Slashdot Mirror

In Japan the age of consent is 13.

That's sort of true. That's the absolute minimum age for allowable sexual activity under the law.

So this guy was abusing children 12 and under.

[Citation needed]

It's more complicated than a single age. (See, for example, here and here.)

Basically, local laws may apply. There are lots of local "corrupting a minor" statutes. Depending on prefecture, the actual age of consent for sexual activity with an adult is usually 16 or 18. And any activity with a minor under 18 could constitute some sort of criminal offense.

Actually it's about equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/f... http://www.firstpost.com/india... http://www.hindustantimes.com/... http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/... http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/... http://www.weeklystandard.com/... http://douchebagdork.tumblr.co... http://www.ageofconsent.com/co... http://studentactivism.net/201... http://i.imgur.com/Vac0UOk.jpg http://i.imgur.com/aob5k.jpg http://www.law.fsu.edu/journal... http://www.genderratic.net/?ta... http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/d... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://www.theguardian.com/com... http://www.saveservices.org/pd... http://www.law.fsu.edu/journal... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://jezebel.com/294383/have... http://anescapedconviction.tum... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://news.nationalpost.com/2... https://imgur.com/zoR6eQ0 https://twitter.com/CodeusaSof... https://twitter.com/FabioFacch... https://twitter.com/DanielleGi... https://twitter.com/ForemanEri... http://theflounce.com/harassme...

Much of the pederasty in ancient Greece started at 12-13 years of age; in many cultures (both ancient and modern) onset of puberty has generally been the "green light," so to speak, which makes perfect biological sense since this corresponds to the ability to reproduce. While it doesn't quite work that way in homosexual contexts, it is the most convenient and obvious "line in the sand" to draw. Notably, it is mainly Western cultures that strongly denounce sexual activity with teenagers (regardless of whether it is with a peer or with a fully matured adult) while the legal age of (heterosexual) consent is as low as 12 years of age or onset of puberty in some parts of the world, particularly in some areas of Mexico. Some places today simply base it upon onset of puberty.

So, my best answer for an age that was always off-limits is this: the two options are basically "prior to the onset of puberty" and "under 12 years of age."

I do know that not very many years ago, in a couple of Southern states the age of consent was 12. I think that's changed, but what did it change to? 14? 15? I have no idea.

Welcome to the internets. You must be new here. TL;DR there's a couple of states which are 14 by parental consent, but in no state is it lower than 16 without it.

In the US, the age of consent is as low as 14 in some states: http://ageofconsent.com/

He doesn't even make sense in his own fantasy land. I think he means statutory sexual assault--if kids are having sex with kids, then they're being victimized if they're underaged. However, statutory rape doesn't apply when both parties have consented, but are both underaged. It's called the Romeo and Juliet rule. Methinks this prosecutor should read the laws again before making grandiose pronouncements; after all, it's his FUCKING JOB to do so.

Speaking of making grandiose pronouncements without reading the law... Perhaps you should go look at the Wisconsin law, as it DOES NOT HAVE A ROMEO & JULIET clause, unless they are married. Or just start at http://www.ageofconsent.com/wisconsin.htm. Just because the attorney generally doesn't prosecute those cases, doesn't mean its legal.

When they agreed to censor the internet in China, their excuse was "If we don't do this, somebody else will."

The excuse was more that "if you don't do this, you will not do business in China". It's pretty normal that only businesses that follow the laws of a country are allowed to do business in that countries. China is not afraid to block Google or any other website for that matter.

That pretty much puts the lie to their "Do No Evil" motto.

It's "Don't be evil" not "Do no evil". If you're trying to criticize a company's motto at least get the motto right; or did you learn everything about what Google does via discussion sites rather than news, reputable blogs, or your own research?

Google needs to decide whether they really want to "do no evil" or whether they just want to make a profit. They really can't have it both ways. And by traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is EVIL.

Do you consider Germany and France to be evil? They both require censorship of Nazi and WWII-related stuff (see here). I may not agree with it, but I can see why they do it; is it really "evil", and will you apply the same standard to them that you are applying to Google? What if one nation decided that the age of consent for making pornography is 19 instead of 18? Is that censorship evil? The Netherlands uses 16 instead of 18, making some of their porn illegal in most of the rest of the world (see here). There are apparently plans to change this to match other countries, but the point still stands; are all the non-Netherlands countries evil? I don't think you've really thought out your position; it's not black and white and there is a lot of complexity in laws and ethics.

Also, western values are not the last word for the world. If you want other countries to be more like us, you're better off trying to convince them why they should adopt those values, rather than advocating that our companies should ignore their laws. Breaking their laws could easily just strengthen their resolve and make them hate westerners more.

