Talk:Ages of consent in the United States/Archive 2

North Dakota changes of 2019-11-24
Are we better off with or without the changes between https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States&oldid=927077137 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States&oldid=927704768 ?

On the "ages of consent" pages, we have a history of trying to interpret the statutes. In fact, this is mandated by the "age of consent" template, which requires that we identify one "unfettered" age of consent, so as editors, we try to parse that out from the sources we have, but going beyond that, we frequently limit ourselves to quoting the law and leave it to the reader to determine what it means in their particular situation.

Now consider the case of a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old in North Dakota:

Prior to this latest North Dakota change, it's pretty clear that 12.1-20-05(1) makes this a "class A misdemeanor", while with the recent change, it would seem that according to the stated "close-in-age" exemption, this would be legal. So which is it?

I suggest that a radical change to how we manage this page may be needed, as both the general public and even much of the news media accept the content of this specific page as though it were actually a reliable source. Preferably, we would actually introduce process to make it reliable, alternatively, we would need something tantamount to a flashing banner, though that might not actually be enough to deter the acceptance of this as a reliable source. Fabrickator (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course WP ought to be reliable, . Don't confuse source reliability for WP with WP's reliability for readers (I noticed you've shown this confusion before). Of course WP is not an RS to itself. That would be WP:CIRCULAR. But of course it ought to be reliable to its readers. That's what the whole process of quoting RS is for.
 * Also, don't confuse clarity for simplicity. Of course we ought to strive to be as clear as possible, but we can't be clearer than the sources we transmit, lest we introduce OR or opinion. Guarapiranga (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:WINRS: "Wikipedia may be a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but it all depends on... Caveat lector."
 * The concern of OR is a bogeyman. The AOC articles may be the best example (though these articles are sui generis)... Notwithstanding the prohibition against WP:SYNTH, we have cases where we have to use it.  We have to construe things based on multiple sources.  It is easy to find (seemingly reliable) sources which will support conflicting positions, and then we have to somehow come up with a coherent result.  It isn't necessarily pretty.
 * Notwithstanding that, I've called out this specific inconsistency, and I'm awaiting an explanation. It appears that we would interpret the AOC for North Dakota one way before this edit, and another way after the edit, without any indication that the law has been changed, and notwithstanding the issue of whether we need a process change, we presumably should determine that (in the specific "16 and 18" case), it was either incorrect before, it's incorrect now (or both), or that there is an error in my interpretation of the text.  Fabrickator (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As for inconsistencies…
 * Guarapiranga (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You have provided citations to two "lawyer" web sites and an "age of consent" web site. I would not consider any such sites as suitably reliable.  At best, such sites could be used to identify relevant statutes and to confirm what has been interpreted from actual reliable sources.
 * I see what the North Dakota legislature has done ... they inserted a close-in-age exception at the top of the statute (this is a "forward reference", explaining how to interpret the rest of the statute), thereby avoiding the need to mention this in the subsequent sections of the statute to which the close-in-age exception applies.
 * The existing text in the AOC article follows the pattern of the statute by including the close-in-age exception at the beginning of the North Dakota section, but this leaves the reader with the impression that the article contains contradictory statements. This is confusing, and simply heightens a reasoned skepticism about the accuracy of the information in this article. It's really not acceptable! Fabrickator (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no, I don't consider them reliable. Just exemplifying the "inconsistencies" in interpretation of the law you mentioned,.
 * On another note, following on your exclamation that this is not acceptable, and your proposed radical change, I've invited a peer review, so that other experienced editors may comment and share suggestions from other equally sensitive articles. Guarapiranga (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The existing text in the AOC article follows the pattern of the statute by including the close-in-age exception at the beginning of the North Dakota section, but this leaves the reader with the impression that the article contains contradictory statements. This is confusing, and simply heightens a reasoned skepticism about the accuracy of the information in this article. It's really not acceptable! Fabrickator (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no, I don't consider them reliable. Just exemplifying the "inconsistencies" in interpretation of the law you mentioned,.
 * On another note, following on your exclamation that this is not acceptable, and your proposed radical change, I've invited a peer review, so that other experienced editors may comment and share suggestions from other equally sensitive articles. Guarapiranga (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On another note, following on your exclamation that this is not acceptable, and your proposed radical change, I've invited a peer review, so that other experienced editors may comment and share suggestions from other equally sensitive articles. Guarapiranga (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

proposal to simplify Rhode Island explanation
Here is a brief summary of the law for Rhode Island:
 * age of consent is 16
 * close in age exception: someone under 18 can have sex with someone who is at least age 14
 * age of consent for "non-penetrative" sex (a.k.a. "sexual contact") is 14

