|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:03 pm
My friend and I were arguing on AIM earlier today because the discussion of my boyfriend came up. It involved age of consent and a question that is not made clear by the many times I have researched this sort of thing.
Here's what we argued about: I am 17 and 5 months and my boyfriend just turned 22. (I know some people won't approve of the age gap, even I was hesitant to start dating him because he was that much older than me.) She started to warn me about age of consent laws and such (I am not ready to have sex with him yet, we just discussed this and it made me curious) and how he was too old for me to legally consent to intercourse.
I live in Washington State, and Age of Consent here is not always clear. We have the age 16 where it is legal to have sex as long as the person is no older than 4 years older than you and after that is where it becomes foggy. I have read a couple of times that Washington is on a sliding scale until one becomes 18 (where it becomes completely legal). Meaning, that once one is 16 as they get older the scale slides making the age gap increasingly larger up to 5 years older right before one turns 18.
Basically, from what I have researched I am legally able to sleep with my boyfriend, but my friend doesn't think the sliding scale exists and that since he is over 4 years older than me it is illegal. Does anyone have anything more clear on Washington's age of consent laws or clarification about the scale (it it actually exists)?
Just a note, I do intend to remain a virgin until I am 18, but clarification on the law would be nice.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:18 pm
When someone becomes 18, they are legally considered an adult and therefore to have sex with anyone under the age of 18 is statutory rape under the criminal code, regardless of sexual consent laws.
Basically if you two were 16, it would be legal, since you are both minors and over the age of consent, but since you are a minor and he is an adult, the rules change.
It's really a double-standard. The law basically tells you at age 16 or whichever the consent age is where you live that you're old enough to choose to have sex, and yet you can't engage it with an "adult."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:11 pm
I want to know more about California's. IS it 18? My boyfriend's 18 in a month (I'm already 18.) but we had sex when I was still 18, and he 17. I always wondered if this was considered legal. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:01 am
My statement still stands. Once you reach 18, you're considered an adult. a 17 year-old is a minor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:38 am
I know about being a monir, but in Washington state a 16 year old can have sex with an adult as long as he/she is below the age of 20, I heard that there is a sliding scale so that a 17 year old could have sex with an adult as long as he or she wasn't more than [insert years] older than him/her.
I just wanted to know if that was actually true or if it stayed with the 4 year gap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:32 am
You know, there is a link provided in the sticky, and in addition you could look it up yourself. Just saying. Taken from: http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm Quote: WASHINGTON 16 [Age of consent is 16] It is illegal for any school employee to have consensual sexual contact with a student between age 16 and high school graduation, so age 16 does not apply to school employees. NOTE: In the AGE OF SEXUAL CONSENT column is the age of a person an adult 18 and over may legally have sexual contact with in that state. So apparently a 16 year old can consent legally to having sex with an 18 year old. But I think this is what you were asking about regarding the 17 year old consent thing?: Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Washington Quote: Washington- 18 - Applies under three different sets of circumstances, enumerated in RCW 9A.44.096. Foster parents with their foster children; school teachers and school administration employees over their students; The third set of circumstances require all of the following situations occur in tandem: The older person is 60 months or more older than the 16 or 17 year old, the person is in a significant relationship as defined, and such older person abuses the relationship to have sexual contact. - 16 - Under all other circumstances. - Several have reported that the immoral communication with a minor statute exists and places the age of consent at 18 due to the inability to "communicate" to 16- and 17-year-olds about sexual activity. These reports have been alarming in nature, however they are completely anecdotal, and perhaps even urban legend. The Washington Court of Appeals, Division 1 decided in the case of State v. Danforth, 56 Wn. App. 133, 782 P.2d 1091 (1989) that such communication has to be for the purposes of committing an illegal act under RCW Chapter 9.68A. Danforth's conviction was overturned by that ruling. However, the Washington Supreme Court in the case of State v. McNallie, 120 Wn.2d 925, 846 P.2d 1358 (1993) overturned the scope of the Danforth ruling (though not the result; Danforth would have still had his conviction overturned under the McNallie standard), applying the communication statute to encompass all sexual misconduct with a minor, not just those under RCW Chapter 9.68A, which deal mostly with illegal child pornography and prostitution. Due to these cases, it is clear that communications with 16- and 17-year-olds just for general sexual activity is legal, as long as such conduct discussed is not about illegal conduct or would be illegal in real life (such as the teacher/student circumstance, the foster parent/foster child circumstance, the significant relationship abuse circumstance, or asking for illegal pictures or attempting to bring such younger persons into prostitution).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:39 am
And regarding California Law (please make your own thread next time, instead of hijacking someone else's thread).... Several sites I've looked at list the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual relatinoships to be 18. So I guess technically it was illegal if he was 17 at the time. Taken from: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=law&refid=002Quote: The age of consent varies from state to state. Technically, it is “the arbitrary age, assigned by legislators, that define the legal time at which a person may consent voluntarily to sexual activity with another person.” This is a somewhat confusing definition, so instead it might help to think of age of consent in regards to statutory rape. For example, say you live in California where the age of consent is 18. This means that if you are over the age of 18 and you engage in “sexual activity” with a person under the age of 18, you have committed statutory rape. “Statutory rape” is a rather ugly term, and you may argue that the other person “was willing” and that you did not actually rape them. In truth, that doesn’t matter, because according to the law, the person under 18 with whom you had “sexual activity” with was not old enough to voluntarily consent “to sexual activity with another person.” Many states do have variations on the law and how they might prosecute, which is why we stress again that you should KNOW THE LAW within your state. Taken from: http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm(This is the bit that applies to you, but if you want to read the whole laws, just click the link.) Quote: (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the following amounts: (A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000). So it would be "unlawful sexual intercourse" (the site also calls it statutory rape, in legal terms), and you'd probably just be fined if the police found out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:02 am
I tried looking it up but all the results I had gotten were uncelar about the whole thing.
Thanks for the added info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:16 pm
Baedith I want to know more about California's. IS it 18? My boyfriend's 18 in a month (I'm already 18.) but we had sex when I was still 18, and he 17. I always wondered if this was considered legal. confused usually its around 14-16 for consent and the fact that u guys are less then 2 years apart and plus it is consentual it should be fine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:11 pm
if my guy and i were illegal at any point o well. i'm not pressing charges rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:41 pm
He and I aren't going to be having sex anytime soon.
I just was trying to figure it out for my friend and my sake from our argument.
My boyfriend is leaving for Alabama for 6 weeks on Monday. (He is in the Air Force)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:34 am
Ryoko Yumi if my guy and i were illegal at any point o well. i'm not pressing charges rofl Actually with minors and adults, the parents of the minor can press charges. There are many cases in which the girl or guy did not want to press charges of statutory rape, but the parents did. And the won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
