Indianapolis, IN

Tue 10 July 2007

So, I’m thinking about teenage sex. An Indystar.com article announced that Indiana has eased up on the law concerning teen sex. Before, the age at which you could consent to sex was 16. But now, the new law states that 14- and 15-year olds are old enough to consent to sex. (Having sex with someone 13 and younger is still considered child molestation. At least we still have something to hold onto.) My question is: Who in the hell decided that a 14-year old was mature enough to decide whether or not sex is a good idea? And it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about boys or girls—they are not ready to deal with all of the consequences of having sex. And part of the law was changed so it read that if there was a difference of four years between the two in a dating relationship, then it was ok. (Even if one is over 18.) On one hand, it saves an 18-year old who is dating someone (and having sex with them) who is a year or two younger from having a felony conviction and requiring them to register as a sex offender. That would always dictate which jobs they can get, or whether they can get student loans or go to school for the rest of their lives. But on the other hand, these teenagers don’t need to be having sex. What about focusing on school? What about sports or music? What about religion (almost every major world religion, no matter what you believe in, denounces pre-marital sex)? What about getting a job? What about all the other kids thinking you’re a slut? I hardly think they are ready to take care of kids or deal with STDs if they happen? Whatever happened to morality? Well, thank you Indiana, for overriding the parent’s decision on whether 14- and 15- year olds are old enough to have sex.

: teenage sex, pre-marital sex, Indiana law, statutory rape, sex offender, child molestation, sex offender registry