Non-penetrative sex excludes intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, and anal. Otherwise, it includes touching that is intended for sexual arousal or gratification. As an example, an adult male could legally receive a "hand job" from a 14-year-old, but any touching of the penis by the mouth would be unlawful fellatio.

My question is: Would it be better not to mention the "sexual contact" aspects of this; let the message be that if you're at least 18, you should avoid sexual "activity" with anybody under age 16?

(I am really advocating here for the position that the goal of the "ages of consent" article is not to provide all the intricate details of just what's legal and what's not, but more of a "safe harbor" age, i.e. if the partner is old enough, then all consensual sex is legal (it's not as though state laws allow fellatio while prohibiting intercourse, i.e. in all cases that I'm aware of, if one is illegal based on age, then so is the other). Fabrickator (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ohio observations
These comments are based on the.

non-penetrative sex (Ohio)
The mention of non-penetrative sex is just a distraction. If we want a page to cover this information, then these should be on a separate page Ages of consent for second base, because, as demonstrated with the one-line statement mentioning this in the current version of the article, it adds too much confusion.

contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Ohio)
Towards the end of the Ohio section, it is noted that there is a case in which an older person was convicted under this law upon the complaint of a parent or guardian. From the perspective of the "unfettered" age of consent standard used for the AOC pages, this may be described as a wobbler. FWIW, my first impression would be to ignore this for determine the AOC, with a footnote describing this. (Just because I suggest using a footnote here, doesn't mean I'm advocating that for every state where the "delinquency of a minor"s statute can be prosecuted based on sexual conduct.) I think the "footnote" is particularly appropriate if prosecution actually requires a complaint from a parent or guardian.

2907.06 sexual imposition (Ohio)
I am going to that {§ 2907.06} is just a distraction. Is there some relevant situation under which this would make some sort of sexual contact illegal which would otherwise be legal? If not, then mentioning {§ 2907.06} adds nothing.

2907.04 unlawful sexual conduct with a minor -- close-in-age (Ohio)
A casual reading of section {§ 2907.04} can lead to much confusion. This section has a part A and a part B, in which part A spells out the crime and part B "elaborates" on how the crime is treated under specific circumstances.

The thing to remember is that (for our purposes):, because part B doesn't make anything described in part A legal, nor does it make anything that is not described in part A illegal.

really the main point (Ohio)
The main point is that this law is so much work to figure out.

The statute mentions a 4-year close-in-age exception, but is it real? Under , contact between a 15-year-old and an 18-year-old is not prohibited, but prohibits contact between the same 15 and 18 year-olds.. Okay, the difference is between and.

We can't rewrite this law to make it easier to understand, but we don't have to address all the details to serve the purpose of this Wikipedia article. Fabrickator (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

New Mexico
What's the situation in NM, ? Why isn't the (relationship-limited) age of consent there 16? The law doesn't even mention the age of 17. Guarapiranga (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I interpret the 16 and under to mean the New Mexico age of consent is 17. That's the way almost every source on the internet except for Wikipedia (including some criminal defense attorney websites) intreprets the New Mexico age of consent.

As for the Epstein thing: I have a suspicion he may have given a bribe to the local police not to put him on the registry (or simply threatened to expose some of the local police who were having sex with his girls), and the police decided to use the odd wording of the age of consent law as an excuse not to list him on the sex offender registry. If you want to attach better faith to the police, they may have simply forgotten to list him on the sex offender registry, and they didn't want to add him once the national media realized this because they thought it would look suspicious. (And since everybody in the area almost certainly knew about his convictions and probably knew where his Zorro Ranch was located as well, they might have figured that listing him on the sex offender registry wouldn't serve that much of a purpose.)

