Should a 13-Year-Old and Her 12-Year-Old Partner Really Be Considered Sex Offenders?


Last Tuesday, the Utah Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that should make us once again reconsider our age-of-consent laws. In 2003, an unnamed 13-year-old girl had “consensual sex” with her then-12-year-old boyfriend. The state learned of this relationship when she became pregnant, filing delinquency petitions against both teens for committing sexual abuse of a child. The young woman, who is now 23, wants the court to overturn the finding of delinquency. She and her attorney are arguing that she can’t be both the victim and the perpetrator of the exact same crime. Moreover, they say that she is not being treated fairly under the law because older teens are not prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity with someone of a similar age. The state, however, is not backing down, saying that it has an interest in protecting children, even if it is from other children.

As RH Reality Check has reported in the past, age-of-consent laws in this country vary by state and can be quite complicated. The specifics of each state’s law can result in some cases in which seemingly consensual relationships between teenagers (say a 15-year-old sophomore and her 18-year-old senior boyfriend) become criminal cases. Though the government has an interest in protecting teenagers from sexual exploitation, such cases must make us question whether criminalizing teen sex is the way to go, especially because the laws are unevenly enforced, often at the whim of an angry parent or overzealous law enforcement official.

The case in Utah is particularly disturbing because the teens in question were so young; while there may be disagreement among adults about whether 15- or 16-year-olds are mature enough for sexual relationships, most everyone agrees that 12- and 13-year-olds are not. Still, should too young automatically mean criminal? I would argue that very young teens who have sex do need adult intervention, but I don’t think those adults should be police officers, lawyers, and judges.

Age-of-Consent Laws

The age of consent is simply the age at which an individual can legally consent to sexual intercourse under any circumstance. There are only 12 states, however, that have a simple age-of-consent law in which the state names an age (such as 16) and says that teens that age or older can consent to sex, but sex with anyone under that age is illegal. Most states do try to add a little nuance into their laws.

States make a number of distinctions about the age of both the “victim” and the “perpetrator.” Some states note the minimum age of a victim, which is the age below which an individual cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse under any circumstance. In a number of states, if the victim is above the minimum age but below the age of consent, the issue becomes the age differential, or the maximum allowable age difference between the victim and the perpetrator. Finally, many states name a minimum age of the defendant as the age below which individuals cannot be prosecuted for engaging in sexual activities with minors.

Utah’s law is actually quite specific for teens ages 14 and older. For example, 14- and 15-year-olds cannot consent to any kind of penetration (oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse), but can consent to sexual touching as long as their partner is not more than seven years older. This would mean that a 16-year-old who has oral sex with a 14-year-old is committing a crime, as is a 22-year-old who has any sexual contact with a 15-year-old. But a 20-year-old can fool around with his or her 14-year-old partner without fear of prosecution, as long as there is no penetration.

The rules change as teens get older: 16- and 17-year-olds can consent to all kinds of sex, including penetration, but only if their partner is not more than ten years their senior. So the young teens in the case at hand would have been well within the law to have intercourse had each been four years older, because the age gap between them was so small. A much bigger age gap would have even been acceptable—in fact, had the youngest person in the couple been 16 years old, his or her partner could have been 25 years old without causing any legal incident (though I certainly would question the power dynamics of a relationship between a 16-year-old and a 25-year-old).

The case at issue may represent the perfect storm that no legislator in Utah ever anticipated. In Utah, the minimum age of the victim is 14, which means that there are no circumstances in which anyone under 14 can legally consent to sex. There is, however, no minimum age of the defendant. So whereas in other states a 13-year-old is considered too young to prosecute, that is not true in Utah—which is how we ended up in a situation in which the young woman was considered both the victim and perpetrator of the exact same crime.

As they were hearing oral arguments in this case last week, the justices of the Utah Supreme Court acknowledged that they were having trouble with this predicament. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Chief Justice Christine Durnham wondered if the state legislature had intended this “peculiar consequence” in which a child would have simultaneous status of a protected person and an alleged perpetrator under the law. Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins noted, “The only thing that comes close to this is dueling,” suggesting that when two people agree to take 20 paces and then shoot, they could each be considered both victim and offender.

Stop Treating Teen Sex as a Crime

Maybe the reason that the justices couldn’t think of an analogous situation (or at least one that has occurred more recently than 1842) is because they were tied down to thinking of teen sex as a crime. In some ways, it’s reassuring that Utah lawmakers tried to make their law more subtle than “You’re too young, don’t do it.” But in the end what they came up with was a series of algebra problems—“if you’re X and your partner is less than X+7, you can touch here, here, and here, but not here.” Teen sex cannot be reduced to an equation, and should not be reduced to a crime.

