Birds and Bees Bill (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'd like to offer an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since the sponsor introduced the amendment, Senators have 24 hours to object and request a roll call vote.

[Mint]

Actually that's more conservative than I'd prefer but I'd be willing to vote on that.

[Hans-im-Glück]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I support this, but I would support the old version of this bill too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How do you know? I somehow doubt that 14 years old (with some exceptions) want to get pregnant, and I doubt even more that they want to pick up HIV or syphilis or gonorrhea or something equally nasty. So they would probably use contraceptives.

I doubt that people that young would even thing about that or consider the potential dangers. The youngest people in this country today are the dumbest and most self-absorbed generation ever spawned. I doubt seriously whether they care about anything other then momentary impulse.

Eww, you're southerness Northeastern Pennsylvanianess is showing

I have an idea that I think could be accepted by all sides. Age of consent is 16, but if two people over the age of 14 are within, say, 2 years of each other in age, than the law does not apply.

Now I know how Afleitch felt.

[Badger]

Winston and other fellow senators: Would you be interested in a short primer on one state's (OH) age of consent laws? I think it would actually help this discussion and keep the Senate from trying to reinvent the wheel as the debate here isn't too far off from the RL issues.

[k-onmmunist]

Go on then

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are waiting. Bacon King most likely isn't going to be so accomodating when it comes to time.

[Badger]

Go on then

We are waiting. Bacon King most likely isn't going to be so accomodating when it comes to time.

Sorry, are these queries directed to me? Sorry if I misunderstood Winston's response to be giving me the go-ahead.

Grrr. Unfortunately I'll have to try tomorrow (bad day at work).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Go on then

We are waiting. Bacon King most likely isn't going to be so accomodating when it comes to time.

Sorry, are these queries directed to me? Sorry if I misunderstood Winston's response to be giving me the go-ahead.

Grrr. Unfortunately I'll have to try tomorrow (bad day at work).

It was directed at all the Senators.

[Badger]

I'm only going to superficially address Ohio's sex offense laws as they relate to "age of consent" issues. There are obvious exceptions in the law (e.g. legitimate medical care such as a gynecological exam doesn't constitute "sexual contact" and the like; different provisions protect mentally incompetent subjects regardless of age, etc.) not worth elaborating on here for brevity's sake.

"Sexual Conduct" includes intercourse (vaginal or anal), oral sex (fellatio or cunnilingus), or the insertion of any part of the body (e.g. usually digital penetration) or any foreign object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration in these circumstances, however slight, is sufficient to constitute Sexual Conduct.

"Sexual Contact" includes any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person. Note this last clause. It's important, and not required to establish Sexual Conduct.

"Sexual Activity" means sexual conduct or sexual contact, or both.

Sexual Conduct with a person under 13 constitutes Rape. Sexual Contact with a person under 13 is Gross Sexual Imposition, a lesser--but still serious--felony offense. Ignorance of the child's age is not a defense. Yes, the law here applies to juvenile offenders under 18. I'll admit that one of my concerns about the law is, while it's absolutely possible for a 12 or 13 year old to sexually molest a younger child and warrant prosecution, the law has no provision (other than "prosecutorial discretion") to conceivably be applied to a situation where 2 kids about the same age and one or both under 13 "play doctor". I personally haven't had that kind of an issue yet, though.

If the offender is at least 18: Sexual Conduct with a 13-15 year old is Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, a felony offense (increased to a higher degree of felony if the offender is 10+ years older than the victim). Sexual Contact with a 13-15 year old is the misdemeanor offense of Sexual Imposition. Exception: If the above scenarios involve Sexual Conduct between an 18 yr old and a 15 year old, Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor is a misdemeanor offense, and Sexual Contact between and 18 year old and 15 year old does not violate the Sexual Imposition statute. For both of the above statutes, the Defendant must be proven to either have known the victim was under 16, or to have been "reckless" in this regard.