Everything about Epstein is suspicious, and I'm not sure you can really take the thing about him not being listed on the state sex offender registry as very good evidence of what the state age of consent is.

Anyway, I have emailed the New Mexico attorney general about what the state age of consent is. Let's see if he gives me a response.

Wikidude87654321 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Wikidude87654321Wikidude87654321 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I was kind of loathe to get into an extended discussion on this, but here I am.
 * To start, involves sexual penetration of a child .  (There's actually a separate flaw in the wording of this statute ... this specific crime is defined in terms of "criminal sexual penetration", which is itself defined to be " unlawful [sexual contact] ", but what makes said sexual contact "unlawful" is not actually defined; in earlier subsections of this statute, the crimes are defined in terms of "sexual penetration", rather than in terms of "unlawful sexual presentation".  It's an amusing error, but we'll ignore it.)


 * Item two: I never go by lawyer's websites for determinative interpretation of these statutes. Lawyers don't enforce the law and they don't rule on the law, and nothing they publish on the internet constitutes .  Instead, I look for what law enforcement and the judiciary actually do.  If the cops are arresting people and prosecutors are pursuing the charges, then that's sufficient, unless this goes to court and gets shot down (preferably on appeal).  If you've got a judge telling the prosecutor that the alleged act isn't a violation of the law, then I presume that's going to cut off future prosecutions.  (While it's an interesting idea to just "Ask the AG", I will just say that I'd rather not rely on that approach.)


 * I'll start by offering my opinion that, based on the wording of the statute, the legislature intended that this law would apply to victims who are at least age 16 and are not yet age 17.


 * However, the gold standard for me would be cases where people are arrested, charged, and/or convicted. In this case, somebody would need to be arrested for  where the victim is identified as being 16 years old (since I presume it to be improbable that the victim would be exactly 16 years old, essentially just ignoring the "edge case").  One thing to keep in mind is that this named crime also applies to victims over age 16, depending on who the perpetrator is.


 * In most of the cases where I see this crime in news reports, they don't actually state the victim's age, just the wording of the law (and I see some mis-stating the charge, e.g. citing the law as "sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16". Well, here's a claim to the contrary of what I expected: .  The pertinent reasoning is a quote from another case which states that the statute penalizes sexual intercourse with a child “between the ages of thirteen and sixteen”.  I nominate this as a case of judicial malpractice, because (insofar as I can tell) in the original case that is quoted, the precise age range was not at issue, so the judge just casually characterized this as a description of the age range... and in any case, it's certainly arguable that the phrase "between the ages of thirteen and sixteen" is ambiguous anyway. (Admittedly, a defendant might choose to make the case for ambiguity, but there's no need to rely on the altered wording provided in this other case.)


 * Notwithstanding this, given these court opinions, a prosecutor is unlikely to pursue this charge where the victim is 16 years old (by which I mean, at least 16 years old but not yet 17 years old). Fabrickator (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we error pretty heavily on the side of listing the higher age of consent, if it's in doubt? There might be some people who (ahem) make decisions based on what they read on this Wikipedia page.


 * Even if it there's never been a case in New Mexico history where anybody has been arrested for statutory rape of a 16 year old, you never know when the first case might occur. Eventually there might be some prosecutor who chooses to charge somebody for statutory rape of a 16 year old, and is willing to fight appeals of the person's conviction. Even if the person ultimately wins the appeal, they'd have been imprisoned until winning the appeal, and spent a lot of money on lawyer's fees. And, to top it all off, they'd have a widely published appeals court decision that mentions their name and conviction in it, which would pretty much take away any benefit from not having to register as a sex offender.


 * And things would be even worse for the prisoner if they lost the appeal.


