Oregon Law Tells Teens Under 18 That They Don't Get Autonomy Over Their Own Bodies; Says They Are Incapable Of Consenting To Sex
Are we in a race to become an authoritarian state?
I consistently see news reports -- and laws -- that suggest an increasing clampdown on everybody for, well, everything.
This includes what used to be considered the normal stuff of life -- like kids riding their bikes through through their own neighborhood without parental supervision (or that of three heavily-armed hired guards).
The latest is a story from Oregon, from The Daily Caller, where Eric Owen reports that public school teachers must now inform the government when they find out a teenager has had sex. No, we're not talking about sex with some adult predator, but sex with another teen -- consensual sex with another teen.
Teachers in the Salem-Keizer school district face fines and can even lose their jobs if they fail to blow the whistle on teen students who are voluntarily having sex with each other, reports the Statesman Journal, the main newspaper in Salem.The draconian requirements also require teachers in the district to report teen students who might have had consensual sex.
...The state law -- ORS 163.315 -- makes it illegal for anyone who is under 18 years of age to consent to a sex act.
The Statesman Journal story by Natalie Pate does say this:
Another Oregon law, ORS 163.345, or the "three-year rule," addresses when the individuals are similar in age and force and coercion are not present. This often is thought of as "consensual" activity.While this law can be applied in criminal proceedings, it does not apply to mandatory reporting.
The problem is that when laws are passed, laws can be used.
The government has no business telling people under 18 that they aren't allowed autonomy over their own bodies.
Here, from the Daily Caller piece, will be the next set of sex criminals -- and check out how ugly it is that the teachers' jobs are being used as a means to extort them into ratting kids out:
Teachers who aren't sure if there is "reasonable cause" to believe abuse has occurred have an incentive to report teen sex because a finding that teachers withheld information can result in fines or job loss."It's criminal not to report," Salem-Keizer Public Schools spokeswoman Lillian Govus told the Statesman Journal. "People's careers are at stake here."
When a teacher reports a teen high school student for having consensual sex, the state Department of Human Services creates a file. In addition to the creation of a file, a social worker or a police officer could come to the public school to talk to the reported student about all about the sex he or she has been accused of having.
Teen students who have been reported for sex do not appear to have recourse concerning their privacy. Thus, information and gossip about their sex lives will remain in government files -- which may or may not be effectively stored.
"The government has no business telling people under 18 that they aren't allowed autonomy over their own bodies."
Actually, there is considerable precedent. If you are judged a danger to yourself, you can be remanded to custody under the Baker Act temporarily, and permanently made a ward of the State if initial measures don't work in the opinion of experts appointed by the State - even if opinion is all that is available to explain your condition.
Minors? Ask yourself this out loud: What's a minor?
There are dozens of activities prohibited to minors. In your own case, as an adult you are prohibited from enlisting another to see that you DIE in the manner you prefer...
And here we arrive in the kerfluffle about "kid's rights" again. Of course those incompetent of exercising their rights are appointed guardians; this even appears in debate about marriage and probate re custody and inheritance.
Radwaste at November 4, 2017 9:47 PM
You aren't "a danger to yourself" simply by existing and the government has NO RIGHT to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
Glad you popped by to present the authoritarian POV, though!
-Amy Alkon, former teen sex criminal
Amy Alkon at November 4, 2017 9:50 PM
Sigh. Not what I said.
Radwaste at November 4, 2017 10:00 PM
The latest is a story from Oregon, from The Daily Caller, where Eric Owen reports that public school teachers must now inform the government when they find out a teenager has had sex.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a teacher could "find out" that a kid has had sex.
"Sorry I didn't finish my book report; I was banging Rachel silly all weekend."
Kevin at November 4, 2017 10:07 PM
I think what Rad is saying is this: We need principled discussion on what rights kids do have. This piecemeal approach invites overreach. Kids do not have all the rights of adults, so: what is the kids' Bill of Rights.
Same for adults, actually. Drinking age 21 is idiotic, for example.
a_random_guy at November 5, 2017 12:13 AM
a_r_g, correct. As we can see just on this blog, the colloquial expection of "rights" varies with the individual. "Rights" have been a point of contention for people advancing their own agendas for some time. 50 years ago, you were a kid, you didn't know nothin', you didn't own nothin', etc.
