^^^^ what's there to debate? Because she's a girl? Or because they both are?

I don't see the quandry here.

Any 18 year old having sex with a minor should be charged with statutory rape. Gender shouldn't matter.

Really? So the teenager who is in a sexual relationship with another teenager a couple of years younger was just fine having sex with said partner when they were both under 18, but should be charged with statutory rape for continuing that relationship after their 18th birthday? Doesn't make sense to me - in fact, in many cases, it sounds like absolute non-sense. In situations like this, irrespective of the genders of the two young people involved, where a relationship exists well-prior to one party turning 18, and coercion is not suspected, I don't think bringing statutory rape charges is reasonable or serves justice.

Re. this specific case, it seems relatively clear that the younger girls' parents had major issues with their daughter having a homosexual relationship. The girls were sexually active together before Kaitlyn turned 18, but there was little the parents could do, legally-speaking, to prevent it. Just a few days after Kaitlyn's birthday, the parents called the police... Given Florida's history of discriminatory behaviour towards non-heterosexual individuals*, and conservative state leadership, it's not surprising to me that the state brought charges, nor that Kaitlyn's parents are claiming discrimination. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find similar situations involving a young heterosexual couple where a more reasonable and less punitive approach has been adopted.

Many states (US and internationally)have so-called 'Romeo & Juliet' clauses or laws to prevent exactly this scenario, where a parent dislikes their child's choice of partner and uses the law and an age gap to separate their child from the disliked party, effectively - intentionally or otherwise - wrecking the older partner's life with a 'sexual predator' tag that is undeserved and will follow them around for the rest of their life, limiting their options and choices in the process.


*From the Equality Florida website, for example:
"Throughout most of Florida, it is legal to fire someone or deny them access to housing or public accommodations because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). "
http://eqfl.org/Discrimination

I'm about to log off for the day, so will be brief, but it occurs to me that age of consent laws have not kept up with the realities of life in the present day... that's a whole 'nother debate, though!

Most states have Romeo Juliet clauses that allow the over-18 peer to be a certain number of years older - 4 years is a reasonable number, but some are 3 years or less. If that isn't the law in this locality, the question is, is this how a heterosexual couple would be treated. If the law routinely overlooks 18/14 hetero relations, than it is discriminatory. If they routinely prosecute, no discrimination has occurred.

Each jurisdiction has an age before which it is considered impossible to give informed consent to sexual relations. To me, as a Brit, 18 sounds ridiculously high because it is 16 here, but in some places it is as low as 12. Japan had no age of consent at all until a decade or so ago...

So, if something's illegal it's illegal. Whether you think it immoral is probably linked to your notion of the norm wherever you are.

I have a daughter and she is 9...If she were 14 and was dating and 17/18 yr old I would have put a stop to it as soon as I could.... I wouldn't care what sex she was dating a 4 year age gap at that point is to much ....... She would still be in Jr high while the the 18 yr old is getting ready to go off to collage... Naha no way .........


My other question is why the parents didn't stop them from seeing each other before then.......I mean she is 14 ...do you know what my parents would have done to me at 14 if I was dating an 18 yr old ... HA .....


UPside is they didnt have to worry about her getting pregnant though

I think it should be brought to court and decided by a jury of 14-18 year olds.

Most states have Romeo Juliet clauses that allow the over-18 peer to be a certain number of years older - 4 years is a reasonable number, but some are 3 years or less. If that isn't the law in this locality, the question is, is this how a heterosexual couple would be treated. If the law routinely overlooks 18/14 hetero relations, than it is discriminatory. If they routinely prosecute, no discrimination has occurred.

this is pretty much how i feel about it.

the problem is that - with teenagers in general and female teens specifically - the idea of maturity is SO individualized. at 14 many kids are working and helping to pay bills at home. at 18 many are just "hanging out". who is the more mature? it's VERY possible that a 14/18 relationship is a true peer relationship.

that's what makes the enforcement of statutory w/ teen relationships so hard to pigeonhole. if i were the judge assigned, i would have them both talk to a court-appointed therapist to see if there was any coersion. b/c of individualized maturity, the statutory cases (w/ teen relationships) must also be individualized. no matter the orientation of the parties involved.