 * I think this article should discourage people from conduct that might be illegal. Wikidude87654321 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2020‎ (UTC)


 * I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that people may actually rely on this article, and should therefore lean towards information which would keep them out of trouble. However, given the irredeemable changes that have, IMO, made it infeasible to obtain meaningful improvement to the reliability of this article (by which I mean, that people could reasonably come to a common agreement as to what all the new "variations" on the age of consent mean), I advocated for a highly-visible disclaimer that this article should simply not be relied upon, but that was nixed, as though the generic disclaimer referenced at the bottom of every page is of any practical effect.
 * Thus for me, this is really the I don't care moment, but I will be quick to point out that the defendant's lawyer can freely cite Wikipedia as evidence of this ambiguity, and the defendant can therefore trust that, based on the rule of lenity, the judge will rule for a dismissal of the charge. Fabrickator (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I didn't realize I had previously cited U.S. v. Christy. The Federal courts have already ruled, and notwithstanding my suggestion that the ruling constituted judicial malpractice, until the New Mexico legislature revises this law, that ruling stands. Fabrickator (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Washington state 21
Isn't Washington state now 21 since 2020 WA Supreme Court ruling? cookie monster (2020)  755  20:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * According to one source, there appears to be at least one state (North Carolina) which may criminalize teacher-student sex regardless of the student's age, so Washington State's law could actually be less restrictive than N.C., given that N.C. does not have an actual "age of consent" for teacher-student relationships. Yet, it would be quite confusing to have the "relationship" age of consent be 21 for the less restrictive state (which prohibits teacher-student sex until the student is 21) and 18 for a state such as N.C., which may in some cases be more restrictive.


 * Now I suppose the way out of this is to have a 4th category of age of consent, i.e. for teacher-student relationships. But then this whole scheme of trying to make things simpler by getting them to fit into a neat structure starts to fall apart. Casual users of the page should either be warned away or else directed to a "training page", and then be required to pass a proficiency text to verify their ability to make sense of it. Fabrickator (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Pennsylvania age of consent
This was discussed at No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_33.

Newspaper sources (Philadelphia Inquirer and Pittsburgh newspapers), including those that discuss and acknowledge the Pennsylvania corruption of minors law, all state that 16 is the age of consent in the state. Even though they state that, there is also a corruption of minors law that may be used to prosecute activity with 16 and 17 year olds. I made sure to note that so even not-so-careful readers learn about this.

A former Pennsylvania prosecutor quoted in an Inquirer article (Archive) explains why this is the case: The state's view is that the 16 or 17 year old is consenting, but that one is still "corrupting" that person's morals, so the state can prosecute. To quote her: WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "JoAnne Epps, dean of academic affairs at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, said that even though a teenager can legally consent to sex, corruption of the morals of a minor gives prosecutors authority to file charges for inappropriate relationships. "They are different crimes," said Epps, a former prosecutor. "Having sex with a 16-year-old may not necessarily be statutory rape, but that's irrelevant in determining whether a person is guilty of corrupting the morals of a minor." "

I wonder if somebody can look up codes of the old Pennsylvania age of consent? This Philadelphia Inquirer article seems to contradict the Pittsburgh one I posted:
 * Metz, Andrew. "Ex-swim Coach Gets Jail Sentence." Philadelphia Inquirer. October 9, 1995.
 * "In August, Weber, who also coached at the Lansdale Swim Club, pleaded guilty to having had oral sex with the girl, whom he had encouraged to join the Germantown Academy swimming club. According to police, the two also had sexual intercourse. At the time of the incidents, the legal age of consent for intercourse was 14; for oral sex, 16."

There is another article saying that the PA age of consent was 18 but was lowered to 16 in 1995. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The age of consent was 14 in PA till it was switched to 16 in PA. Please see this case law. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-superior-court/1100463.html The information here is INCORRECT saying that PA AOC was changed from 18 to 16 and is based off an erroneous news article. This is erranous information on wikipedia and I will attempt to correct it. 72.23.222.138 (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Confirmed. Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) of the 1995 Special Session #1, enacted as Act No. 10 that year, amended this law. Bill History; Enacted law.  Section 3122 was repealed, which used to criteria of a perpetrator 18 or older with a victim "less than 14 years of age."  Enacted was section 3122.1, specifying a victim under the age of 16 years and a perpetrator four or more years older.Legitimus (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

need for a special disclaimer for age of consent pages
I had previously added a disclaimer (see [prior age of consent page showing disclaimer infobox]) to place a special emphasis on the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that relying on this information can result in very serious consequences. (To be clear, I am using "reliable source" not to refer to the fact that Wikipedia editors should not cite this as a reliable source, but that Wikipedia users should not rely on the information. Some people find this to be a significant difference, I am not sure of it myself.)


