He’s labeled a sex offender — for sleeping with his own wife

[FreakinDJ]

Source: Scott Stump

He’s labeled a sex offender — for sleeping with his own wife

When Frank Rodriguez and his future wife first starting having sex, they considered themselves just two of millions of teenagers who were in love.

However, their love was against the law in Texas, so Rodriguez soon joined a more exclusive group, one in which no one seeks membership: He became one of more than 650,000 registered sex offenders in the United States.

And today, after 15 years and four daughters with his high school sweetheart, the 34-year-old suburban father still wears the modern-day equivalent of the Scarlet Letter. Friends, neighbors or parents in his hometown of Caldwell, Texas, can go online to view the public sex offender registry and see his name alongside those of rapists, child molesters and child pornographers. His teenage love for his future wife, Nikki, is classified in a much less romantic way — sexual assault of a child.

When Frank and Nikki slept together as teens, he was unaware it would haunt him well into adulthood. “I figured I would go through a probation period few years,’’ Frank told Matt Lauer in a TODAY interview Wednesday. “I had no idea it would follow me for the rest of my life.’’

Read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43909060/ns/today-today_people/

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

4. This would have been illegal in any state.

In California, it would have been a felony, and he'd be on the same sex offender registry. It's not just the south.

He was 19. She was 15. Most Romeo and Juliet laws only permit a 2-3 year age gap. Many states make it illegal to sleep with a 15 year old girl at all. In those that do allow it, I'm pretty sure it's still illegal for a 19 year old to do it.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. You may be right, but

I find it hard to believe that in Massachusetts the guy would end up with permanent sex offender status. I suspect it would somehow work out.

But I could be totally wrong.

[RebelOne]

6. You're right. She was still a minor,

so even if it was consensual, it was still a felony. I believe it is illegal in most states.

[phleshdef]

16. Illegal yes. But a teenage boy sleeping with a girl in high school should not be registry material.

Its absolutely absurd. I've no problem with the state enforcing its own age limit laws on sex. You have to have a limit somewhere. This was not something that deserved a lifelong public flogging though.

[Xithras]

27. IMO, only violent or non-consensual crimes should be on the list.

I had an interesting discussion while in Tahoe with a friend recently. He's about 30, and a couple of beautiful young women walked by. He made a crude comment, and I pointed out that the young woman he had an eye on might only be 16 or 17, and that he'd be looking at a couple years in prison and a lifetime on the registry list if he tried anything.

We were sitting a half-mile from the Nevada state line. He responded by pointing out the stupidity of a system where an action in one place could get you pilloried for life, while that exact same action a half mile up the road, on the other side of an imaginary line, is 100% legal and has no consequences at all (age of consent in Nevada is 16).

While each state certainly has a right to set its own consent laws, I am now of the opinion that these kinds of crimes should just be excluded from the listings entirely. They SHOULD be limited to violent offenders. Consensual sex, even when in violation of local law, shouldn't lead to a lifetime of stigma.

[Nye Bevan]

46. A minor cannot legally "consent" (nt)

[phleshdef]

50. Doesn't matter. There is still a huge difference in reality between violently forcing sex....

...and a 15 year old willingly agreeing to it.

By the time I was 15, I was definately old enough to know and understand what the deal was with sex, at least enough that no one could have said I was being taken advantage of.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a law against it and I'm not saying people shouldn't be punished for breaking those laws. In a case like this though, the law is WRONG in terms of the sentence. Its unbalanced. Its ruining lives.

[Nye Bevan]

51. No, sorry. A man who claims a 15-year old girl "led him on" is still a statutory rapist (nt)

[Xithras]

57. And if that man isn't a man?

California is one of only eight states that doesn't have a Romeo and Juliet law at all. Legally, if a 15 year old "man" claims that a 15 year old "girl" led him on, he's is still a statutory rapist. Legally. And yes, he can be included in the sex offender registry, if the prosecutor requests it. It's uncommon, but it's still on the books in this state.

Here in the real world, however, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would consider a 15 year old boy and a 15 year old girl having mutually agreeable sex to be "rape".

She can consent factually, just not legally.

[kelly1mm]

59. Wouldn't she be equally as guilty of being a statutory rapist in your example? nt

[phleshdef]

61. You would have to be completely in denial of all common sense not to see the difference.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. So 15 year olds can't legally have sex with anyone? Because guess what- they do.