Now, the urge some have to name countless "rights" that kids have has created some really goofy situations. You really want your middle-school kid to use the "Fuck Michigan!" case to load her school newspaper with vulgar nonsense? Don't we have enough of a child fetish already, being helicopters?
Isn't it flatly crazy to claim that "kids have rights" at the exact same time we demand that they be incapable of coping with the basic duties and hazards of merely being outside without Mommy and Daddy?
Here's one case which shows how kids do NOT have rights except as expressed by their guardians: Inheritance includes property no minor may obtain by contract, money in amounts and forms the minor is incompetent to handle by any measure, and firearms the minor is Federally prohibited from possessing alone. No, the minor cannot live life independently.
And this isn't me "popping by to present the authoritarian POV". This situation exists regardless of my expression. It's not a POV.
Radwaste at November 5, 2017 1:11 AM
About rights and responsibilities:
When I was a boy, I was exceedingly careful in the presence of my father, who would not strike me under any circumstances, but who made it clear what was expected of me. So, the spectacle of a 12-year-old running boats to ~60' on Florida's Intracoastal Waterway became common. Salvage and other work on small boats was no big deal.
In his absence, I was subject to peer pressure and made worse decisions.
I would adore a nation that equipped its people with the tools needed to behave responsibly at age 12 or so, but this will not happen in my lifetime. To many people are buying fear to set it aside anytime soon. The vision of a scrubbed, pink face without a care in the world is more valuable to parents than the alert gaze one expects of a border collie; people invent reasons to be proud of their kids, because they generally just aren't doing anything of note. Of course there are exceptions.
Radwaste at November 5, 2017 5:15 AM
I think this is a horrible idea. We are simple sex obsessed and controlling in America.
Here is your scenario Kevin: I actually made contact with the parent before-hand so the mother could help protect her daughter. the girl, a 6th grader who is in special education, seemed vulnerable. She didn't have any girlfriends and was too touchy with the boys, giving them full body hugs. Sure enough she soon had a boyfriend, also in special education. The couple was constantly in turmoil and brought it into the classroom. The boy was in tears and couldn't work when she wouldn't talk to him. Mom said that she let the boy come over because he was from a good family. Later in the year the student was transferred out of the school. In front of the whole class the boy said it was because her mom caught them doing it doggy style.
I wouldn't want to have to report that kind of thing. Obviously the parents were trying to handle it. This has no business being reported to the government. Ew. It just turns my stomach to think of children talking about their sex lives, by force, with an adult. I wish that I could have unheard what I did. By the way, isn't interrogating those kids pretty sketchy? What are they doing, writing child porn?
In my education career, I have made three reports on the suspicion of child abuse. One was on a boy had the skin removed on about 1/5 of his body. When I asked him what happened he said that his daddy said that he couldn't say. COS said that he was just playing tackle football on the asphalt and it was nothing.
Another time a boy had just come back from Christmas break with a broken arm that had gone undetected for 10 days. A. A couple of days later, he came in with belt marks across his face. I'm not sure if it was ever followed up on because dad had just gotten out of jail and CPS was worried that dad was part of a gang.
The third time a couple of students came to me telling me that a student told them that her uncle was trying to mess with her and sent her nude pics. The student denied it and said that she just made up a story to get attention. I asked the school counselor's about it and suggested that they talk to her. I was reminded that it is our duty to report child abuse if we even suspect it and the fact that I was talking to them meant that I must suspect something.
My phone call triggered a huge response. They needed to know the names and addresses of all the siblings and cousins. They were launching a mass interview and probable removal of 14 kids and mentioned sex ring. I said that she denied it and I didn't even know if it was true. The worker said, Well then, that will teach her not to lie."
Yes, I contacted different people at CPS but the level of response variation was interesting to say the least.
Jen at November 5, 2017 6:00 AM
Jen: "Yes, I contacted different people at CPS but the level of response variation was interesting to say the least."
Isn't that the truth.
Sometimes I have to make reports to CPS. I've dealt with CPS workers who'd say anything to get out of having to take the report. And others who seemed like they were itching to wreak havoc on some kid's life and family for the slightest reason.
Ken R at November 5, 2017 9:01 AM
"No, we're not talking about sex with some adult predator, but sex with another teen -- consensual sex with another teen."
Just curious... if it should be OK for a teenager to have consensual sex with another teen, why shouldn't a teenager be allowed to have consensual sex with an adult if he or she so desires?