A 12-year-old and a 13-year-old who have sex do not need legal intervention, but that’s not to say they don’t need help from adults. First, we have to remember that sex between these two ended in pregnancy, so it’s clear that at the very least these two needed an adult in their life—whether a parent, teacher, counselor, faith leader, or health-care provider—who could provide information about the importance of using contraception and/or access to methods themselves. They also needed this adult to help them think critically about why they chose to have sex (did they want to feel closer, or were they trying to gain popularity, indulge their curiosity, or keep the other from breaking up with them) and whether they should continue to do so. Some reasons are better than others, but even if the reasons are good, that doesn’t mean they should lead to intercourse. There are certainly other, better ways to express love or feel closer—especially at 13. These teens needed an adult who could help them sort this out. In addition, research has shown that teens who have sex at younger ages are more likely to have experienced abuse and to engage in other risky behaviors such as alcohol and drug use. Adult intervention should also have looked into what else was going on in their lives at the time.

Laws that criminalize sex among young teenagers could actually discourage these important conversations, because the young person doesn’t want to admit to doing something illegal or the adult feels compelled to point out only that having sex is against the law rather than risk going into the finer details of sexual decision-making.

The instinct to protect young people from exploitation is a good one, and obviously we need to protect teens from adults, especially those in positions of trust and power, who take advantage of them. But our rush to legislate the intricacies of sexual relationships between teens shows that we still view teen sex as inherently problematic, as something that needs to be fixed or prevented. As a result of this underlying belief, the laws we have ended up with often seem to hurt those who they are meant to protect.

While the Utah high court deliberates the specifics of this case, maybe the rest of us should be thinking about better ways to understand and react to sex between teenagers.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Martha Kempner on twitter: @MarthaKempner

  • formerbuckeye

    It sounds like both the boy and girl in the relationship are being equally charged as perpetrators while being equally qualified for victim status under the law – which is just a shining example of a stupid law. I agree that one should not be criminalized and placed on a registered sex offender list for what is, in reality, a victimless crime (which this instance certainly sounds like). If, however, both parties are being charged, which is how the article makes it sounds, then the young man in question is in as much risk of being forced to register as a sex offender as the young woman is.

    • cjvg

      For that reason I had the word (female) in front of victim in-between parentheses, and I did the same with the word (girl) in front of children!

  • Lindsted

    Thank you for your insightful review of this topic. It’s a touch thing to write about in this country but very much needs more discussion like yours.

  • Robert Curtis

    Oh, young love! Well, here we can say, “extremely young love”, but in the news a few weeks ago in the middle East a grown man married an 8 year old girl and killed her by raping her until she bled to death. What happen to the guy? nothing.

    Here in the States two very young love birds become sex offenders for having consensual sex. We are in the information age where children have access to porn sites. Kids are curious by nature and given that the internet can be used as an instruction manual should we really surprised?

    So we have this Draconian sex offender registry that violates everything from the Gospel of Christ and forgiveness to violating the US Constitution with it’s ex post facto measures against those that have gone through the Grinder of probation/parole, therapy and time served.

    The Sex Offender Registry is a slap in the face of both liberty and justice. The Constitution is being violated by both those that must summit to the registration and those that administer the registration (law Enforcement). The registry It is a form of LIVING DEATH, it is Evil and it is Wrong. It should be abolished plain and simple. Why do we have parole departments? That’s right to sift out those that are dangerous while on parole for 3 to 5 years. Let these professionals do their jobs and get rid of the registry. TRUTH

    • cj99.willingness99@gmail.com

      Yes forcing 12 & 13 year olds into a lifelong criminal stigma as “sex offenders” is far more of an obscenitiy than what they did. Sex offender laws are meant to protect children from predatory adults not as a punitive measure to punish all physical contact.

    • colleen2

      The sex offender registry is, on the whole, a great idea. It allows others to identify those who would harm them and their children.. I certainly do not believe that children should be placed on it but predatory adults (who constitute 99% of those on the sex offender rolls) certainly should. The United States is a rape prone culture. The sex offender rolls are a start but not the entire solution to changing that fact.

      • Robert Curtis

        99% of those on the registry are predatory? How do you define predatory? According to the latest Department of Justice report registered sex offenders have only a 1.9% recidivism rate. The registry has been used to locate and kill registrants and their families in their homes. That is to high of a price to be paid for having an online hit list. The numbers (1.9%) don’t justify the degree of harm it causes. Truth is most new sex crimes are committed by people with no recorded history of sexual violations. It’s usually from someone in a family photo or known to the victim not from someone that has been through the grinder of probation, therapy and time served. TRUTH

        • Arekushieru

          And what about the harm they cause their VICTIMS? Oh, but, no, the poor sex offender must be protected from harm, no matter what the cost, even if it harms the victim, FURTHER.