Disclaimer: I am a Google employee, but I cite my sources. Feel free to make up your own mind. These are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Yeah, that oddity is actually what lead me to investigating things further in the first place.

My legal-fu is weak, but according to the interpretation of this page, the law you mention is even weirder than that; it's not just any intercourse with a chaste 16-18 year old, it's specifically intercourse which is otherwise illegal.

They mention adultery as an example, where you'd be violating this law by having sex with a 17-year old if you were married, but if you were unmarried (and not otherwise breaking the law) it would be legal.

Of course, since fornication is illegal, that means that technically any sex with a 16 or 17-year old virgin is illegal.

Not in various US states and countries.
http://ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

I don't know about all states but I looked at the legislation for California (where it's 18) and along with the legislation it was very candidly explained that they found out that most teenage pregnancies were caused by men in their 20s, so that in an effort to curb teenage pregnancies they made it punishable of imprisonment to have sex with someone under 18. Source.

So basically to solve their teenage pregnancy problem which is caused by a lack of education (mostly in the poorer communities which California is full of) they just throw the fathers in jail. It's a simple solution to an unrelated problem. Throwing people in jail is the legislator's duct tape, there's not a problem it cannot fix. Then you wonder why you have so many more people in jail in the USA per capita than in the rest of the world.

Depends on the state. I'm not aware of any US state that has 14 as the age of consent.

Educate thyself: Various ages of consent.

14 is legal (possibly with some restrictions) in Iowa, Missouri, and South Carolina. 15 in Colorado. 16 in many states. The page states that it hasn't been updated in some time so the laws may have changed in the past few years; if you are considering visiting a high school, you should ask a DA, police officer, or the high school's principal for clarification and/or incarceration.

This page seems more up-to-date. Several foreign countries are as low as age 12, which is frankly a little creepy (although a female ancestor, 5 generations away I believe, was married at age 12).

>Im going to take an unpopular view. Yes, they should.

It is ok. I wasn't making any judgment in that particular sentence. I just wanted to be sure that's what the parent had said.

>Ill quit my diatribe here, as you probably understand my viewpoint. I just want this double standard and age discrimination solved.

Double standard is quite a different topic. And that's very related to specific countries and cultures. For example, in my country (Argentina), a person under 18 can't be put in prison for murder or robbery. And age of consent is 15 (I'm reading this from http://www.ageofconsent.com/argentina.htm but I'm not sure it is quite correct).

Anyway, as you can see, the double standard here works the other way (but it is still neglectible).

I don't think 12 is a good age. But that's the problem, there's no way of getting an agreement on this issue since it depends very much on the minor.

I think about the issue in terms of false positives and false negatives. When you ask yourself, is this person morally responsible? you are asking a vary vague question. That means that when you answer yes/no, you'll have true positives and true negatives. You'll also have false positives and false negatives. When it comes to something that might hurt a person(using your definition, including mental trauma) you want to be on the safe side. When it comes to age of consent, you want to have less false positives (i.e. You don't want to say "this kid is ready to go" when in fact he isn't). And when it comes to being morally responsible of his bad actions you want to have less false positives (i.e. you don't want to imprison a children because you thought he was fully aware of his actions when in fact he wasn't).

That, in my opinion, is the source of what you called "double standard". Which, in this light, is not double standard, it is only wanting to maximize the good you do with the ages of consent you set and at the same time not being overly permissive/restrictive.

Not in liberal, progressive California. If your "date" is under 18 years of age then you must be within 3 years of age. 21 - 17 = 4.

So, if she's 15, you can be 18
If she's 16, you can be 19
If she's 17, you can be 20, and
If she's 18, you can be 82
So, I guess Hef's in the clear. Filthy old pervert I don't envy at all (no, really!)

Not in liberal, progressive California.

If your "date" is under 18 years of age then you must be within 3 years of age. 21 - 17 = 4.

Congratulations, PGP! Now legal in Bulgaria, France, Monaco, and Thailand.

Oh, and I almost forgot Poland!

Try going to New Mexico. Their laws regarding homosexual age of consent.... well.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
Just Ctrl+F for "New Mexico"

are none of you aware that possesing child porn, as well as sex with a minor is a crime??

You are right, not everwhere is Florida, Florida is actually conservitave in that regard.

Most places it is is plain old 16 years old.

No other qualifiers.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/

just becasue it is legal does not make it right.

In the U.S. it varies state to state, from as low as 15 (14 under very specific circumstances) to as high as 18.

The hilarious part? If you happen to live in a '16' state (say Oklahoma), fly to Britain (16) or Spain (14), or any other country with a lower age of consent than 18, and have consensual sex with someone at the legal low end in that country, then pass back into the U.S. and have a layover in an '18' state (Viginia), if the authorities are watching you or get wind of it, you can be held and sentenced in the '18' state for not only statutory rape and child molestation, but also a great law making 'sex' tourism illegal. Even if the sex you had was legal in both the jurisdiction it occurred in and where you reside.