At what age does having sex with a 16-year-old become predatory? And in what way at that age does it become harmful for the 16-year-old that it wasn't harmful before that age?
Ken R at November 5, 2017 9:34 AM
At what age does having sex with a 16-year-old become predatory? And in what way at that age does it become harmful for the 16-year-old that it wasn't harmful before that age?
Ken R at November 5, 2017 9:34 AM
There ahould be one absolute age of consent preferably low around 14 or 15.
It wouldnt be perfect, and teachers and administrators bonking students should certainly have big civil penalties, but the criminal law is out of hand.
Isab at November 5, 2017 11:30 AM
Unless it's a case of someone at least 5 years older than the teen having sex with the teen, consensual sex (and don't tell me it can't be) is none of government's business. This law should be disobeyed.
jdgalt at November 5, 2017 12:02 PM
Ken R, as I've always understood it, the ages set by statutory rape laws, per se, are about what ADULTS are allowed or not allowed to do with minors. It's all about power imbalance. Plus what the PARENTS want, not about what the minors want. Parents are never going to change their minds on that. Society has more important things to do than to protect the "right" of people old enough to drive to have sex with strangers.
Also, I think the age difference should not be more than 4 years. (I have no idea how laws tend to work when the age of consent is 16 but the two parties are 17 and 21 - I'd assume there'd be no charge.)
But if your "loved one" is under 16, and you're 16 and sick of waiting for sex, too bad. Take it up with the other person's parents - ha ha. Neither STDs or teen pregnancy are rare, and the latter is seriously dangerous for teen girls. That's why the old laws, at least, won't loosen.
lenona at November 5, 2017 1:36 PM
"Unless it's a case of someone at least 5 years older than the teen having sex with the teen,"
What is magic about a five year age differnce? I dont think calculating birthdates is the way to handle this at all.
Isab at November 5, 2017 1:39 PM
"What is magic about a five year age differnce? I dont think calculating birthdates is the way to handle this at all."
You have to have something, because laws are DEFINED. Randall Munroe (and others) has suggested (y/2)+7 as a threshold for legal action. There is argument, and of course there are immature people of all ages and both genders.
And predators. Some would seek a girl like Mathilda based on her experience, twelve years old be damned, on the idea that there's nothing she hasn't seen already.
Something should be done because there are registered sex offenders on the list because an ineffective parent called the cops on a boy they hated - the instant he turned 18. Too bad she's 17, huh, pervert?
Radwaste at November 5, 2017 3:18 PM
You have to have something, because laws are DEFINED. "Randall Munroe (and others) has suggested (y/2)+7 as a threshold for legal action. There is argument, and of course there are immature people of all ages and both genders."
I could go with an absolute max age of 16 for consent to sex, but really think it should be lower.
Under that age, you could start applying the two year age difference or five year age difference down to an age like 11 where full intercourse is automatic child abuse.
But no more prosecuting little kids for playing doctor. The morality police are firmly in control of a lot of our legal institutions. It is too easy for the DA to get acolades for these idiot prosecutions.
Isab at November 5, 2017 5:12 PM
That 7/2+7 metric produces very reasonable results:
- You're 16? You shouldn't date girls younger than (16/2+7) = 15.
- You're 18? You shouldn't date girls younger than (18/2+7) = 16.
- You're 24? You shouldn't date girls younger than 19.
The gap grows with the age. The results for teens are a bit restrictive, but from 18 on up they're pretty reasonable. It also shows that your 80 year old grandpa shouldn't embarrass himself with women younger than 47.
a_random_guy at November 6, 2017 6:32 AM
So ... if I'm reading this correctly, basically teachers need to report almost all of their students being in violation of this law, as I'd consider masturbation a "sex act." Yeah, this one will either flop or be ruled unconstitutional (hopefully).
the other Patrick at November 6, 2017 7:06 AM
given its generally guys getting fucked over who here is surprised lenona sees no problem with the current set up?
In over half of all legal jurisdictions age of consent (AOC) is already 16. For sex, but . . .
Legally anything outside of missionary P in V is not considered "sex"
There are jurisdictions where you as an 80 year old can fuck a 16 year old, but if you are two 16 years engaging in mutual masturbation or oral sex it is a crime
There are jurisdictions where you as a 20 year old can fuck a 17 yer old, but if you send them naughty text messages, nothing more than words, you are guilty of a sex crime.
