Sue Myspace?

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:59 pm

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]It's made all the more difficult by the fact that everyone tries to look older than they actually are. Kids are trying to look like teenagers, teenagers are trying to look like adults; it's not until we're adults that we stop that practice altogether. And once we hit a certain age in adulthood, we suddenly find ourselves trying to look younger.

[/QUOTE]
Good call, that's one of my favorite Joan Rivers stand-up bits.

@ Lestat: I know that's illegal in Michigan and quite possibly in Texas as well.

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:07 pm

Here is a [url="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1207043,00.html"]Time article[/url] on the matter. It has a bit more details.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:21 pm

Can't find the law for Texas but in Wisconsin it appears to be a version of statory rape.

http://danenet.wicip.org/dcccrsa/saissu ... k/law.html

http://www.sulross.edu/pages/3348.asp

Edit: seems to be the same for Texas

http://www.utexas.edu/student/lss/askla ... yrape.html

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:32 pm

http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm

This site I found isn't officially endorsed by the State of Texas, but it lists the age of consent as 17 and I have seen 17 as the listed age numerous other places. I do know for a fact that 16 is the lowest age of consent in the US, so 15 is illegal either way you look at it.

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:35 pm

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm

This site I found isn't officially endorsed by the State of Texas, but it lists the age of consent as 17 and I have seen 17 as the listed age numerous other places. I do know for a fact that 16 is the lowest age of consent in the US, so 15 is illegal either way you look at it.[/QUOTE]
Apparently not if the defendant is 3 or less years older (see Fiona's last link in edit).

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:47 pm

[QUOTE=Lestat]Apparently not if the defendant is 3 or less years older (see Fiona's last link in edit).[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, this really confuses me because I was under the impression that the Legal Age of Consent acts as an official cut-off limit... There are no exceptions, nobody can have sex with somebody under the age of ___ (17 for Texas). If both parties are under the age of ___, there is some confusion but I don't remember what exactly.

Granted Michigan Law is different from Texas law, but this sounds very, very weird to me.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:52 pm

Well in Scotland it is illegal to have intercourse with a girl under 16. But if she is under 13 the maximum penalty is 20 years; between 13 and 16 the maximum is 2 years ( this is for unlawful intercourse, not for rape). And in practice if there is not much difference in the age of the girl and boy they often take no formal action at all

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:53 pm

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]Hmmm, this really confuses me because I was under the impression that the Legal Age of Consent acts as an official cut-off limit... There are no exceptions, nobody can have sex with somebody under the age of ___ (17 for Texas). If both parties are under the age of ___, there is some confusion but I don't remember what exactly.

Granted Michigan Law is different from Texas law, but this sounds very, very weird to me.[/QUOTE]Well, it is not general, though it does occur in some states apparently.

Acually [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape"]wikipedia's article on the matter[/url] gives a fairly good overview of the reasoning surrounding this.

It would seem a tad absurd to persecute an 18 year old who has sexual relations with a 16 year old, just because the first is just over the AoC and the second just under (of course, assumed there is consent).

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:03 pm

I had my dad (who's a lawyer) look at this and he said exactly that: the legal age of consent is still 17, but that 4th paragraph that contains the information in question is a loophole clause that gives some protection for the the circumstance Fiona described. Michigan doesn't have any such clause, that's for sure, but he generalized that this bit isn't anything too unusual. Pardon my ignorance, then, it's just that back in the early days of high school I remember lectures from policemen and such who'd come in for drug talks beating us to death with horror stories about how an 18 year old guy asked a girl for ID before they started going out, she showed him one stating she's seventeen but it was fake and she was 15 (one year below the AOC) and now he has 87 years in prison or something. After growing up with knowledge like that I hope you understand how surprising this all is to me.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:06 pm

Grrrr. Police should NOT tell fibs or oversimplify

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:07 pm

Well over here the legal age of consent is apparently 16 years old, except in cases of rape, where it is 14 years old (so statutory rape only under 14 years old). But you can't get married before 18 (legal majority). I'm slightly surprised and confused, a logical consequence of reading a Belgian law I suppose.

And I'm also wondering what the age of consent of 16 is for, if not to determine whether a case is statutory rape or not.

Also penalties increase rapidly with decreasing age of victim.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:11 pm

That does seem confusing. Can it be that it is statutory rape under 14; and some version of unlawful intercourse between 14 and 16? That would mean it was similar to Scottish law as outlined above (much harsher penalties for intercourse with the younger age group).