This does not entirely mean consensual sexual relations with (unrelated) 16 and 17 year olds is always legal. The misdemeanor offense of Contributing to the Delinquency or Unruliness of a Minor can be applied in some situations where there is a material threat to the child's well-being. Such as parents telling a kid to stay away completely from their 16 year old daughter, only for the kid to arrange for the girl to sneak out her bedroom window in the middle of the night and run away for a hookup. Or the kid lets the 16 year old come to his house to fool around when he knows she's cutting school to do so. Again, juveniles can be prosecuted under this statute as well as adults. Some case law, however, has held that without more a single act of consensual sex with a 17 year old doesn't violate the statue. This is obviously a very factual specific statute, and may be more trouble than its worth to consider in formulating a bill here.

Questions and comments are welcome. Hope this helps create a structure for what we're considering here.

[k-onmmunist]

Ah. Well, the age of consent here would be defined only under what Ohio statutes would describe as 'sexual conduct', presumably.

[Badger]

Ah. Well, the age of consent here would be defined only under what Ohio statutes would describe as 'sexual conduct', presumably.

It would actually probably be both. Vaginally penetrating a 9 year old should be illegal of course, but so should "feeling them up" sexually. The question here is where to draw the line for both/either to "consent".

[Bacon King]

Are there any amendments to be offered before this proceeds to a final vote?

[Badger]

Are there any amendments to be offered before this proceeds to a final vote?

I'll pose a question to gauge the will of the Senate first:

Do we really want to ban any sexual activity--which as written would apparantly include "sexual contact" as I defined above (i.e. 'first and second base') between 17 and 14 year olds? That's a high school junior and freshman (with the frosh's birthday coming later in the school year than the junior's). I'm not sure I'd oppose the bill if that's truly the wish of the Senate, but it seems contrary to Winton's original intent to liberalize the law here somewhat.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are there any amendments to be offered before this proceeds to a final vote?

I'll pose a question to gauge the will of the Senate first:

Do we really want to ban any sexual activity--which as written would apparantly include "sexual contact" as I defined above (i.e. 'first and second base') between 17 and 14 year olds? That's a high school junior and freshman (with the frosh's birthday coming later in the school year than the junior's). I'm not sure I'd oppose the bill if that's truly the wish of the Senate, but it seems contrary to Winton's original intent to liberalize the law here somewhat.

Why don't we just make all sex illegal for everyone? It seems that would solve a lot of problems.

[Badger]

Are there any amendments to be offered before this proceeds to a final vote?

I'll pose a question to gauge the will of the Senate first:

Do we really want to ban any sexual activity--which as written would apparantly include "sexual contact" as I defined above (i.e. 'first and second base') between 17 and 14 year olds? That's a high school junior and freshman (with the frosh's birthday coming later in the school year than the junior's). I'm not sure I'd oppose the bill if that's truly the wish of the Senate, but it seems contrary to Winton's original intent to liberalize the law here somewhat.

Why don't we just make all sex illegal for everyone? It seems that would solve a lot of problems.

Yeh, ur grlfriend sez that. 

ZING!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are there any amendments to be offered before this proceeds to a final vote?

I'll pose a question to gauge the will of the Senate first:

Do we really want to ban any sexual activity--which as written would apparantly include "sexual contact" as I defined above (i.e. 'first and second base') between 17 and 14 year olds? That's a high school junior and freshman (with the frosh's birthday coming later in the school year than the junior's). I'm not sure I'd oppose the bill if that's truly the wish of the Senate, but it seems contrary to Winton's original intent to liberalize the law here somewhat.

Why don't we just make all sex illegal for everyone? It seems that would solve a lot of problems.

Yeh, ur grlfriend sez that. 

ZING!

Then she will never get to experience it.

[Badger]

Are there any amendments to be offered before this proceeds to a final vote?

I'll pose a question to gauge the will of the Senate first:

Do we really want to ban any sexual activity--which as written would apparently include "sexual contact" as I defined above (i.e. 'first and second base') between 17 and 14 year olds? That's a high school junior and freshman (with the frosh's birthday coming later in the school year than the junior's). I'm not sure I'd oppose the bill if that's truly the wish of the Senate, but it seems contrary to Winton's original intent to liberalize the law here somewhat.