There are jurisdictions where if you move in to them after your conviction in another jurisdiction but before your sentence has run its course they alter the terms of your punishment
There are jurisdictions where a legal adult can fuck a 16 year old, marry a 17 year old, but having anything other than P in V sex before she is 18 is a crime even if you are married and any pics you take of your wife before she turns 19 is considered child porn.
As to the kids of Oregon, the smart ones will just start screwing in national parks or on reservations where the state has no jurisdiction
lujlp at November 6, 2017 9:08 AM
We might be. Unconsciously. No one admits they want to live under a dictator. But we have a large segment of our population that desires the government to blunt the sharp edges of life and is willing to sacrifice some autonomy for that security.
Conan the Grammarian at November 6, 2017 9:23 AM
lujlp: "As to the kids of Oregon, the smart ones will just start screwing in national parks or on reservations where the state has no jurisdiction"
I doubt it.
But maybe they'll at least be smart enough not to take video and photos of their intimate activities and text them to their closest friends - which then get forwarded on for the next five degrees of separation.
But, as one who works with adolescents on a daily basis, I doubt that too.
You wouldn't believe how many teenage girls come my way after attempting or contemplating suicide because the naked pictures that they shared only with their one forever true love eventually ended up on their fathers' (mother's, brother's, sister's, aunt's, uncle's, pastor's, employer's, coworker's, teacher's, rival's...) cell phone.
Something teenagers have a lot of is impulsiveness. Something they have little of is wisdom and good judgment. Normal, healthy, bright 16-year-olds are still dependent on adults for survival.
Ken R at November 6, 2017 10:35 AM
"This has no business being reported to the government. [...] By the way, isn't interrogating those kids pretty sketchy? "
Yeah, this is going to be McMartin Preschool all over again. Moral crusaders will interview the kids and then decide what they really meant to say. Next thing you know, you're going to be hearing about school-wide sex rings where kids are forced to have sex with zombies and werewolves. And some people will go to prison for a long time because of it.
Cousin Dave at November 6, 2017 5:16 PM
So they can't consent to having sex, but they can consent to having their genitals amputated because they 'feel like a girl today'?
JoJo at November 7, 2017 8:48 AM
lujlp, why don't you go yell at fathers of young girls as well? I doubt THEY see that much wrong with the current legal set-up either, even if they have sons too.
If a teen boy is determined to have sex with strangers - but only those who don't seem older than he is (typical), that's HIS problem. He has no idea just how young she really is, even if she LOOKS older than he. If he wants sex only with girls he knows, chances are they're still going to be underage. Too bad.
Reminds me of a 1992 YA novel by Erika Tamar, "The Truth about Kim O'Hara." From chapter 13 (Andy's probably 16 and has a girlfriend who was adopted from Vietnam):
"I'd read in National Geographic about this tribe somewhere - I forget where, South Seas or something. As soon as a boy reaches puberty, they do a manhood ritual dance and then they give him his own private hut. The girls who've reached puberty go into his hut and have sex with him. If he especially likes one girl, he can invite her to move in with him and the tribe celebrates with a big feather dance. I could do without all that dancing, but the rest makes a lot more sense than the American way. I mean, you get a full blast of hormones before you're fifteen, but you're a pig if you pressure your girlfriend and you can't get married until you're twenty-something, so what are you supposed to do in the meantime?"
Of course, he doesn't take into account that in all likelihood, since the South Sea kids have BOTH reached puberty, the girl not only has to risk death in childbirth (it's far riskier for teens), but even if she doesn't die, HE would still have to support any babies that result, whether from one girl or several, so he'll have no adolescence, really. Any society that believes in book learning also believes in postponing sex, marriage and babies to a certain degree. Period.
Btw, I think a lot of parents are in serious denial about just how blind and selfish hormones can make boys and girls - but especially boys, which is why parents can't assume a teen boy has the common sense he used to have. Any 10-year-old boy pretty much understands, when told, that unwanted sex is disgusting AND illegal, but at 15, it's too easy for him to start thinking: "Wait a minute - how come I have to wait for YEARS for sex until some girl consents, but if a GIRL wants sex on any given day of the week, all she has to do is consent? That's outrageous! Besides, everyone knows there no such thing as unwanted sex! Thus, a woman can't possibly ALWAYS have the legal right to say no!"
This is why "the talk" has to be an Ongoing Thing - with as many good adult male role models as possible.
lenona at November 7, 2017 11:33 AM
Leave a comment