Anonymous #2 1w

Which side opposes changing that? Use your head

10

Anonymous #6 1w

I’ve never heard of either side wanting stronger consequences, or either side trying to fight for it.

-3

Anonymous #2 1w

Then you’re not listening. The only people who have opposed changes to the age of consent are republicans

13

Anonymous #6 1w

There’s a lot more than just age of consent that go into this.

-5

Anonymous #2 1w

There’s a lot more than age of consent that goes into pedos???? The only people opposing the end of child marriages are also republicans

14

Anonymous #2 1w

Red states have the lowest age of consent laws and higher child bride rates

9

Anonymous #7 1w

The age of consent in most states is 16 which is currently the youngest in the USA. That’s not that low. With that you have the Romeo and Juliet law as well. Things are legal people just are good at hiding it. I’m more concerned with adults who are assaulting literal children.

-2

Anonymous #2 1w

Romeo and Juliet and any AoC under 18 are flimsy. Even if they can’t charge you with statutory because of it, prosecutors will still hit your ass with with corruption of minor charges and put you on a registry. And it’s not “most states” but it is “most red states”

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Age of consent is 16 specifically in red states (because you’re pedos;) RJ clauses (since you don’t know how the law works) are specifically meant for individuals within a 1-4 year threshold depending on location. You are genuinely a joke, 16 IS A LITERAL CHILD at 16 you are most likely a second semester SOPHOMORE IN HIGH SCHOOL! You’re one of them, aren’t you?

12

Anonymous #6 1w

Dude as a female who chose not to date or have sex until I was ready it was college. But raising the age of consent is not going to stop two 16 year olds from going at it.

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Raising the age isn’t going to stop people from having sex. Yes there should be stricter laws and it should be if you decide to at 16 then the other person can only be within a year of you until you are 18 and then you can choose to do as you want.

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Two 16 year olds having sex is a NON ISSUE you moron. The idea that someone could be 17 years old and in a legal, romantic or sexual relationship with someone in their 30’s is a disgusting idea and a disgrace to our legal system. You being a woman holds no bearing on your opinion, nor does your celibacy. Areas that teach abstinence (the same red states) have the WORST teen pregnancy rates.

7

Anonymous #2 1w

The purpose isn’t to stop to minors from that, it’s to stop grown ass creeps from molesting children. And you’re acting like the same prosecutors who make people sex offenders for a drunk piss in an alley won’t go after child crimes on lesser charges anyway

5

Anonymous #6 1w

If you are 17 then you can’t be with someone who is 30. The rule is 4 years and it should be smaller than four but it’s four year difference.

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Unless you’re in a state where the age of consent is ALREADY under 17. Then it’s legal, which is exactly why people have been trying to raise the age of consent. How do you keep getting so close to the point? What kind of drugs are you on? YOU mentioned the age of consent being 16, actual moron.

5

Anonymous #2 1w

AoC on its own would allow someone who is 30 to sleep with someone who is above the age of consent (with exceptions made for power dynamics). Corruption of Minor charges make anything between a 30 year old and a 17 year old illegal under a lesser offense. Romeo and Juliet wouldn’t apply here, it’s specifically over and under AoC, and it’s literally in the name of the clause since Romeo was 16 and Juliet was 13

2

Anonymous #7 1w

This is not true; you can literally look up the MARRIAGE rate of minors under 17 in the South due to religious exemptions specifically for Christians. You’re pretending that these laws are preventative of the relationship described, but these relationships are incredibly common & often lead to religiously backed marriages. You disgust me.

1