I guess you haven't been paying much attention; High School students have sex. Maybe they should all be put in a convent, or something. :shrug:

[TalkingDog]

75. Where does the phrase "led him on" occur in the posts you were responding to?

The poster's point was a 15 year old is a sexual being. So is a 17 year old and a 19 year old.
And when you are in a relationship at that age, many times (I would venture most of the time) there is no coercion with sexual activity.

Is it "technically" illegal? Yes. Should some allowances be made when there is no coercion and the couple stays together for YEARS? Also yes. The man is no violent, he is not a repeat "offender". He should have this removed from his record, it's a travesty of justice.

[alp227]

80. Are you repeating Rep. Chris Lee's talking point that outraged many here

when he intro'd the "redefine rape" bill regarding taxpayer funding and abortions?

[phleshdef]

86. I'm not repeating anyone's talking point. Just my own honest opinion.

I don't believe a 19 year old or an 18 year old that had sex with a 15 or 16 year old are rapists. And I think sex offender laws aren't being carried out with common sense.

[Cherchez la Femme]

89. Not half clever enough, in fact downright unsubtle

The subjects ages have been: a 19 year old, an adult,

and: a 15 year old, NOT age of consent;


in comes phleshdef marginalizing and tweaking both ages: suddenly it's a 19 OR 18 year old

and a 15 OR 16 year old

knocking down, actually HALVING the age difference to 2 years

...and you think nobody's going to note the clumsy, unconvincing attempt at sleight-of-hand to turn concrete facts
--the operative parameters in this case--
somehow nebulous so as to better fit your 'argument'?


All whilst unbelievably exhorting "common sense"! Do you actually expect that to fly? In the least?


The intellectual (that word used loosely) dishonesty is wow.

Just astounding.

[phleshdef]

100. You are imagining things.

In some states, this same law could land an 18 year old in the same mess for sleeping with a 16 year old. THATS why I used an example with even closer ages, because it better highlights the absurdity of it.

But if you want to continue imagining that I'm playing some grand game of marginalizing and tweaking, I really don't give a shit. What you think is fairly irrelevant to me and you are obviously full of yourself and your internet warriordom.

[Cherchez la Femme]

101. I am?

OK, show me then how or where, within these parameters of this article, this 19 year old morphed into an 18 year old?

Or how or where this 15 year old turned into an 16 year old?


And which states will prosecute a couple with a 2 year age difference?
--that is your statement; quote your source.

[Xithras]

52. No, but a minor can factually consent.

A 17 year old cannot legally consent to set with a 19 year old in California. A 17 year old can legally consent to sex with a 45 year old in New York.

In both cases, consent is a legal term. In both states, a minor can factually have consensual sex, it's just not legal in both of them.

If California wants to prosecute it as a crime, that's the business of nobody but Californians. Because sex offender lists are national, and because the federal government has legislated aspects of the registries and runs the interstate aspect of the registries via the DOJ, I think that the federal government has the right to set certain minimum expectations for what can, and can't, be included.

Right now, a 20 year old guy sleeping with a 17 year old in California would end up on a sex offender registry, because that's illegal in California. If that guy moved to Washington 5 years later, he would STILL appear on the sex offender registry...even though sleeping with a 17 year old is PERFECTLY LEGAL in the state of Washington. He would remain a pariah in Washington over an activity that is perfectly legal in his new state of residence.

The system makes no sense, and is unnecessarily punitive for relatively minor offenses.

On edit: Maybe I should have worded that differently. Instead of talking about "consent", we should probably be talking about "coerced". My upthread reference to "violent or non-consensual crimes" should probably have said "violent or coerced crimes".

[xmas74]

63. A friend's son

was in his early twenties and dealing with his recent divorce. He went to a local bar, met a girl, and brought her home. She was gone before he woke up.

A few days later, police picked him up at work and questioned him. Turns out the girl was sixteen. He said that he had no idea and the officer said something about why didn't he look at her license. His response? "I thought if they were serving her drinks from the bar she was at least 21."

Three years in prison for picking up a girl at a bar. He's now on the lifetime sex offender list. What happened to the bar? Nothing, since he's the only one who said she was drinking.

