Only viable argument was for age of consent due to current established laws.
But this was yet another proof of them trying to push that age of consent younger and younger.
On a personal level, I think the only laws that should exist are Romeo and Juliet laws, and that age difference is almost always 2 years or less anyway. Very rare in school for a 16 year old and 13 year old for example, but 14/15 is more common, and for 17 year olds that tends to mean 15-17.
Basically, in most instances the Romeo and Juliet laws would have an 18 year old with a 16 or 17 year old, both past the age of consent in most -- or a lot of -- states.
So my question is this: If it's rare to see a wider age gap in school, because kids don't tend to interact much more than a grade above or below them, why do they keep trying to push the age of consent lower, and the "acceptable" age gap wider?
There is obviously something nefarious to that. It's not simply becoming less prudish as a country. There is something there that they are trying to accomplish and it still surprises me that leftists willfully ignore this
Its a few years old but this doesn't apply to 8 year olds, the minimum age was 14. (Which is still bad enough.)
Only viable argument was for age of consent due to current established laws.
But this was yet another proof of them trying to push that age of consent younger and younger.
On a personal level, I think the only laws that should exist are Romeo and Juliet laws, and that age difference is almost always 2 years or less anyway. Very rare in school for a 16 year old and 13 year old for example, but 14/15 is more common, and for 17 year olds that tends to mean 15-17.
Basically, in most instances the Romeo and Juliet laws would have an 18 year old with a 16 or 17 year old, both past the age of consent in most -- or a lot of -- states.
So my question is this: If it's rare to see a wider age gap in school, because kids don't tend to interact much more than a grade above or below them, why do they keep trying to push the age of consent lower, and the "acceptable" age gap wider?
There is obviously something nefarious to that. It's not simply becoming less prudish as a country. There is something there that they are trying to accomplish and it still surprises me that leftists willfully ignore this
Human trafficking. Not joking, wouldn’t be surprised to see consent to “sex work” become a thing.
Spot on.
Obvious and nefarious. Bingo.
Yeah, it also puts sodomy into the requirements for registry, it didn't used to be.