      • cvxxx

        Very wrong. Many are not villains but people who were caught with public urination or mooning,or having a sex partner too “young”. Check out the sex crimes in your state and find out if you having petting sessions were now considered a criminal.

        • Arekushieru

          And public urination and mooning are not acceptable behaviours. DERP. And non-consensual ‘petting’ sessions ARE criminal.

          • cvxxx

            There is a difference between “acceptable” behavior and criminal. Needing to urinate when no public facility is available does not need to be criminalized nor does other behavior that is perhaps annoying. Destroying lives is not ever acceptable.
            Sex offenders need to be the truly dangerous. Not the annoying. laws could be better written too.

          • Arekushieru

            We are talking about PUBLIC urination. This means, relieving yourself in front of others, which can be listed as one of the many sex-related crimes committed on children. And, of course, you make no comment about the destroyed lives of victims. Wonder why…?

          • cvxxx

            How many communities have a Porta Potty close? What does one on a hike where there are no facilities? What sex crime to be human? we all have to go. Many assume everyone is just like us we know that x business has restrooms and we can go there but that may be true in one place an not true in others. What destroyed lives of observing reality. Public urination is a person going behind a dumpster to relieve themselves or behind some bushes but is some states the laws are badly written. On a long hike out in the wild going behind bushes is time honored.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, I have BEEN homeless. I have always gone where there is NO ONE ELSE around. So, do cite those cases where someone has been charged with public indecency for having urinated behind a garbage dumpster. Thanks.

          • cvxxx

            I too have been homeless. I was shocked to read the state law. I assume that usually it is selectively enforced. But just being on the books as a sex crime is appalling.

        • colleen

          Please, 99.99% of the men and women on sex offender lists are on them for non-frivolous crimes. Indeed I’ve never heard of someopne being put on one for mooning alone.

          As for having sex with a partner “too young”, Is that how you ended up on a sex offender list? Or was it because you raped your dates?

    • Origami_Isopod

      “The Sex Offender Registry is a slap in the face of both liberty and justice.”

      HI PEDO

  • James Huber

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that Utah has backwards and repressive laws regarding sexuality.

    • cvxxx

      Have you checked your own state?

      • James Huber

        Oddly enough, yes. I live in California. We have Romeo and Juliette laws (statutory rape doesn’t apply if the couple is within two years of each other) and Juveniles pretty much get a clean slate when they turn 18.

        But your point is valid: Utah is by no means the only place in the U.S. still stuck in the 19th century.

        • cvxxx

          Each state is different in some it is 4 to 5 years difference. 2 years is pretty short as a 3 year high school might have 5 year difference in age or more.

          • James Huber

            The basic idea behind statutory rape is that minors lack the judgement needed for genuine consent. When an adult has sex with a minor they are doing so without genuine consent, and by definition that’s rape. When both parties are minors that same presumed lack of judgement mitigates their guilt.

            The point of Romeo and Juliette laws is *not* that consent exists when people are nearly the same age, they just recognize that the age of consent is an artificial construct. In the real world, people people gain judgement over time and at different rates, meaning that if two 17 year-olds are sleeping together it doesn’t suddenly become creepier when one of them has a birthday.

            I think a 19 year-old having a sex with a 17 year-old is pushing it a little, but I can see giving them the benefit of the doubt. I think that, barring some sort of extreme extenuating circumstances, an 18 year-old having sex with a 13 year-old is criminal.

          • cvxxx

            5year range is good with liability. By liability a minor gaing access to adult areas (bars clubs etc) is stripped of any legal protection and must face the music. The parents usually are the ones with wounded pride. When the minor is found drinking or in a club or having sex it’s always some one else at fault.

          • James Huber

            I don’t understand what you’re saying or how it relates to the question of whether or not a adult should be legally allowed to have sex with a child.

          • cvxxx

            The problem is definition as in nature or economically viable. The maturity rate has changed. But the economic rate is about the same. In most the requirement for education past high school is usually necessary for better paid living wage employment.
            The current definition of child is silly. A high school student may range in age(by birthday) 13-19. So there would be 6 year distance.

            Then is some place a person can graduate from High school early many do to start college. This bring about social problems. Googling “youngest college student” one was 8! Another finished law schools and passed the bar at 18!

            AT the moment I have no answer because it is so individual. The administration at my university did not like under age students for legal reasons. After all they go to classes with the expected aged students. They will socialize with them.