(I'm pretty sure she was drinking and that they were serving her directly from the bar. I used to go to that bar when I was in high school. If you were cute and wore the "right" kind of clothes they wouldn't even check your ID. At least now the place has been closed down by Liquor Control.)

[msanthrope]

64. Statutory rape doesn't have a consent element. nt

[Xithras]

65. Of course.

I should have said "coerced".

By the way, technically most states don't even have "statutory rape" laws. Here in California, you're charged with "Unlawful sexual contact with a minor", or "Unlawful sexual contact with a minor under the age of 14". Both are felonies. Neither differentiates between two teenagers willingly having sex with each other, and a dirty uncle sneaking into a kids bed at night. Legally, in California, it's the same crime and charge.

[msanthrope]

66. What you describe are both statutory rape laws.

All states have stautory rape laws. Really.

[alp227]

79. What do you think schools could do to prevent such relationships?

I read the article; the man was 19 and the girl 15 when they met in high school. Something tells me that either the state should reform the laws or the school should have an age limit (or a separate senior year center...I've heard that some Texas high schools have separate 9th grade centers.)

[polmaven]

21. Exactly..

It's called statutory rape, consensual or not.

[FreakinDJ]

54. Age of Consent = Not able to get Abortion

she can't consent to sex nor can she decide if she wants an abortion

That is why the age of consent is so high in Texas

[EOTE]

73. Not in every state. The age of majority is different all over the place.

I know some states have the age of majority set at 15. I believe Kansas or some other southern state has 13 as the age of majority. So it wouldn't have been illegal everywhere.

[Xithras]

77. Nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

That may have been true in the past, but the youngest age of consent (the age in which a person can consent to sex with anyone they want) in the United States is now 16. All states are 16, 17, or 18.

A few states have Romeo and Juliet laws that bar prosecution of minors engaging in mutually consensual sex at ages as low as 14, but those laws simply bar prosecution. It's permissible for a 14 year old to sleep with another 14 year old in those states, but it's still a crime for you and I do sleep with them because they haven't yet achieved that states legal age of consent. They still can't legally "consent", but they can't be prosecuted for it either.

I should also mention that there's a difference between "age of consent" and "age of majority". The first simply denotes the legal right to engage in sex and to choose your own sexual partners. The second is the term for adulthood. In all but four states, the age of majority is 18. Three put it at 19, and Mississippi puts it at 21. A handful of the "18" states also have rules granting majority status to people under 18 who have completed high school.

[Swagman]

2. these laws sweep all up into the same basket

many are just based on emotional hysteria.

[Kaleva]

7. He was an adult at the time having sex with a minor under the age of 16.

He has nothing to complain about.

[treestar]

10. Exactly, there is here some invocation of the old fashioned concept

that marrying her later erases the issue.

[phleshdef]

12. That doesn't change the fact that the sex offenders registry is way over the line on some situations

A 19 year old who slept with a 15 year old does NOT deserve to be labelled a fucking sex offender for the rest of their life. Thats fucking fascist as hell. There needs to be exceptions for the sex offenders registry. It should be reserved for higher sexual crimes like rape and pedophilia. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been charged with a crime at the time. But its really not the kind of thing the registry was designed for. It should not be used to punish teenagers for having sex. Thats frigging ridiculous.

[joeglow3]

20. Where is the line?

A 20 year old with a 14 year old?

19 year old with a 13 year old?

17 year old with a 9 year old?

[Hawkowl]

23. That is why we have judges

Judges are supposed to be able to "judge" each case on it's own merits. Mandatory sentencing is an injustice for any type of crime. There should be guidelines but no straight jackets.

In this case the offender was punished, but to be punished for the rest of his life after marrying the girl is stupid.

[joeglow3]

55. I don't care if he married her

If a 20 year old raped a 5 year old, but they got married 15 years later, that has ZERO bearing. The issue is, should a 19 year old receive this punishment for sleeping with a 15 year old. There has to be SOME guidance for a judge. If you don't some Christian fundy will start charging ALL unmarried people with crimes, as your legal system left everything open for them to "judge." You would have effectively eliminated 2 branches of government.

[phleshdef]

39. That sounds like the same idiotic argument anti-gay marriage proponents make.

Where is the line? Men with sheep?

