Return To Consenter
In the state of Michigan, according to a Local 6 report, "sex is a crime if both consenting parties aren't at least 17 years old." In other words, if you're a consenting 17-year-old girl, and you have sex with your (exceptionally grateful) consenting 16-year-old boyfriend, you can be charged as a sex-offender.
This 15-year-old girl's daddy is now crying rape -- after allegedly providing the girl and her boyfriend with condoms and a bed! -- because he found out her boyfriend was 20, not 18 like he'd said. Unfortunately for daddy, the police are charging him, too -- with the same three counts of criminal sexual conduct they're charging the boyfriend with -- for allowing the whole deal to go on.
While the backfiring aspect in this case is kind of hilarious, the law behind it is scary, and as stupid as our age limits on who can drink. How about we only call rape what is rape -- clearly forced sex on somebody who doesn't have the capacity to refuse? Sure, a 15-year-old having sex with a 20-year-old is usually ill-advised, and definitely, in this case, a sign of bad parenting. But, it sure isn't rape.
I guess the issue here is statutory rape, which usually posits that if one party is "underage," then it's automatically rape (presumably because the underage party is incapable of forming consent). Setting the bar at 17 for being able to consent to sex is either quaintly naive, backwards, utterly ridiculous, or a combination thereof.
M at January 10, 2004 9:31 AM
That thoroughly modern daddy sounds like a very creepy micro-manager of his daughter's sex life. Maybe young people should just stick to cars and cheap hotels.
Lena at January 10, 2004 10:11 AM
I respectfully disagree. There is a significant group of late 20's on up men who prey on minor females. Also, without statutory rape laws, you get into a He Says, She Says thing.
I am reminded of a situation that I was peripherally involved in. A girl goes to a party, passes out (probably due to her own actions, but possibly as a result of Date Rape drugs), and wakes up to find a guy doing her. She ultimately goes to the cops. There was no question that there had been sex, the question was consent. He of course claimed such. They couldn't prove actual rape beyond a reasonable doubt, but since she was 17, and he was almost 30, statutory rape was slam dunk.
What I like are the statutory rape laws where there is a two year window. If the parties to the sex are withing two years of the same age, then no statutory rape. I might even go as high as three years. This gives kids a chance to experiment, if they have to, but protects them against older preditors.
Bruce Hayden at January 20, 2004 9:05 AM
Hi, I am a 17 year old and I live in California. I have a 14 year old girlfriend (she will be 15 on March 15) and her father is threatening to charge me with statutory rape. First of all, we haven't had sex. But... if we had would I be going to jail, and if it is a crime then when are we allowed to engage in sexual activity? When I am 18 and she 16? I am even more scared of that prospect since I will be a "legal" adult by then. Please help! (P.S. Her father is a lawyer)
Brandon Hessler at February 9, 2004 7:19 PM
Age of consent in CA is 18.
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=law&refid=002
Will reply to you personally on the rest.
Amy Alkon at February 9, 2004 8:07 PM