            At 16 Alexander the Great was regent and successful battle commander. There are plenty of teenage kings and queens,generals in history. It is a dilemma.

          • James Huber

            Why is it so important that everyone attending the same school be legally allowed to have sex with each other? Just because there are situations where an adult can socialize with a child? That’s a criteria that would make Magic the Gathering night at the local game store a paedophile’s wet dream.

            There are far more 50 year-old people in college than there are 8 year-old people. I’m pretty sure you don’t want the law changed to apply Romeo and Juliette laws in those cases.

            I also don’t think intellectual maturity, emotional maturity, and good judgement are the same thing. And I really really don’t think it’s a good idea to base laws around one-in-a-million extraordinary cases

          • cvxxx

            I think there is a misunderstanding. I was showing the legal problems that can occur because the legal structure is on the convoy system. A brilliant 8 year old in college could be a brilliant 15 year old in a Phd program.
            To use you example: we could not expect a brilliant 14 year old to want to socialize with middle school students when they are in grad school and yes there needs to be exceptions not only for achievement but for fraud (which is a lot more common). The criteria of who is a child varies widely. So the wisdom factor is not there.
            Yes it is important that the laws acknowledge reality rather that a set assumption. On the subject at hand there is no reason to destroy the lives of these kids because of someone ‘s outrage.

          • Arekushieru

            Did you even read mine or James comments? Intellectual and emotional maturity are NOT the same?

          • cvxxx

            It does not matter. Doing evil under the guide of supposed good is still evil. Of course Intellectual and emotional maturity are not the same. Assumptions are worthless because they are not reality. In the real world people choose partners because of many factors. The social circle is one of those items.

          • Arekushieru

            Consent is all that matters when it comes to engaging in sexual relations. Any other consideration merely affects your choice of PARTNER(S). Being equal, in sexual relationships, does not mean having the same number of partners to choose from, it means being able to navigate their interactions on a LEVEL playing field. If you insist on basing equality on the former, there can NEVER be equality on the latter, however. Seriously, why is that SO fucking difficult to understand? In order to fully consent to sex, one must have the same level of emotional maturity AND must always give an ongoing and explicit positive answer to each engagement.

          • James Huber

            Great, let them socialize. But you still haven’t explained why that should include letting much older people have sex with them.

          • cvxxx

            What’s much older? And why is the objection? Social bias? the boy/girl next door? Who will they choose their sex partners from a catalog? While it can depend from where one views this. I deal in reality. I see no reason to destroy lives over what at best is prejudice. The idea of how it is supposed to be in the imagination of some person or persons never trumps the reality of truth. It is what it is.

          • James Huber

            More than a couple of years is “much older” when you’re dealing with teenagers. My objection is that 99 times out of a 100 when a 19 year-old is having sex with a 14 year-old the 14 year-old is being taken advantage of in ways that can adversely affect them for the rest of their lives. I have no problem destroying the lives of people who prey on children.

          • cvxxx

            I over looked your reply in my crowded spam filled email. I ran across this google:

            was-sex-with-children-ever-okay

            it is from Time I checked the Google. I understand any links get moderated

          • James Huber

            The main person discussed in that article talks about how he was molested as child, once, briefly, and found it very unpleasant. It wasn’t consensual. It wasn’t something he chose to do. It was unambiguously wrong. It’s just that he was able to get over it with out much trouble.

            I’ve been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point it’s really hard to see as as anything other than an apologist for child molestation.

            I’m done.

          • cvxxx

            I am a realist against prejudiced and ignorant people who do not want to differ from closely held beliefs which have no validity.

          • Origami_Isopod

            He’s a rape apologist who has left pro-rape comments on other threads.

          • Arekushieru

            THANK you!

  • wildthang

    Sex shouldn’t be criminalized in most cases and should be handled by trained sex therapists or someone who understand humans sexual behavior. This is like making it illegal to be human. You know what they really want is to make sex outside of monotonous monogamy illegal and controlled by the state. Group marriage however should be legal, which it is, if you discount the rules of legal marriage and use consensual contracts to define rights. Age of consent should be puberty with a sexual learner permit and professional council ans supervision until legal age. Our sexually repressive society causes most of our problems particularly by making sexual alternative foreplay and sex work and consensual clubs stigmatized and subject to selective enforcements. Meanwhile aggression is running rampant and leading to excessive use of wars for dominance and submission. War is a rape of one country by another.

    • cj99.willingness99@gmail.com

      I’ve thought for a long time political conservatives & repressive religious zealots would make it illegal to be human if they could avoid prosecution themselves.