I'm not sure where the line should be, but it should be in a different place than where it is now. There is no way you can tell me that this was in anyway a reasonable punishment. A teenage boy should not have to endure this lifelong punishment for having sex with a 15 year old girl in high school, period. Its absurd. Heroine dealers, armed robbers and even certain murderers endure less punishment than this.

[Kaleva]

25. He wasn't a teenager at the time. He was an adult.

I do agree though that the sex offenders registry is sometimes way over the line. I know guys who are on it because they were drunk and were caught urinating in a bar parking lot.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. Do you know the meaning of the word ''teenager''?

[Kaleva]

37. Sure. And what does that have to do with an adult having sex with a minor under the age of consent?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. You just said a nineTEEN year old is not a TEENager.

D'oh!

[Kaleva]

62. You didn't answer my question.

What does that have to do with an adult having sex with a minor under the age of consent? I answered your question by saying "Sure.". Now lets see if you will answer mine question to you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

67. You said the aforementioned adult was not a teenager. I pointed out that's false.

Simple as that.

[WolverineDG]

42. Funny how he could get on the sex offender list for having sex at 19

but couldn't buy a beer.

And until the '70's the legal age for adulthood was 21.

dg

[phleshdef]

41. An 18 or 19 year old adult is still a teenager.

[jberryhill]

19. Users of the sex offender registry have something to complain about....

If a parent is concerned about a potentially recidivist child molester living in their neighborhood, it does no good to that parent to be worried about this person.

No question - he committed a crime.

But these permanent registries now include people who were caught skinny dipping in the river or people who urinated in the parking lot of a football game, and were cited for indecent exposure.

That sort of thing undermines the utility of the registry in the first place.

[tsuki]

92. Exactly. Everytime a report like this is spotlighted, it dilutes the public

perception of the validity of the list.

[Maru Kitteh]

26. Agreed, to a point.

Exceptions would lead only to more victims and predators who could then claim "but she/he loves me." Lines have to be drawn somewhere.

I wouldn't objected however to some kind of review process after a certain number of years.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

49. Have you ever had teenage boys. Although the law declares them to be adults, they really aren't.

Why are there laws against drinking until the person is 21? Same reason why there is no way on this earth he should have been listed as a sex offender.

[tblue37]

85. The prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for impulse control and

awareness of consequences, doesn't finish developing until about age 25. A 19-year-old really is still a kid in many ways.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

93. Exactly.

[sabrina 1]

83. Wow, this country truly is going back to the dark ages.

Nothing but punishment, for everyone, that's the way to solve everything, and not just punishment but punishment for life! For having sex!! Call it all rape, is there any kind of sex that isn't rape anymore?

I wonder how people would be reacting to this if the woman was 19 and the guy was 22 eg. I guess she would be the 'child' at that point.

And none of this has stopped 14, 15, 16 year olds from having sex, has it?

Maybe we should lock them all up until they are 21 or issue chastity belts to all teenage girls.

But an awful lot of 'rapists' are walking free, maybe you even know some of them, maybe I do. Maybe I should call the cops on the little monsters! 'cause if they're teenagers they are most likely having sex, and if their boys, they must be reapists! :eyes:

I sometimes wonder what happened to common sense in this country.

And yes, he most certainly does have something to complain about. This case is an example of why real rape is not taken seriously here anymore.

[lapislzi]

8. Such a dumb, misleading headline.

He's on the sex offender registry because he slept with a 15-year-old and her mother had a hissy fit which she later regretted.

Not much of a story here, although I think the guy should be dropped from the sex offender rolls. I hope he's granted a pardon.

[snooper2]

9. So FYI, In MA ( as we have some deleted comments ) it would still have been a felony

But some @#$#@$'s on this board don't really think things through...


MA STATUTORY RAPE DEFENSE
In order to sustain a conviction under this section, the Commonwealth must prove:

1. Sexual Intercourse occurred (performing oral or receiving oral is considered intercourse for purposes of this statute).
2. With a child under sixteen years of age.

WARNING!! Consent is not an element of statutory rape. Statutory rape is a strict liability crime meaning an honest mistake as to the age or identity of the victim is NOT a defense. It is also not a defense that the victim lied about being older, the victim appeared older or someone told you the victim was older. Under this statute, the child is considered incapable, as a matter of law, of giving any effective consent.