 * In re-reading this disclaimer now, my feeling is "Nothing can be more responsible than incorporating this disclaimer in the article." Pat on the back,.

There is actually a Wikipedia

"rule" against such disclaimers on Wikipedia, but the "Ages of Consent" pages are sui generis, as evidenced by the existence and inclusion (in the "talk" page) of Template:Age of consent pages discussion header (click on the "show" link from the template page to see the content of the header).

This "discussion header" includes special rules about maintaining the content of these pages. (I do not suggest taking this too literally, but rather interpret it to indicate the concern for a high standard of accuracy and lack of ambiguity.  This goal also explains the emphasis on having a single "highlighted" age of consent for each jurisdiction.)

One can argue that there has been a decline over time in meeting these goals, as editors increase the amount of detail (in the process, incorporating additional complexity that's arguably beyond the scope of this page), and while there are people who pay close attention to this page, there is still nobody who can simply overrule edits for failing to abide by this requirement.

However, it was not a "straw" which finally "broke the camel's back", it was the mass inclusion of content in the form presented on List of countries by age of consent, which provides us with 4 varieties of "age of consent" (and which can each apply to 4 different types of relationships).

Exactly how these different ages of consent are supposed to apply is, in my opinion, extremely confusing. The OP disputes this, but of course, including these categories was the OP's idea. I believe the OP also contended (at least with respect to the U.S. AOC page) that people would just follow the per-state link to read the original content. I contend it's the opposite: many or most people will look at the summary table, try their best to figure out which type of age of consent applies to their situation, and read no further.

I had hoped somebody else would pick up the fight against the change, because I have found efforts to resolve even minor disputes on Wikipedia to be largely futile. I believe I proposed to the OP that we need to have a "flashing red light", and so I composed one, in the form of the disclaimer. I felt this disclaimer provided proper and fair warning that people should not rely on this page, in a way that the generic Wikipedia disclaimer fails to do.

The disclaimer has been reverted, and I have been asked to discuss the disclaimer on the talk page, so here it is..

I suspect that many people who have a formal law education will dispute what I am about to say, but absent that training, I would still be qualified to serve on a jury. If a person relied on the information on the AOC pages to their detriment, I would consider their claim that the standard disclaimer was ineffective to be appealing, and thus, that the defendant would likely have some degree of negligence. It would actually be exacerbating that an effective disclaimer had been posted and then deleted. And IMO, it would implicate the editor who was responsible for the deletion.

But if you care to, set aside the concern about legal liability, and consider Wikipedia's "civic duty". Do you really want the headline to be that some teenager gets charged with a crime after relying on the information on a Wikipedia page? Will that finally teach the public the lesson it needs to learn, that it should not rely on Wikipedia, or will it primarily have the effect of causing a loss of reputation to Wikipedia, if not leading to Wikipedia's final demise?

I believe that there are two alternatives to having a "flashing red light" disclaimer such as I included
 * drop the age of consent pages from Wikipedia altogether
 * make appropriate changes to the Wikipedia AOC pages
 * revert the presentation with multiple categories of ages of consent
 * consider such other changes needed to maintain a high level of page accuracy

In this last point, I am suggesting something we don't ordinarily do with general articles (i.e. having a heightened level of content management), but remember that the age of consent pages are sui generis, which simply means that they are a case of their own, and the rules that apply to them are different from the rules that apply to all other pages.

