people aren't going to be petty over something that has no effect over their lives.

Interesting factoid, In my county, It is illegal for even two people under the age of consent to engage in intercourse. So yeah that can happen.
Also, 14 with a 18? Yeah that was a recipe for disaster. If the age of an adult is 18 you should not even be involved with a 14 year old.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I pointed out a pretty specific and clear example

You found an extreme outlier that doesn't really have anything to do with the case. This isn't about married couples, or about creepy, very young spouses, which make up an obscenely tiny fraction of the population. Looking at the list, very few states even allow it, and the few that do require not just parental consent but also a judicial ruling.

The way we know this law is awful is that it is possible for a relationship to be illegal, then legal, then illegal again, then legal again as they age through the brackets.

If it wasn't a problem 100 days ago, then it's not a problem now.

That said, the age brackets and romeo and juliet laws are a HUGE improvement over what we used to have, so progress at least.

I think a considerable percentage of kids feth before the age of consent, as soladrin has tried to point out this really is a non issue.

Also taping your kids phone conversations is weird , probably illegal too.

A pitiable situation. I don't really know enough to judge, one way or the other, and I hope it works out well enough for both the girls involved.

More the pity that the parents of the younger are, from what I have read, being vindictive-- instead of letting the previous judgment (which amounted to "stay away from my daughter and you won't get charged"), they push more and more to attack the young lady purely for the sake of doing so. Perhaps they have a reason for it other than homophobia, but it seems to me that there have been no reports of the young lady breaking the agreement.

 Melissia wrote:
A pitiable situation. I don't really know enough to judge, one way or the other, and I hope it works out well enough for both the girls involved.

More the pity that the parents of the younger are, from what I have read, being vindictive-- instead of letting the previous judgment (which amounted to "stay away from my daughter and you won't get charged"), they push more and more to attack the young lady purely for the sake of doing so. Perhaps they have a reason for it other than homophobia, but it seems to me that there have been no reports of the young lady breaking the agreement.

I don't think it's the parents is it. They are understandably pissed, but in the eyes of the law, a crime has been commited. I would think it's the state that is pressing the case, unless something has recently happened in the legal system to allow for it to be controlled in a vigilante style.

The parents of the 14 year old have been pushing quite hard at the school and courts, possibly even beyond what is reasonable. Of course I have seen fathers react the same way when an older boy touches their little angel in her no-no area. Parents can get a little crazy sometimes when it comes to their kids, gay or straight. That isn't an excuse of course, and it would be best for all involved if they would stop being donkey-caves.

 Ahtman wrote:
The parents of the 14 year old have been pushing quite hard at the school and courts, possibly even beyond what is reasonable. Of course I have seen fathers react the same way when an older boy touches their little angel in her no-no area. Parents can get a little crazy sometimes when it comes to their kids, gay or straight. That isn't an excuse of course, and it would be best for all involved if they would stop being donkey-caves.

Even so, in the end it's up to the state to decide how to proceed.

Perhaps so. But regardless, I think that the state should be very, very careful about ruining a young person's life forever, when they have not acted out of malice. Society as a whole suffers from it, in more ways than one-- the example being a 19 year old boy dating a 17 year old girl who becomes labeled a sex offender, and has a hard, suffering life, his productivity ruined. If he turns to crime or to drugs, he gets caught and becomes a ward of the state, and a downward spiral itis from there, which could have been avoided.

Which is exactly what this young lady fears. Romance is something most people desire, and young people don't always make the best decisions in any matter, never mind in the case of romance. But the articles I read (linked to in this thread) state that the school did not initially agree to kick her out, instead ruling that she stay away from the girl. Nothing has indicated that she broke this agreement, but instead, it appears as if the parents are seeking to attack the young lady out of spite. Which is not something I support-- again, there was no malice on the part of the young lady.

Which is an important point. If the harshest punishments were given to everyone regardless of their situation, the law would be stupid and tyrannical. Apparently though, to some people here the only way a government can be tyrannical is to enact gun control, and in all other laws it is perfect and just.

Well, whether you agree with the age of consent or not, Soladrin, the fact remains that in this particular situation, the age of consent is extremely clear, and the case law on what constitutes Statutory rape is pretty clear too, so if the older girl started messin around with the younger girl either before or after she turned 18 is irrelevant, b/c once she did so after she became an adult and the younger girl was still under the age of consent, she is by all legal definitlions guilty of statutory rape. By the law, the younger girl cannot give consent, and therefore the other girl should not have been messing around with her. Whether you agree with law or not, the fact is the Law is the law, and if you break it, then you have to deal with the consequences. In this case, it means the older girl may get to live out the rest of her life with a rape charge on her record and will probably have to register as a sex offender...

Relapse wrote:Even so, in the end it's up to the state to decide how to proceed.

Well yeah, but I was responding to your inquiry about the role the parents were playing in the situation.

Melissia wrote:Perhaps so. But regardless, I think that the state should be very, very careful about ruining a young person's life forever, when they have not acted out of malice.

I don't think the state is going to put her in prison, though it might, as they would do that, and have done it, to boys in this situation. Usually there is more to those situations though, like constantly contacting after being told not to and such.

Melissia wrote:the example being a 19 year old boy dating a 17 year old girl who becomes labeled a sex offender

That is why the Romeo and Juliet Laws exist, but even then the age of consent in the vast majority of states is 16 so 17 and 19 isn't illegal anyway. In my state 14-17 can mingle freely, but once you hit 18 you have to stick to 16+. You dip below to 15 and below and you are asking for trouble.

Melissia wrote:But the articles I read (linked to in this thread) state that the school did not initially agree to kick her out, instead ruling that she stay away from the girl. Nothing has indicated that she broke this agreement, but instead, it appears as if the parents are seeking to attack the young lady out of spite.

They are being jerks, but unfortunately that isn't illegal and they have the law on their side. At this point I think we need to wait and see what the courts do to know whether she is being unfairly punished.

Being jerks isn't illegal, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong to decry it all the same.