If you have been charged with statutory rape, it is in your best interest to seek legal representation from knowledgeable Massachusetts Sex Crimes Lawyer James Powderly. The legal consequences for statutory rape are devastating. An attorney can protect you and your rights during law enforcement investigations and in court.

Contact a MA Statutory Rape Lawyer at [phone] or CLICK HERE

MA STATUTORY RAPE PENALTIES
First Offense Penalties
1. Felony.
2. Imprisonment up to Life.
3. Sex Offender Registration.

Second or Subsequent Offense Penalties
1. Felony.
2. Fifteen (15) Years up to Life.
3. Sex Offender Registration.

[dkf]

11. I guess the question is should Seniors be sleeping with Freshmen?

If you get pregnant as a Freshman that would be pretty bad. I can see why a parent would be upset at that.

[rocktivity]

24. Technically, you're talking about a HIGH SCHOOL sophmore and a COLLEGE sophmore

at best.

But you're right--a high school freshman being pregnant would be pretty bad.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[jberryhill]

13. The issue is not that he committed an offense - that much is clear

The problem is that we have decided that these crimes as a class merit a "permanent sentence" beyond whatever is imposed for conviction.

Maintenance on these registries should be subject to periodic review, just like any other sentence.

[LeftinOH]

14. He may have loved her when she was 15, but was it necessary to start having sex right away?

For most teenagers, sex =/= love, it's just messing around. He was 19 years old, and old enough to know better.

[Shandris]

30. You think by 19 you realize sex != love?

I don't think I clued into that until about 26 or so. We're giving FAR too much credit to someone who is 700 (1400 in his case, but still) days older than someone to whom we give NO credit.

And apparently, his sex -- messing around or not -- WAS related to love, since he...I dunno...MARRIED HER.

[MilesColtrane]

34. You're right.

I've never met any male 18 or older that doesn't understand the concept of "jailbait".

He undoubtedly knew that having sex with her was a crime.

Now he has to live with the consequences.

[jeff47]

95. You sound exactly like the people arguing against birth control (nt)

[BeeBee]

15. I think, after 15 years of marriage, he should probably be

dropped from the sex offender list... but, that said, he was a 19 year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl. Am I the only one who finds that creepy?

In my home, we had a 2 year rule with my teenager - no dating anyone 2 years older or 2 years younger. When he turned 18 we had very serious discussions about having sex with people who are underage - including his girlfriend at the time who hadn't turned 18 yet.

[lapislzi]

18. Depends. Maybe.

The older kid should know better. Bad judgment. But, it would never have become an issue had the mother not become involved.

I'm sure this happens often (18- and 19-year-olds having sex with underage partners), creepy or no. The difference here is that charges were filed.

[Xithras]

33. I've just impressed on my son the old rule of thumb to determine whether she's old enough.

Half your age + 7. It works at nearly any age, and limits your relationships to women that most of society would consider socially acceptable.

He was 19. Half of his age is 9.5. 9.5+7= 16.5.

A 19 year old shouldn't be dating someone under 16 years old. Some people like to take it a step further and tack an "and round up" to the end of the rule. If you agree with them, a 19 year old shouldn't be dating someone under 17.


I'll be 37 in a few weeks. Half of 37 is 18.5. 18.5+7 = 25.5

If I were dating, the minimum age I'd be looking at is 26. Any younger than that and I'm just being creepy.


It's not absolute, but it's a great rule of thumb and it keeps guys out of trouble.

[Wednesdays]

78. Why would it be "creepy" if you dated a 21-year-old rather than 26?

I have a hard time understanding some of society's "rules" nowadays.

[PavePusher]

43. I was previously engaged to a lady almost 13 years younger than me.

She was 20, I was 32. We'd actually met 18 months earlier.

Creepy? Where do you draw the line? How do you regulate peoples emotions?

ETA: One of my best friends met his girlfriend when he was 22 and she was 15. She persued him. ("Mom, that one is mine", was her quote, IIRC). We've been out of touch for 5+ years now, but last I knew, they were still together, almost 20 years later.