BTW, I understand that if you live in Britain (16), and go have sex with a 14 y.o. in Spain, which is legal, don't ever plan on going back to Britain, or the same will happen with you there.

The author of the article didn't investigate anything. She saw fit to report the accusations in the lawsuit as fact. The relavent text from the article:

"In May, after a series of e-mails and phone calls, he picked her up at school, took her out to eat and to a movie, then drove her to an apartment complex parking lot in South Austin, where he sexually assaulted her, police said. He was arrested May 19."

The actual Austin police press release:

"Austin Police Department child abuse detectives have filed charges against a suspect in connection with a sexual assault of a child case.

Pete I. Solis, 19, has been charged with Sexual Assault of a Child, a second-degree felony. He is in custody.

During the investigation detectives learned the suspect made contact with the 14-year-old female victim through her online web page. They continued to communicate using email and cell phones. The victim was sexually assaulted in the suspect's vehicle in the 6800 block of West Gate Boulevard.

This case remains under investigation by APD child abuse detectives."
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/ blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2006/05/19/police_man _sexually_assaulted_1.html

The age of consent in Texas is 17. Notice that he is NOT being charged with Rape. "Sexual Assault of a Child" is essentially a "statutory rape" charge, which strongly implies that she DID consent. Of course, since Mr. Solis is apparently poorer than his "victim", he'll almost certainly end up in jail.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/texas.htm

1) the girl alone is to blame for getting raped (as is usually the argument in this kind of a situation: a lot of guys seem to be _very_ quick to join in the chorus that there must have been something the woman said, or wore, or just being at the guy's house, or just being in a park alone, or whatever, that _clearly_ absolves the guy of any fault and makes rape entirely the woman's fault.)

The issue here isn't whether or not the girl was raped. That's irrelavent. The question is whether or not MySpace was irresponsible for allowing her to communicate with someone who (may) have raped her. An analogy would be suing AT&T because she arranged the date with the guy on the telephone. Which, in fact, she did. So why isn't her mom suing AT&T? Because that is obviously ridiclous. Her lawyer hopes the novelty of the internet and MySpace will allow him to screw MySpace by manipulating a gullible judge and jury who aren't familiar with the internet (or, MUCH more likely, prodive leverage for a settlement).

And think about the rules the plaintiff wishes to implement. They want to MySpace to require age verification of all users. Assuming this works, it means minors will simply not be able to use the service anymore. So we prevent children from using the telephone because a sexual predator MIGHT contact them? And it's not like this would affect any of the OTHER free homepage providers.

The fact remains that the girl was not kidnapped, and MySpace did not aid in that kidnapping. Everything that happened (according to both parties) was consentual up until a certain point in Mr. Solis' car. Are you saying that MySpace should SOMEHOW have monitored what was going on in that car?

Fundamentally, this has nothing to do with children. An adult woman (or man) could make exactly the same claim with the same rationale, and it would be just as bogus.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/

Oman and Pakistan don't have an age of consent, Mexico is 12 (unless their was deceit), Columbia is 12 for females and 14 for males, Chile is 12. Go look down the list: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Age of Consent Chart says 13.

Or would you appeal to the fact that what Europe considers morally wrong isn't the same as what America considers morally wrong?

If it was the other way around, it wouldn't work that way. The US makes it illegal to leave the country in order to have sex with a minor. So if you flew in to Heathrow, had sex with your 16 year old internet fling (perfectly legal... on UK soil) then flew back to Texas (Where you should have cooled your heels a year), you could be arrested.

So hopefully all the Americans against asking Yahoo to act "American" in China will get busy in their letter writing campaign to have this law abolished, since otherwise they're just hypocrites.

Or would you appeal to the fact that what Europe considers morally wrong isn't the same as what America considers morally wrong?

If it was the other way around, it wouldn't work that way. The US makes it illegal to leave the country in order to have sex with a minor. So if you flew in to Heathrow, had sex with your 16 year old internet fling (perfectly legal... on UK soil) then flew back to Texas (Where you should have cooled your heels a year), you could be arrested.

So hopefully all the Americans against asking Yahoo to act "American" in China will get busy in their letter writing campaign to have this law abolished, since otherwise they're just hypocrites.

It should be 14.

According to AgeOfConsent.com it's 14 in Missouri and Iowa but that only applies to guys, though. It's 17 and 16, respectively for women.

Here's the chart:

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

The United States does not have an age of consent of 18. In fact, the United States does not have an age of consent. Each state sets the age of consent, which can go as low as 14. I very much doubt that 14 puts the US a relatively high age of consent among the western nations. What we're talking about here is the definition of child pornography, which has the model below 18 in almost every jurisdiction, even your shitty old England. This has nothing to do with age of consent.