    • Arekushieru

      Except that sex work and clubs aren’t actually ‘consensual’. Pretty much agree with everything else, though. Except for the part about when children should be granted sexual learning permits. I think it should be a case-by-case thing. Children should be given age-appropriate sex ed and they should be given permits based on their learning ability.

      • Origami_Isopod

        Uh, yes, sex work and clubs can be consensual. Prohibitionist feminists are not actually helping sex workers, who need harm reduction.

        • Arekushieru

          I am not a Prohibitionist. I should suggest that you read people’s other posts before making assumptions, next time (because it seems you have a habit of NOT doing that). What I AM saying, however, is that sex work, whether one enters into it willingly, is STILL not consensual, because of those very power differentials that you discussed in your post, below, hence the quotation marks around consensual and preceded by the word actually? Kthx.

    • colleen2

      Age of consent should be puberty with a sexual learner permit and professional council ans supervision until legal age.

      I think not. I understand that many adult males like to prey on the 10-13 year old children and when they do so they generally harm them physically and psychologically. Girls reach puberty quite early these days and what you suggest is to make it legal for adult men to have sex with any pubescent child as long as she ‘consents’. that will happen when hell freezes over. Children cannot drive, smoke or cannot legally consent to sex for good reason. Indeed ‘sex’ with pubescent children is not ‘sex’, it is RAPE. Children are NOT sex objects. If you use them as such you belong in jail.

      • wildthang

        The 13 year old girl and 12 year old boyfriend?So who was preying, the girl? I think neither in this case. The learners permit is considered by some European countries but it is a more reasonable sexual environment than here where it is all about individuality and learning on our own via peers.Here Joyce Elders is fired for suggesting masturbation so not much chance of having professionals in child sexual development do any kind of counciling of sexual matters, problems or paraphilias to aid their successful social development likely just bating of gays and tom boy like Winona Ryder was. Some South Pacific cultures do have sexual learning via adults that is not exploitative. Just because we are doesn’t make a non issue it just means we have no chance of being realistic…
        Even the Kinsey’s and Master&Johnson’s are demonized in our realistic and aggressive warlike culture where everything is about power dynamics where rape and spousal abuse is rampant..

        • colleen2

          I CLEARLY limited my response to adults preying on children and other adults in response to your suggestion that we end the use of sex offender lists and declare open season on pubescent children. 99% of the people on the sex offender lists are those who rape children or women. We have AoC and sex offender registries to counteract the tendency of some adults to prey on children and other adults. ANYTHING that counteracts that tendency is a good idea.

          Do I think that these two children belong on a sex offender registry? Not in a million years. Do I think the sex offender registries are an excellent idea? Absolutely. You are the person arguing to end all sex offender registries because Republican states are punitive towards female sexuality. There is nothing “realistic” about enabling and encouraging the rape of children and that is precisely what you are doing.

          • wildthang

            Which isn’t what I was talking about to begin with. Sex offender registries however are becoming meaningless because no one can get off them when incorrectly tagged and lots are being incorrectly tagged in addition to those who should be. And wars aren’t being tagged at all. Anything is what sometimes gets us into trouble, sometimes nothing turns out to be better than anything just for a counterpoint about actions that fit the needs. There are lots of consensual offenders on the list and data rapist and the stigma is so great people actually will be afraid to report things for early treatment or attention in our strictly punitive society. We are one trick wonders for punishment yet all we get are prisons full to overflowing. And the punishers often are not versed in anything but sexual issues ignorance and hysteria like the day care sex abuse hypnosis epidemic in the 80′s..

          • nettwench14

            Date rapists should be on the sex offender list! You don’t make much sense, and sound like a whack job. And I usually do not use pejoratives, but you have some really disgusting ideas. I’d hate to ask what your idea of a “consensual offender” is – yikes!

          • cvxxx

            Consensual offender can be a person the law(like in the case cited) defines as unable to give consent. Worse it does not protect against fraud as many of these laws are with out a defense. The most common would be a underage person in a club or bar with false ID.

          • Arekushieru

            If the person is unable to give consent they are not ‘consensual offenders’. A person who rapes someone else when the former is in a fugue state DID commit rape, however, it cannot be considered rape with criminal intent. That’s the ONLY difference.

          • wildthang

            Go ahead put everyone in jail and on list and see where it gets you. Most date rapes don’t get reported and in the past weren’t even called rapes. So they continue to happen. In this case by the way consensual offenders were 12 and 13 and are on a list for life which is what they want relief from. What we see here is examples of hysteria over sex form a sexually repressed society that feeds on it. There are plenty of 18 to 17 to 16 year olds branded for life too… if you have thousands on a list for your community how will you know which ones are actually a threat. Some people are on the list and then get released from prison due to DNA evidence convicting someone else and have to continue reportiing and being labeled in their community.

