Valerie wrote:Yeah, I guess that's the safest way to do it, then. In Kentucky, age of consent is 16, and now that I'm in California, it's 18.
I freaked out my husband's brother by telling him I was 17. It was pretty funny. (I look it, apparently.) I have trouble wrapping my head around the disgust, though, just for the fact that 17-year-olds having sex is totally fine where I'm from.
So, like, if there's a picture online, my husband might be like, "Ew, she's like, sixteen." And my brain is like, "She's sixteen. Sixteen = sexytimes."
dfsjkfhdskj. Consent laws are complicated. Point is, saying "eighteen" across the board is probably the safest way to handle it, I was just raised in a place where eighteen is practically ancient. >_>
...I'm probably going to be put on some kind of sex offender list for this post.
Piffle. That's pretty straightforward. Compare that to current Minnesota law:
609.345 Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree.
Subdivision 1. Crime defined. A person who engages in sexual contact with another person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if any of the following circumstances exists:
(a) the complainant is under 13 years of age and the actor is no more than 36 months older than the complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age or consent to the act by the complainant is a defense. In a prosecution under this clause, the state is not required to prove that the sexual contact was coerced;
(b) the complainant is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the complainant or in a position of authority over the complainant and uses this authority to cause the complainant to submit. Consent by the complainant to the act is not a defense. In any such case, it shall be an affirmative defense which must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the actor believes the complainant to be 16 years of age or older;
(c) the actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the sexual contact;
(d) the actor knows or has reason to know that the complainant is mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless;
(e) the complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the complainant and in a position of authority over the complainant, and uses this authority to cause or induce the complainant to submit. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;
(f) the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant and the complainant was at least 16 but under 18 years of age at the time of the sexual contact. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;
(g) the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant, the complainant was at least 16 but under 18 years of age at the time of the sexual contact, and:
(i) the actor or an accomplice used force or coercion to accomplish the contact;
(ii) the complainant suffered personal injury; or
(iii) the sexual abuse involved multiple acts committed over an extended period of time. (some emphasis added)
where "significant relationship is defined as:
Significant Relationship: A situation in which the actor is:
the complainant's parent, stepparent or guardian;
any of the following by blood, marriage or adoption: brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, first cousin, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, grandparent,
great-grandparent, great-uncle, great-aunt; or
an adult residing, intermittently or regularly, in the same dwelling as the complainant (except complainant's spouse.)
This term replaces the previous term of "intrafamilial relationship" which was more precise but which tended, especially in small communities, to raise a
presumption about the victim's identity.
Source: (http://www.mncasa.org/manuals_lit/train ... legal.html)
Mind you, this is for the lowest level of criminality where age is taken into account. Circumstances that deviate further from these quickly fall under much harsher punishment guidelines. Still, if I read this correctly, it looks to me like a couple of 13 year olds could be legally engaged in a sexual relationship in this state. Tell me that doesn't just about bounce the needle of the squick-o-meter against the peg for any parent of a young adolescent!
BTW, this replaced a fairly simple definition where the age of consent for females was 16 and for males was 18.