Why don't we just make all sex illegal for everyone? It seems that would solve a lot of problems.

Yeh, ur grlfriend sez that.  

ZING!

Then she will never get to experience it.

Yank, did you just publically post that you haven't tapped that?  

EDIT: Meanwhile, any comment on the point I raised? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[tmthforu94]

Are there any amendments to be offered before this proceeds to a final vote?

I'll pose a question to gauge the will of the Senate first:

Do we really want to ban any sexual activity--which as written would apparently include "sexual contact" as I defined above (i.e. 'first and second base') between 17 and 14 year olds? That's a high school junior and freshman (with the frosh's birthday coming later in the school year than the junior's). I'm not sure I'd oppose the bill if that's truly the wish of the Senate, but it seems contrary to Winton's original intent to liberalize the law here somewhat.

Why don't we just make all sex illegal for everyone? It seems that would solve a lot of problems.

Yeh, ur grlfriend sez that. 

ZING!

Then she will never get to experience it.

Yank, did you just publically post that you haven't tapped that? 

Oh heavens, this has gotten way too crazy, way too fast.

Badger: Nice "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" quote.

[Badger]

Are there any amendments to be offered before this proceeds to a final vote?

I'll pose a question to gauge the will of the Senate first:

Do we really want to ban any sexual activity--which as written would apparently include "sexual contact" as I defined above (i.e. 'first and second base') between 17 and 14 year olds? That's a high school junior and freshman (with the frosh's birthday coming later in the school year than the junior's). I'm not sure I'd oppose the bill if that's truly the wish of the Senate, but it seems contrary to Winton's original intent to liberalize the law here somewhat.

Why don't we just make all sex illegal for everyone? It seems that would solve a lot of problems.

Yeh, ur grlfriend sez that. 

ZING!

Then she will never get to experience it.

Yank, did you just publically post that you haven't tapped that? 

Oh heavens, this has gotten way too crazy, way too fast.

Badger: Nice "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" quote.

And here I thought I'd be dating myself in front of you crazy kids.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are there any amendments to be offered before this proceeds to a final vote?

I'll pose a question to gauge the will of the Senate first:

Do we really want to ban any sexual activity--which as written would apparently include "sexual contact" as I defined above (i.e. 'first and second base') between 17 and 14 year olds? That's a high school junior and freshman (with the frosh's birthday coming later in the school year than the junior's). I'm not sure I'd oppose the bill if that's truly the wish of the Senate, but it seems contrary to Winton's original intent to liberalize the law here somewhat.

Why don't we just make all sex illegal for everyone? It seems that would solve a lot of problems.

Yeh, ur grlfriend sez that.  

ZING!

Then she will never get to experience it.

Yank, did you just publically post that you haven't tapped that?  

EDIT: Meanwhile, any comment on the point I raised? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I would rather lose a kidney.

I am probably going to get rid of her soon. She is so shallow and boring. She also doesn't like politics.

[Badger]

Are there any amendments to be offered before this proceeds to a final vote?

I'll pose a question to gauge the will of the Senate first:

Do we really want to ban any sexual activity--which as written would apparently include "sexual contact" as I defined above (i.e. 'first and second base') between 17 and 14 year olds? That's a high school junior and freshman (with the frosh's birthday coming later in the school year than the junior's). I'm not sure I'd oppose the bill if that's truly the wish of the Senate, but it seems contrary to Winton's original intent to liberalize the law here somewhat.

Why don't we just make all sex illegal for everyone? It seems that would solve a lot of problems.

Yeh, ur grlfriend sez that.  

ZING!

Then she will never get to experience it.

Yank, did you just publically post that you haven't tapped that?  

EDIT: Meanwhile, any comment on the point I raised? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I would rather lose a kidney.

I am probably going to get rid of her soon. She is so shallow and boring. She also doesn't like politics.

If organ loss is preferable to sleeping with your girlfriend, then yeah I'd say that romance may've run its course.

[k-onmmunist]

Jesus... talk about bitter

[Bacon King]

Senators, this bill is now at a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[Bacon King]

The final bill, by the way:

You must be logged in to read this quote.