          • Arekushieru

            And that’s not the fault of the Sex Offender Registry, which YOU are not understanding. It’s the FAULT of an attitude that you actually appear to SUPPORT. That it’s the victim’s fault if they get raped, because consent is not an issue for you, it’s whether or not the sex offender might actually be harmed, and THAT is sexually REPRESSIVE, not progressive. Let me lay it out for ya, consent is progressive, limiting harms to those who dare to harm others is not, and is a BIG piece of the sexually repressive society that SoCon Republicans would like to create. Oops.

          • colleen2

            You said:

            “Sex shouldn’t be criminalized in most cases and should be handled by trained sex therapists or someone who understand humans sexual behavior.
            This is like making it illegal to be human.”

            You said:

            “Age of consent should be puberty with a sexual learner permit and professional council ans supervision until legal age.”

            so that is precisely what you were talking about. When adults have sex with pubescent children that is rape. The fact that you are deliberately conflating ‘sex’ with the rape of barely pubescent children troubling. The fact that you go further and say:

            “Go ahead put everyone in jail and on list and see where it gets you.”

            is odd because NOBODY is talking about putting anyone but rapists and pedophiles on the sex offender list. Most people are not rapists and most men are not rapists. Raping women and children is not normal male sexual behavior. It is criminal behavior and a felony.

            As for 16-18 year olds being branded for life, that sounds a bit hysterical. If a 16 year old raped his date he belongs on that list. If an 18 year old raped a child he belongs on that list for LIFE as far as I am concerned. I do not care about the civil rights of rapists anymore than rapists care about the dignity of their victims. Rapists are sick perverts. Got it? good.

          • wildthang

            Iraq was a rape too. I didn’t say consenting over 18 year olds, the story has 12 and 13 years. Project on someone else. all sex is not rape. Those children can be rioted as adults in some case so society has a problem not handled by hysterical people when the physical and mental development is different. Some state now 16 year old can marry so get over it. I did say some cultures have adult surrogates and we are not as open minded as them.. We would rather frigidity into people until they can thaw out at 21 but some do not thaw out.

            What we do have is an overabundance of aggression in all aspects of life such as conversations such as these which is part of an a society of abuse and dominance behaviors. In fact war is a major part of all of our institutions jockeying for power and punishment.

          • colleen2

            I quoted what you said and did so accurately and within context. The evidence is in the above thread. Find another blog to troll. You’re disgusting.

          • wildthang

            Your disgust and aggression is the problem in relating to sexual matter hysterically. I may not like your ideas but you do not disgust me. The entire article above related to consent and teenage sex and the nuances of age relative to sexual behavior and adulthood. I stated offenders list are becoming meaningless due to the vast range of behaviors being used to flag people for life, not that they aren’t useful in some cases. People can be killed for being on such lists and the consequences are considerable for someone on a list they do not deserve to be on is the point not the ones that do deserve to be. I think you already have me on the list just for my ideas. Meanwhile few people get this upset about hundreds of thousand killed in Iraq and depleted uranium birth defects of horrific nature that some children will be plagued with their entire life..

          • colleen2

            my disgust is reserved for rapists.

          • wildthang

            I guess that’s what you called me then and would put me on a list. Some people are just put on lists because they disgust someone for no actions are all.

          • Arekushieru

            Please, not this tired old tripe, again. Just because XX has it worse, YY should not be able to complain…. Because, the flip side of that means… if someone has it better than you, you should not be able to feel happy about your own lot in life. Not to mention, that it’s just sick in and of itself to compare the two.

            And what about the victims that are killed or harmed? Why does no one ever concern themselves with THAT narrative, except the overused excuse, but it hurts the CRIMINALS. What about THEIR rights? FFS. Their rights are already protected. And we’ve already heard enough about that. It’s time to focus on the VICTIMS. Thanks.

          • wildthang

            Don’t believe our aggressive country is the problem and the same aggression directed toward people to solve only adds to it? Incidentally protection are to protect the innocent who can be wrongly accused due to hysteria to begin with and vigilante justice. Aggression and hatred is the same wherever it is and whenever complex problems are distilled into simple solution of force and more aggression. No one cares about an illegal invasion of Iraq that cost lots of lives of innocent women and children but here we have a cause worthy of incredible hysteria because it relates to sex. But war is a rape of an entire country..

