AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,927
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #41
See the following:
Colorado:
18-3-402 (1) Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if: (d) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or (e) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age and the actor is at least ten years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim;
Delaware:
Title 11 § 761. Definitions generally applicable to sexual offences. (j) A child who has not yet reached his or her sixteenth birthday is deemed unable to consent to a sexual act with a person more than 4 years older than said child. Children who have not yet reached their twelfth birthday are deemed unable to consent to a sexual act under any circumstances.
New Hampshire
The age of consent in New Hampshire is 16. However a close in age exception exists where a person may "engage in sexual penetration" with a person 13 years old or older and younger than 16 if their age difference is less than 3 years. However if the partner is acting "in loco parentis", e.g. as a teacher or a guardian, the minimum age is 18. NH Criminal code Section 632-A:3 and Section 632-A:2
Texas
§ 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not the person's spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person:
(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact;
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:
(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex;
I don't have the cites for these (I was just focused on finding them), but they should be easy to find and look up yourself.
Teaching sexual education is not mutually exclusive with attempting to prevent underage sexual activity. It merely recognizes the undeniable fact that many children will not heed advice regarding the abstention for underage sex.
It is a simple concept. Repeat it with me. Correlation does not prove causation.
Preventing child exploitation and preparing for the eventuality that kids will have sex with one another are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they aren't even close to being the same issue.
Teaching and encourage safe sexual activity is part and parcel of sex education. It isn't just a biology lesson.
Well there are 50 states, and you can see how many of them have zero tolerance for sex among minors or with minors. YOu can continue to argue about what the law is, but the fact is, there's pretty close to zero tolerance for it in most areas.
And read the USA Today article, which details the results of providing kids with explicit information about sex. The facts are the facts, and denying them doesn't make them go away.
"Teaching and encourage (sic) safe sexual activity..."
Hence the problem. You're encouraging it. While not addressing the huge, looming issue of why are you teaching kids to have safe sex with child molesters?