I'm kind of undecided whether I should just unilaterally reinstate the disclaimer. Maybe I'll wait a day to see the feedback (so often, there is none ... but perhaps that will not happen in this case). If we start getting meaningful feedback, then I'll be interested to hear the commentary, hopefully others will consider it to be a weighty issue. Fabrickator (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. But, WP:NDA. O3000 (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I had pointed that out: "There is actually a Wikipedia 'rule' against such disclaimers." As I explained, though, sui generis. (Feel free to delete this comment when you delete yours.) Fabrickator (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The template at the top of the talk page gives style-instructions particular to AOC articles. I don't see how it implies that AOC articles should be exempt from WP:NDA. (Medical topics, which are held to an above-average standard, are not exempt, nor are any other law-related articles as far as I know.) If you are concerned about Wikipedia's legal liability or (fanciful) "final demise", I suggest you raise the topic with the WMF, not us editors.  — Ruyter (talk • edits)  09:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What you're overlooking here is that, because AOC is sui generis, what we know about everything else doesn't help to inform us about the sui generis case. As we encounter new issues, we must work out solutions that might not apply to other WP articles.
 * In the case of the AOC pages, the focus had previously been on identifying one age of consent per jurisdiction, and largely a recitation of the statutes for any exceptions. Now we are citing multiple ages of consent per jurisdiction.  It was challenging enough with the single age of consent that was somewhat well understood.  We also had the benefit of time for the AOC pages to evolve. That did not happen overnight, and as well, it took some time to realize the special rules that were required for AOC.
 * Now we have at least 4 ages of consent to consider for each jurisdiction, and we are presented with having to think about what these each mean. With this change brought on us all at once, it becomes infeasible to get to a high level of confidence regarding the accuracy of the information.
 * So to emphasize, the "discussion header" only goes as far as those issues that had been identified at the time it was developed. Now we have a new situation with this sui generis article. We are not constrained to the rules in the existing discussion header, nor to the rules that apply to WP articles generally.  Instead, we need to apply ourselves to evolving the rules that apply to address the problems that have been created by this change.
 * I proffer the disclaimer as the most expeditious way to fix the current problem. Having recognized the sui generis status of the AOC articles, we can do what we need to.  But if you have an alternative solution which addresses this problem and it's actually practical, then I would be all ears. Fabrickator (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is hardly sui generis. User sourced sites are extremely common, on the I'net and in literature. Anyone that believes everything they see on the 'Net is a fool. Although, I am actually a French model. Incidentally, I suggest you make more succinct posts on talk pages. They are more likely to be read. O3000 (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He did not say Wikipedia is sui generis, he said this subject matter is. I agree. And I note that every editor who brazenly ignores well constructed reasoned arguments and responds with a one-or-two word reply citing some policy is in contempt of WP:IAR: if an editor has presented a compelling argument for why a rule should be ignored in a particular case: if you oppose, you ought to be able to explain why you think it would be ill advised, while taking their arguments into account. If you can't come up with any good reason other than "its da rulez!", then you you need to familiarise yourself with WP:IAR (which is also a policy). Therefore, I support 's proposal and give him leave to restore the disclaimer as soon a time as is convenient. (disclaimer (pun intended): I make no claim of authority - just using colourful language) Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Wisconsin
There appears to be a mistake in the section relating to Wisconsin in the first sentence, where it says the age of consent is 18 when all the relevant laws refer to 16 (posted by 90.242.137.198)


 * The relevant statute is 948.09, though it's not' called "statutory rape", it's called "sexual intercourse with a child age 16 or older" which is defined as a "class A misdemeanor". Fabrickator (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Corrections to interstate travel laws
Both of these also specifically mention prostitution (commercial sexual activity), and treat it specially. Regardless of local law, it's illegal for a US citizen to patronize a prostitute ANYWHERE if said prostitute is a minor, unless they live in a place such acts are legal. As the page is locked, I cannot fix this. 2600:6C40:700:71A7:6D9E:73E:7032:D3DF (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that this page is about age of consent, not about every illegal action which implicates a sex act. What definition of "minor" applies in this particular context?  State?  Federal?  Is it a minor for purposes of the right to enter into a contract or something else?
 * It is appropriate to explain the situations where either interstate travel criminalizes sex acts which would otherwise be legal or the interstate travel becomes illegal when the intent is to perform some sex act which would be legal if it weren't for the interstate travel. Does that make sense?  Can you identify the particular circumstances where your observation meets either of those criteria? Fabrickator (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

