In some states without these laws, statutory r*** can be weaponized by parents against partners they don't like. So if an 18 or 19 year old person is with a 17 year old and the parents don't like him they can definitely use these laws. It's an edge case but I wouldn't put it past bigots to try and use this shit. Racists or homophobes should not be trusted with this kind of leverage. And then you put someone on the registry as an offender for.... What is basically normal age gaps.

[–] AnarchoAnarchist@hexbear.net 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Most, of not all, states that enforce age of consent laws also have provisions for people who are close in age, "Romeo and Juliet" laws.

Like, in theory I agree, state law enforcement should not be concerned about a 17 year old and a 19 year old in a consensual relationship. But I also have to question if any 19 year olds are actually facing charges because of a 17 year old partner. Is it actually happening or is it just useful rhetoric that legitimate pedophiles like Alan Dershowitz employ so often it SOUNDS like a real thing?

[–] ChestRockwell@hexbear.net 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I mean, according to this there's still 5 states without them.

https://attorneys.media/states-without-romeo-juliet-laws/

Not gonna do deep age of consent research btw, but seems semi-reliable.

Btw, once Romeo and Juliet laws are universal then there's no good faith argument against age of consent being 18. However I don't know about you but I wouldn't want some reactionary parents being able to leverage the lack of these laws against an LGBTQ partner they didn't approve of, for instance.

Btw Dershowitz is totally bad faith, but there is a good faith version of the issue that actually probably should be a priority in states without these laws. Again, my concern really is its weaponization by reactionaries more than anything. Why leave that shit lying around, as it were.