[lapislzi]

48. The difference being, she was above the age of consent.

The law has to set the standard somewhere. You can argue that it's arbitrary, and to some extent it is, but the law has to set a legal age for informed consent. Some of us can't consent at 20, or 21. Some of us (arguably few) could consent at 14 or 15. But the law's the law. Until evidence suggests that the arbitrary number be revised, it is what it is.

That being said, I know plenty of big age disparities between partners. They're adults. It's none of my business. If a 19-year-old starts sniffing around my daughter, it definitely IS my business.

[PavePusher]

53. There should be a requirement to prove harm as well, IMNSHO.

But that would actually require people to have to think....

Sigh.

[lapislzi]

60. Disagree.

Harm or no harm, there is LEGALLY an age below which the law says you cannot offer informed consent. It's that simple. You can't consent to give blood or play the lottery, or do lots things below a certain age (like work in a coal mine). The law exists to protect kids from the consequences of their own stupid choices.

I don't argue that it's not arbitrary, but cultures have been making these types of rules throughout human history. In other cultures, it's OK to have sex when you're 12. I doubt many would argue that 12-year-olds should be having sex.

[sabrina 1]

90. That would make sense, and help resolve situations like this.

But that does require extra work, and in this country it is all about making things simple, black and white. We have a long way to go before evolving into anything resembing a humane society. In many ways this is a very brutal and barbaric society.

I doubt you'll get much agreement, even here on a democratic board, for your suggestion. People in the US know nothing else, they are used to a system that doesn't think about human beings. If it's the law, well too bad if it's a bad law, that is how it is. And many, many lives have been destroyed by laws like this. Some change over time, too late for many people. Maybe one day this one will too.

[rocktivity]

17. From a Connecticut state government site, dated 2003

STATUTORY RAPE LAWS BY STATE

Most states do not refer specifically to statutory rape; instead they use designations such as sexual assault and sexual abuse to identify prohibited activity. Regardless of the designation, these crimes are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, he is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, instead of including force as a criminal element, theses crimes make it illegal for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse with anyone below a certain age, other than his spouse. The age of consent varies by state, with most states, including Connecticut, setting it at age 16. The age of consent in other states ranges from ages 14 to 18...

TEXAS: Sexual assault for anyone to intentionally or knowingly penetrate a person under age 17, other than his spouse. The actor has an affirmative defense if he is not more than three years older than the victim, who is at least age 14. Penalty: 2 to 20 years in prison.

On edit: Here's a list of "age gaps" straight from the Department of Health and Human Services.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[NoGOPZone]

22. I don't like the title. If they were married at the time, there wouldn't have been a crime. nt

[Kaleva]

28. Yes. The title is inaccurate to say the least.

[jeff47]

96. Doesn't that emphasize how the law is wrong then?

If we're going to hide behind "well, it was still statutory rape", then marriage shouldn't protect against that.

If she's not able to consent to sex while not married, what would magically allow her to consent to sex after she's married?

[NoGOPZone]

99. Don't know what you mean by "we" and "hiding behind"

those stating that it's a violation of the law are completely correct. Whether or not the distinction between the married and the unmarried is fair is certainly debatable but would not be a usable defense in court. I suspect though, that any attempt to enforce consistency between the married and the unmarried would be MORE restrictive of sexual activity. Few states permit marriage without consent before eighteen or any marriage before sixteen.

[w4rma]

29. People who support this crap are making this list worthless. (nt)

[Shandris]

32. The list has always BEEN worthless.

The person you need to be watching isn't the guy down the street, it's people in your own family. EXPONENTIALLY higher odds that the perpetrator of a sex crime against a child will be a family member.

[seabeyond]

31. he was 19, she was 15 and they were not married. they present it like two married 16 yr olds. nt

[reorg]

36. Interesting

In Germany, such a relationship would have been perfectly legal, and for all I know the same is true in Mexico. Sure, as a teenager I used to date girls closer in age, but there were some exceptions. 19 and 15 is not all that unusual, it sounds completely normal to me. But in the eyes of some Americans, I suspect, we must be sex-crazed monsters and criminals. Which I'd never have guessed from a few experiences I had with American teenage girls in Europe 40 years ago, LOL.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Best post in this thread.

:thumbsup:

(Some places in) the USA are the best in the world to visit, but boy, sometimes I'm SO glad I don't live there. Even the high crime rates in Brazil start to look bearable.