          • Arekushieru

            Seriously, HOW can you NOT see your OWN irrationality? YOU are talking about protecting ‘innocent’ soldiers. Like the one that Omar Khadr was presumed to have killed, while condoning the persecution and witch hunt that sought to charge and convict Omar without a fair trial. After all, you are talking about protecting the ones who have PERPETRATED an atrocity on others, and, whether or not the medic that Omar is presumed to have killed may have participated in that, that’s certainly something the company of the soldiers he was IN, did. At the very least, it would have given Mr. Khadr good reason to lob the bomb that was presumed to have killed that medic, anyways. But, like the rapists, you would prefer these people got off scot-free while their victims paid with their lives, whether through death or pain, suffering and anguish.

            WE are the ones talking about protecting innocent civilians. Like the rape victims it is THEIR rights that have been violated, not the rapists NOR the ‘innocent’ soldiers. Yet, strangely, you continue to conflate innocent civilians with rapists. Perhaps you just want to distract us from your real goal: make it impossible for sex offenders to be punitively charged, thereby increasing instances of aggressive retaliation, in order to complain about how morally corrupt and ‘hysterical’ the Western World has become. Too bad you sound like a Right Winger. Allow men (and adults) to rape and pillage as they please, but constrain women and children from entering into healthy sexual relationships. Now, WHO sounds like the repressive one? Hint: it’s not US. Oops.

            And, will you PLEASE stop trivializing rape and war by conflating the two? Kthxfinbainow.

          • wildthang

            Invading a country without cause is like blaming someone for rape without cause via hysteria. Rights imply having a good reason in both cases. Law are also to protect the innocent from being wrongly punished for something they did not do and everyone tries to say they protect the guilty. What was Iraq guilty of and what war the 12 and 13 year guilty of to be put on a list? Since Iraq was not guilty of anything I saw they were worse than raped, they were murdered in cold blood because we had no fear of imminent attack whatsoever.

            I will conflate what I want to in free discussion despite your spite and irrationality.

          • KrisDStar

            16 is not 8. And at 16 there must be parental consent for marriage in most states. Any parent that consents to allowing their 8 year old to have sex has problems, and probably should have their child removed from their home.

          • Origami_Isopod

            No. Stop using “rape” metaphorically while defending it literally. God, some male liberals are disgusting.

          • Arekushieru

            And perhaps the ‘frigidity’ is ‘into people’ because of others such as yourself? And, perhaps, some are just asexual, like MYself, rather than that they lost interest in sex because of X or Y circumstances?

          • Arekushieru

            Of course, more victim-blaming, which proves my point above. Otherwise, but not limited to this, you could make the opposite argument and NOT be a victim-blamer. Simply, the fact that lots of them are being correctly tagged so we should KEEP the sex offenders registry. DERP.

            Also, punitive measures ARE required AFTER someone commits a crime to protect the VICTIMS. Before that, yes, any and all help SHOULD be available. BECAUSE, speaking specifically to this situation, there are no victims.

          • Robert Curtis

            Give us your sources for your 99% figure.

            I’ve give you mine: According to the Department of Justice latest report there is only a 1.9% recidivism rate for registered sex offenders.

            If we have a registry it should be for those on probation or parole and for police access only, but if it is to be accessed by the public those accessing it should have to do so through a local Sheriff’s Department website where they must give their verified personal information.

          • Arekushieru

            “We have AoC and sex offender registries to counteract the tendency of
            some adults to prey on children and other adults. ANYTHING that
            counteracts that tendency is a good idea.”

            Didn’t read this, did you? The sex offender registry also serves as a DETERRENT. Simple, no? Also, the majority of rapes are NOT reported. But, for some reason, you aren’t seeing how that might contribute to the low rate of recidivism. Of course, I forgot, it’s protect the sex offenders, ignore the VICTIMS, with you people.

            As is evidenced by THIS sickening phrase: but if it is to be accessed by the public those accessing it should have to do so through a local Sheriff’s Department website where they must give their verified personal information; hmm, so a victims information can be made public through court and legal proceedings and easily accessed by their rapist, but the victims should not be given that same right? Yeah, you are fucking sick.

          • Arekushieru

            And, in some cases, he SOUNDS like a Republican. I mean crying about the poor sex offenders being harmed, talking about how adults should ‘lead’ children, then complaining about power dynamics/differentials (gee, I wonder who THAT sounds like? MRAs, Republicans like Rick Santorum, etc… perhaps? After all, Republicans are the ones who promote purity culture precisely because they believe in spare the rod, spoil the child, then have them AND MRAs turn around and claim that women/children are the ones leading them on) because increasing power differentials is EXACTLY what he’s advocating for, false equivalency, victim-blaming, because, again, that is exactly what his proposals will LEAD to, etc….