New Mexico (recent update)
New Mexico's Supreme Court's decision in the article (Perez v State) is too old (1990). There is a much more recent (2016) decision of the NM Supreme Court, where it says: "Unlike in Moore, where the victim was fourteen years old, whether J.Z. consented to sex with Defendant was legally relevant to the CSP-felony charge because sixteen-year-old J.Z. could have legally consented to sex with Defendant. ". The case name is STATE v. SAMORA. M.Karelin (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - for your info. M.Karelin (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling out my prior efforts in trying to analyze New Mexico. I do want to call out the fact that a judicial precedent or opinion doesn't become "too old", aside from the case where there is an applicable change to the law or the ruling has been superseded, though it's helpful to be aware that the ruling is actually being applied, and it's also likely that there are some subtle factual differences, so the additional ruling could help to avoid an overly narrow interpretation of the original ruling. Fabrickator (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022
Change Kentucky age of consent from 18 to 16. Law was changed in 2018 128.163.238.238 (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

New Mexico
I'm seeing some sources that say the age of consent in New Mexico is 17, not 16. 1Trevorr (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.ageofconsent.net/states/new-mexico 1Trevorr (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see earlier discussions on this page about New Mexico. In short, there is some ambiguity in the way that the statute is worded, it sounds like the age of consent would be17. But the state supreme court has issued rulings indicating that the age of consent is 16.

This is the problem: With regard to the age of consent, you generally can't rely on anything in the general media, you need to go to the statutes. But you can't even trust the statutes, you have to go to the courts, where you can only rely on published opinions. which are citable in court cases, normally from cases heard at the appeals level or higher. And I think most people will agree that's it's essential that we get this right using the best information available. Fabrickator (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Texas
I'm pretty sure the age of consent in Texas is 17, not 18. 1Trevorr (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

https://versustexas.com/blog/age-of-consent-in-texas/ 1Trevorr (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you search Google for "Texas age of consent", everything says 17. 1Trevorr (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There are numerous sources that incorrectly state that the Texas age of consent is 17. You might want to at least examine the sources in the current citations. Also, you did not make any mention of the extensive discussions about this that have taken place on this talk page. Fabrickator (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You may want to examine Texas Penal code mate. Check out Texas Penal Code 21.11, it states that "an individual commits the crime of Indecency With a Child if they have sexual contact with a child under 17 years old." and as well Section 22.011 defines Child as "a person younger than 17 years of age." The Texas age of consent is 17. CIN I&#38;II (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2022
The paragraph after the bullet points in the summary section is pretty bad. The first sentence is runs on for three clauses, the second isn't very encyclopedic, and for some reason the country of Argentina is used as an example. It also seems entirely superfluous. The given example doesn't even illustrate a wording that would need to be interpreted--it just says exactly the categories in the table. (And, again, is about a country on an entirely different continent.)

I request to remove that paragraph entirely. It serves no purpose except to confuse.

128.255.34.51 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This paragraph is actually transcluded from and is used on several pages. You should be able to edit the page yourself, but I've gone ahead and removed the paragraph in question on each transclusion, as each page goes into enough detail that that "disclaimer" is no longer necessary.  TG  HL ↗  🍁 20:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Oklahoma second-degree rape
The "unrestricted" entry for Oklahoma specifies age 18. According to https://www.urbanic.law/answers/what-to-know-about-sex-crimes-in-oklahoma/second-degree-rape-in-oklahoma/, under certain conditions, Oklahoma criminalizes having consensual sex with a 19-year-old as second-degree rape (though it appears ambiguous if the person is 19 years and 1 day old). In any case, as I understand the meaning of the "unrestricted" column, 18 would be incorrect. Fabrickator (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

State of Texas
This page needs to be updated. The state of Texas age of consent is 17 under Penal Code 21.11. Also, please double check Louisiana’s. 2600:4040:A8EF:D600:5C3D:60F:AC44:9E2 (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to think that Texas statute 21.11 voids Texas statute 43.25, or otherwise modifies the interpretation of 43.25? If not, then they're concurrently effective, and 21.11 will have absolutely no effect on the criminal acts defined by 43.25.   And if you think that 43.25 doesn't criminalize voluntary sex by a 25-year-old (for example) with a 17-year-old, then you'd be wrong. Fabrickator (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Delaware Age of Consent
The historic age of consent for Delaware needs to reflect that 7 was for the death penalty as punishment and 10 for life in prison.

https://blogs.lawlib.widener.edu/delaware/2014/07/07/the-age-of-consent-and-rape-reform-in-delaware/ 71.230.186.74 (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Older than the victim
I have not found any threads on this subject, which is the actual wording in South Carolina's statute 16-3-655.

