I'd Love Opinions on This!

If a 23 year old man has sex with a 17 year old girl - he can be put in
jail!

If a 17 year old boy has sex with a 23 year old woman and she gets pregnant
- he pays child support! No charges for taking advantage/rape - nothing!
In fact, the judge laughed at the boy at the suggestion he was taken
advantage of!

Opinions - PLEASE!

D Gooes wrote:
If a 23 year old man has sex with a 17 year old girl - he can be put in
jail!

If a 17 year old boy has sex with a 23 year old woman and she gets pregnant
- he pays child support! No charges for taking advantage/rape - nothing!
In fact, the judge laughed at the boy at the suggestion he was taken
advantage of!

Opinions - PLEASE!

Just another example of "separate but equal" treatment of men and women
under the law!

- Ron ^*^

Not sure how the idea of 17tr old paying child support is directly
related to your question. Your question was about serving jail... I'm
assuming on charges of Stat Rape.

For that you would have have to check your local state laws... I
believe the consentual age is at 16 now in most places... but don't
quote me on that.

"D Gooes" wrote in message
.. .
If a 23 year old man has sex with a 17 year old girl - he can be put in
jail!

If a 17 year old boy has sex with a 23 year old woman and she gets
pregnant
- he pays child support! No charges for taking advantage/rape - nothing!
In fact, the judge laughed at the boy at the suggestion he was taken
advantage of!

Opinions - PLEASE!

The legal term you're thinking of is called "Statutory Rape".
Merriam-Webster describes it as:

Function: noun
: sexual intercourse with a person who is below the statutory age of consent

Prosecution of such an offence depends upon several things. Mostly whether
or not the local DA can make a case stick.

The other major issue is that in several states, someone who is 17 years of
age is old enough to decide for themselves. In some states this "age of
consent" is lower, in still others it is higher.

Now, if you make some minor changes to your scenario, say change the age of
the minor in question to, oh, say 13 or 14.. Then the matter becomes
something altogether different. Then it becomes a case of rape - even if
the minor consented to the act.

On the other hand, you're issue of a 17 year old paying C$ to a 23 year old
is a moral issue.

Should they have done it? Who knows. But they are both old enough to know
how babies are made and "should have known better" then to have unprotected
sex. IMO this is why the judge may have gotten a chuckle out of someone
wanting to call sex between a 17 year old and a 23 year old rape.

Besides, there are some very public cases out there where an underage boy
had sex with an older woman (whether is was forced or not is irrelevant).
She became pregnant and he was told to pay C$.

Is it fair? No. But you need to realize something - the law isn't about
being fair. Hell, it isn't even about justice! It's about the law and only
the law. Everything else is bull sh*t in the eyes of the law. It is only
concerned about itself and those who broke it.

As to my opinion on a 23 y/o man having sex with a 17 y/o girl/woman.. Well,
even if you turn it around (she 23, he 17), I'd side with the judge -
they're old enough to know what the heck their doing.

It's a matter of peoples perspectives.

Age of consent is usually a graduated scale. 16 if partner is under 21.
18 if not. I think it is as low as 14 in some states and some states
have silly laws where a person 1 day older then their partner could be
jailed.

wrote:

Age of consent is usually a graduated scale. 16 if partner is under 21.
18 if not. I think it is as low as 14 in some states and some states
have silly laws where a person 1 day older then their partner could be
jailed.

Laws like that give me a huge boner. I like to visit the people jailed
because of stupid laws, then go home and stroke it thinking about them
rotting in jail for no good reason. It's just so SEXY!!!

THANK YOU, idiots!

- Ron ^*^