But I am really suprised that any state separates the age of consent and the age of marriage. How very immoral! :speech: :laugh:

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:16 pm

[QUOTE=Lestat]Well over here the legal age of consent is apparently 16 years old, except in cases of rape, where it is 14 years old (so statutory rape only under 14 years old). But you can't get married before 18 (legal majority). I'm slightly surprised and confused, a logical consequence of reading a Belgian law I suppose.

And I'm also wondering what the age of consent of 16 is for, if not to determine whether a case is statutory rape or not.

Also penalties increase rapidly with decreasing age of victim.[/QUOTE]
The way my dad described it, if the girl was willing to testify to a policemen or somebody that the sex was consensual and also that their circumstances met the conditons spelled out (she was 14 or older, he was no more than three years older) then nothing would happen. It says in the clause that the older person couldn't even be legally charged under the statute, but he said that there would be still be paperwork and hearings and such, but nothing would come of it with the girl's testimony. Again, a loophole.

I couldn't agree more Fiona :laugh: . However my dad did also say that he was sure no such loophole clause existed in Michigan law: Michigan has a habit of being very terse on certain subjects like this, drunk driving being the other notable one (DUI= at least one night in jail, no exceptions).

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:17 pm

Nah, I found it, it concerns prostitution, pornography and "atteinte à la pudeur" (literally "assault on decency", wouldn't know exact translation) a.o. Also it is an aggravating circumstance if the victim of a sexual crime is younger than 16 (even if older than 14).

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:30 pm

We would call it "indecent assault". It is a wider term than either unlawful intercourse or sexual assault, but it looks relatively similar to me. Though I do not think I quite follow. Are you saying that the age of consent at 16 covers commercial sexual transactions, which are legal at that age? But marriage is not? How odd. You can sell it but you can't give it away? that is what I call child protection

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:33 pm

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]Good call, that's one of my favorite Joan Rivers stand-up bits.

[/QUOTE]
Joan Rivers said that? Thanks for making me feel dirty.

Well, if anyone in the world would know about adults trying to look younger, it would definitely be her. :laugh:

[QUOTE=Fiona]But I am really suprised that any state separates the age of consent and the age of marriage. How very immoral! :speech: :laugh:[/QUOTE]
In the U.S.'s history, the age of marriage used to actually be that low, maybe even lower. It wasn't uncommon for 15-16 year olds to be married (to 40 year olds, too, incidentally). Laws can only change so much, I suppose, so the age of marriage and age of consent now have such an obvious gap.

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:44 pm

[QUOTE=Fiona]We would call it "indecent assault". It is a wider term than either unlawful intercourse or sexual assault, but it looks relatively similar to me. Though I do not think I quite follow. Are you saying that the age of consent at 16 covers commercial sexual transactions, which are legal at that age? But marriage is not? How odd. You can sell it but you can't give it away? that is what I call child protection

[/QUOTE]No you can also give it away, it's just that you can't engage in a long-term lease.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:50 pm

*nods* Makes legal sense - law of contract rules :laugh:

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:56 pm

For what it's worth, the age of marriage is not set in stone. Younger people can marry if they have parental consent. And yes, as odd as it sounds, some parents do consent. I have known "women" who have been legally married at the age of 12 to 14. It's not particularly common, but it's common enough that I know two such individuals.

I don;t advocate it mind you, but it does happen.

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:11 pm

[QUOTE=Bloodstalker]For what it's worth, the age of marriage is not set in stone. Younger people can marry if they have parental consent. And yes, as odd as it sounds, some parents do consent. I have known "women" who have been legally married at the age of 12 to 14. It's not particularly common, but it's common enough that I know two such individuals.

I don;t advocate it mind you, but it does happen.[/QUOTE]Uhm I was quoting Belgian law, not American law. But yes if there are serious reasons, younger persons can marry (even without parental consent).

[QUOTE=Belgian Law]Age du consentement au mariage
Article 144, Titre V, Chapitre Premier du Code Civil :
" Nul ne peut contracter mariage avant dix-huit (18) ans. "

Article 145 :
" Le tribunal de la jeunesse peut, pour des motifs graves, lever la prohibition de l’article précédent. La demande est introduite par requête soit par les père et mère, soit par l’un d’entre eux, soit par le mineur à défaut de consentement des parents.(...) "
[/QUOTE]Rough Translation (in Italics, uncertain):

Age of consent for Mariage
Article 144, title V, First Chapter of the Civil Code:
"Noone can enter a mariage before eighteen (18) years."

Article 145
"The juvenile court can, for serious reasons/motives, cancel the prohibition of the preceding article. The request is submitted by the parents, or by one of the parents, or by the minor if there is no parental consent (...)"

My stress on graves/serious.

We're a debauched country...