[Odin2005]

44. Uh-oh, When I was 18 my GF was 15 going on 16.

Am I screwed? :scared:

[Iggo]

45. Yer a goddam emmer-effin criminal rapist...

...according to some posters upthread.

Not me, though.

[socialshockwave]

47. If this were a 19 year old woman sleeping with a 15 year old boy.

There'd be no outrage about it - there'd be an outcry as bad as there was about the debt crisis going on now.

[FreakinDJ]

69. Don't apply a "Means Test" to their "outrage"

[1monster]

56. Maybe you should lawyer up?

[Odin2005]

84. Naw, I took her to prom when I was a senior (2004) and nobody cared.

[NoGOPZone]

58. Sixteen is age of consent in the majority of jurisdictions, and many states have age gap provisions.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. In some states, you very well could be.

That's why these laws need to have some sanity built in.

[Shandris]

72. Worse. Apparently you're also a baby-lusting mentally sick...

...would-be full adult in complete rational control of all of your mental faculties (sick and perverted and grotesque beyond imagining though they are), and the person you love is a completely helpless toddler with no ability to be responsible for anything whatsoever and with no understanding of any concept of the ramifications of sex, life, commitment, or anything even remotely attached to those.

However, should you, in your sick male perversions of babyraping, happen to get her pregnant, she immediately becomes knowledgeable enough about the ramifications of life, death, and sexuality to determine whether or not she needs to get an abortion, and under no circumstances should it be expected that perhaps she confer with her parents on the subject, because they should have no control over her obviously adult decision.

It makes perfect sense.

((Before people get too angry, PLEASE note that I am completely in favor of not notifying parents about abortion, and this argument is used to demonstrate a point, NOT to demonstrate what I, Shandris, actually believe.))

[Iggo]

74. YEEEE-HAAAAWWWW!!!

:fistbump:

[rocktivity]

87. Not if you didn't screw HER...

:evilgrin:
rocktivity

[Seedersandleechers]

71. Well damn!

I guess my HS boyfriend was a sex offender and I didn't even know it. I wonder how many "sex offenders" are lurking on DU.

[Shagbark Hickory]

76. The penis police strike again. nm

[TNLib]

81. I honestly think these laws need to be changed. If an adult below the age of 20

has consensual sex with a teenager then they should get a slap on the wrist and a warning maybe probation. But too have to register as a sex offend is extreme. I think society has changed when it comes to teenage sex and our laws need to reflect societal changes.

[alp227]

82. Let's be consistent. Age of consent should equal age of marriage.

If non-marital sex between (consenting) adults in relationships is legal, why not between these two? And what about the actor from the TV show Lost who married that 16-year-old girl in Nevada? Why isn't Hugh Hefner in jail for flirting with those women in his Playboy mansion yet a father is burdened with the "criminal label" for a high school relationship? Make up your damn mind, America!

I'm looking up age of consent on Wikipedia and find it to be 18 yet minors can get married with parental consent. That's one inconsistency.

If Frank and Nikki Rodriguez' relationship was criminal when they were in high school, so should other May-December relationships.

[donheld]

88. How about a 12 year old boy playing Doctor with his 9 year old sister?

[Shandris]

91. I think a judge should hear the testimony and decide what the intent was.

Intent has always been a VERY important part -- read: critical -- of our jurisprudence system. Why intent is completely and totally overlooked in these cases is something that will never make sense beyond 'old people pissed that someone, somewhere, is having sex when they don't think its okay'.

[Obamanaut]

94. It's more like he was labeled thus for having sex with an underage

person who was NOT his wife (at the time.)

[Kaleva]

97. The big stories on DU are this one, the no-kid zone movement, and police beating a mentally ill man

Previously, we've had Bristol Palin losing her virginity, the Casey Anthony trial and Anthony Weiner.

[WinkyDink]

98. The course of true love.......

Lysander:
Ay me! for aught that I could ever read,
Could ever hear by tale or history,
The course of true love never did run smooth;
But either it was different in blood—

Hermia:
O cross! too high to be enthrall'd to low.

Lysander:
Or else misgraffèd in respect of years—

Hermia:
O spite! too old to be engag'd to young.

Lysander:
Or else it stood upon the choice of friends—

Hermia:
O hell! to choose love by another's eyes.

A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 1, scene 1, 132–140