    • KrisDStar

      Puberty – oh heck no. Some girls go through puberty at 8. No way an 8 year old should be having sex with a 20 year old, a 50 year old.
      Their frontal lobes are not developed enough to determine how consequences apply yet. That doesn’t happen until late teens/early 20s. If we’re going to use biology, then lets use the latest biology timeline – frontal lobe development. At which case, it would be mid to late teens. The idea is to protect the children, not open them up to further victimization by older adults.

      • wildthang

        Did i specify what kind of instruction and sex learning permitted at puberty? Did I say open ended learner permit and consent at puberty with any age? Did I say everyone should at the age of puberty be on their own to learn from peers with nothing much but trial and error and ignorance. Sexual hysteria prevents all logical sex education from puberty on regarding masturbation and everything else in addition to actual sex and all the difficult issues they have to handle including sexual orientations and paraphilias.. Humans simply cannot handle that physical and mental development happen at different rate so they just decide to ignore it and make lots of ridiculous religious rules to dictate people lives with ignorance born from times when biological functions and health were barely understood at all.

        • colleen2

          you said the age of consent should be puberty. You added no qualifiers.

          • wildthang

            Then I’ll qualify it, people at puberty have some right to their body no matter what you or anyone elks thinks about it and the are always qualifiers and there are no absolutes and laws don’t define everything in life without using judgement. See link below of someones considered use of judgement from this same site.

          • colleen2

            Of course Children have every right to their own body. Adults do not have the right to have sex with them. You appear to be proposing that it’s OK if children have sex with adults as long as the child ‘consents’. I am telling you that adults who think this way are sick fucks who belong in jail.

          • wildthang

            So you believe is putting people in jail for thinking?

          • colleen2

            I believe in putting people in jail when they prey on children.

          • Origami_Isopod

            Again, you keep denying rape when it’s literal and applying the term to situations in which it doesn’t belong. Typical of rape apologists.

          • cj99.willingness99@gmail.com

            a 12 yr old & 13 yr old doing the wild thing is vastly different from a 12 year old being with someone in their 30′s 40′s or 50′s. the former may not be a wise thing in many cases (being inexperienced in life & not knowing repurcussions), the latter is the older person taking unfair advantage.

    • Origami_Isopod

      Your inability to understand power differentials between ages and genders is appalling. You sound like a throwback to the 1970s, celebrating “sexual freedom” while glossing over all the rape and other sexual abuse that happened back then.

  • Arekushieru

    Um, were you not reading the entire article? If the girl was 13 and her boyfriend was 12, she would have only been 17 at the time of the court proceedings mentioned in your link. However, the article, above, CLEARLY states that the girl is *now *23. So, *obviously*, the matter has NOT been resolved.

  • hoppytoad79

    I find it laughable two kids having sex would be considered a crime. Seriously? If that’s the case, I wonder how many sex offenders I was friends with in junior high. Should I report the ones I know are sex offenders to the police now, to make sure they won’t be allowed around young children anymore? [/sarcasm] The only people in this situation who are at fault are the ones who charged and convicted the boy and girl as sex offenders.

  • Stev84

    Their holy prophet Joseph Smith liked to have sex with young girls. So they shouldn’t have a problem with this.

  • cvxxx

    The problem is is that this society has a problem with sexuality. In the last 40 years it has become more confused. Truth is 14 year olds do have sex. perhaps a small percentage. But it is difficult for people to realize this until they come across some of the crazy quilt laws of the different states.

    • colleen2

      Truth is 14 year olds DO have sex. Truth is the country is full of adult men who regard 14 year olds as legitimate prey. Which is why when an adult male has sex with little girls he ends up in jail and on the sex offender rolls.

      • cvxxx

        The admission that teenager do have sex and need to have sex education early. Countries with comprehensive sex education have had very good results. The Netherlands has one of the best programs and one of the lowest adolescent pregnancy rates.

  • Origami_Isopod

    Nice racist screed there, and completely ignoring how much misogyny and homophobia we have in our own culture.

  • Arekushieru

    Polyandry means many husbands. Kthx. Most forms of polygamy are NOT strictly contracted between consenting adults. I think there needs to be a new term to distinguish between polygamy and polyamourous marriages. The latter one being polyfidelity. You mean they are more nuanced about LACK of youth consent definitions. Case in point: Polygamous marriages.

    Certainly you can’t be saying that there was no reason to be concerned about child rape (which has mostly gone unreported to this DAY) in daycares simply because sexual minorities were present , there? Again, the fact that sexual minorities were targeted is NOT an excuse to relax laws against harming members of another vulnerable population. FFS.

    Again, YOU argue for sexual repression and dominance and force. Punitive measures prevent further harm to VICTIMS. Punitive measures, just like rewards, are ALSO a part of REHABILITATION. DERP.