(2) the actor engages in sexual battery with a victim who is at least fourteen years of age but who is less than sixteen years of age and the actor is in a position of familial, custodial, or official authority to coerce the victim to submit or is older than the victim. However, a person may not be convicted of a violation of the provisions of this item if he is eighteen years of age or less when he engages in consensual sexual conduct with another person who is at least fourteen years of age. Mrcleanisin (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Chatgpt explains Texas 43.25: sexual performance by a child
Admittedly, one can sometimes coax chatgpt to give the answer you want. But you know, it's right some of the time.

Q: Is sexual performance or inducement of sexual performance a necessary element to violate Texas 43.25?

A: Texas Penal Code 43.25 defines the offense of "Sexual Performance by a Child," which involves employing, using, persuading, enticing, or coercing a child younger than 18 years of age to engage in sexual conduct, which includes sexual contact, sexual intercourse, and deviate sexual intercourse.

The statute does not require actual sexual performance or inducement of sexual performance as a necessary element to violate the law. The act of employing, using, persuading, enticing, or coercing a child to engage in sexual conduct is sufficient to establish a violation of the statute.

Therefore, a person who employs, uses, persuades, entices, or coerces a child to engage in sexual conduct can be charged with the offense of "Sexual Performance by a Child" in Texas, even if there is no actual sexual performance or inducement of sexual performance involved. Fabrickator (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This issue is also addressed in the discussion of Franklin v. State (2006)" (2-04-551-CR), which concisely points out:"The sexual performance statute itself, as drafted by our legislature, also presents grave issues.   Although “sexual performance” would appear to require a performance, under the statute, a performance is not required." Fabrickator (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you used ChatGPT, or AI, to interpret a Texas state statute. I have not analyzed its interpretation to compare it with the court's or yours.
 * I used GOOGLE's Bard, AI, to interpret South Carolina's statute 16-3-655 criminal sexual conduct with minors "or is older than the victim" language and depending on how I presented the information Bard would give varying results. Bard says there is an AI available for legal interpretation, but I do not have access to it. I posted on here titled "older than the victim" for feedback. Mrcleanisin (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Montana
The age of consent in Montana is 16 per Montana Code Annotated (2019) section 45-5-625(c). There is an exception for sexual conduct short of intercourse so long as the defendant is no more than three years older than the child. (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-502 (2018).) 77.166.93.14 (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: This is quite complicated. I initially misunderstood what you meant, see the edit history of this talk page. The cited section of the Montana Code does not provide a close-in-age exception for the misconduct described there. However, § 45-5-502 does apparently establish a close-in-age provision for what is considered valid consent, but only with reference to itself (i.e. the definition of valid consent provided there is not necessarily universal). I could read more into this topic, but to be honest, I'd rather not right now; it's a bit emotionally taxing. Let's wait for someone else to take a look at this. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Xan747 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This demonstrates how problematic it can be when we get into the muck and mire of such details, and makes a good case for reverting back to when we were less concerned about many of these details. Here are some of the objections:
 * * While we can generally verify the applicable statutory wording, identifying a reliable source (and more particularly, an actually credible reliable source) becomes more challenging.
 * * It is likely to be more difficult to determine that these details have changed. A change in the general age of consent is more likely to receive pertinent news coverage, and much less likely to have a material error.
 * * It's barely even feasible to cover all the cases. Consider, for incense, the restrictions based on incest.  Now imagine a state that completely prohibits incest with certain relatives regardless of age, vs. a state which allows incest subject to the ages of the participants.  So in the former case, age of consent is seemingly irrelevant, while in the latter, it's not.  Do we mention the incest restriction for only one of these or for both of them?

Even if both partners have reached the general age of consent and both have actually consented, that doesn't guarantee the sex is legal. We can have an overarching description of the nature of certain conditions that might render consensual sex illegal nevertheless, and thus alert the reader that for certain conditions, the fact that consensual sex between two parties who have both reached the general age of consent is not necessarily sufficient to avoid violating the law. Fabrickator (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)