I agree with you that setting an arbitrary age for "age of consent" laws is not an optimal situation. I am not a lawyer. The under-age sex laws in your country are not that much different from the laws in the US.

In the US, most state laws say that somebody under n years of age is unable to give consent to having sex, hence, it is always considered to be non-consentual; it does not matter whether it was forced or not. If it were forced rape, the rapist would also be charged with assault and probably some other things. The age of consent in the US varies by state and can vary depending upon the age and/or sex of both parties. According to the table at http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm, the US age of consent ages are pretty much in line with the rest of the world. The table also has links to the laws specific to different countries and US states.

Your country's law and the US state laws in these matters seem to be pretty similar, the ages vary and in many cases the names of the laws are different. I think that as in your country, there are US states where it would also be legal for a 16 year old to have sex with a 15 year old.

There's not really a mystery here. Rockstar put in a sex minigame. A hacker unlocked it. It was not accessible without a patch or hack, which probably violates the EULA.

Also, what is the big deal here? The game was already rated 'M for Mature'; that's 17+, according to the ESRB. In a majority of states, you can already play the sex mini-game legally in real life. Is there some reason sex should be legal at 16, but a sex-themed video game should be illegal until you're 18?

In Canada, Age of Consent is 16.

The age of consent in Canada is actually 14, not 16, assuming you don't hold a 'position of authority' over the person in question. Yes, that means that in Canada you can bang the hot 14-year-old neighbor girl instead of just dreaming about it....

Max

Do a little reading. It's all about the money. Straight from the California DA's mouth...

WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATUTORY RAPE?

California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

Every 8 minutes, a teenager in California has a baby.

3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

On an average California day 76 teenage girls, 17 & younger, will give birth.

In Stanislaus County over 6% of teenage girls will give birth in any given year.

In 1993 1,572 births in California were to mothers 14 years or younger.

The rate of sexually transmitted disease among teenage girls is twice that of teenage boys.

This all translates into a tremendous drain in our welfare and medical resources statewide.

AFDC and Medi-Cal costs for 1 teen pregnancy, birth and 1st year support is $10,000.

Total costs for teen births to those 17 and younger in 1993 for California were $140 million.

See, nothing about evil pedophiles, or child abuse, or 'save the children' crap. Just "We don't want any more welfare babies. Those things are f'ing expensive." I guess that was one of those rare moments of honesty out of a public official explaining why the laws of the nation contradict mother nature and hormones so darned frequently these days.

Anyhow, for those looking for a quick chart, http://www.ageofconsent.com/ has a chart with links to the applicable state and/or country laws.

False. While many states in the US have "Romeo and Juliet" laws withdrawing or lessening the penalty for sex for those within a certain age -- Tennessee, where I live, requires a > 4 year difference in age before a sexual act is statutory rape -- many states do not. An example that hits close to home is the case of Marcus Dixon, a (at the time of the incident) 18 1/3 year old guy who had sex with a 15 3/4 year old girl and was convicted of aggrivated child molestation and statutory rape. The aggrivated sexual molestation charge was later overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court. For more information, check out this Snopes article. For information on the age of consent in both the US and abroad, check out Age of Consent.

ageofconsent.com - some good info there

AgeofConsent.com Depends what state this occured in. Young enough is 16 in PA.

She's underage.

Perhaps in your part of the world, but not in many others.

She's off limits.

Why? Because you say so?

If you don't understand that, then you have a big problem.

I'm sorry, but it appears that you're the one with the problem - you are deliberately ignoring evidence presented to you that you are wrong.

How old is she now? 15? Neither is an appropriate age to be trying to look at her underwear.

Bullshit. You have made an arbitrary decision about based on an imcomplete representation of facts. There are *many* people here who are her age (typically the ones making these comments), and you're saying it's inappropriate for them to want to sneak a look?

If you believe that, you should go in for some councilling - repressing your feelings that much is just asking for trouble.

there's a difference between two six year olds playing doctor and a twenty one year old wanting to play doctor with a six year old

Ohh.. another straw man! Seems to me that we were discussing 15 year olds, weren't we?

Got a tip for you: if you want people to take you seriously, you shouldn't make stupid arguments that have no bearing on the topic at hand, all you do is make it look like you don't have any relevant arguments, and are grasping at straws in order to convince yourself you're right.

Yes, yes, of course...

YOUR kink, whatever it may be, is just fine and good. MY kink, however, is sick and twisted and disgusting.

I would point out to you that the age of consent in much of the world is 14, not 18, as you seem to believe. With some places as low as 12. So "underage" is a mere matter of location, at best.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/

I find this entire concept of "age of consent" somewhat tenuous, at best. It seems to imply that there is an age at which one magically is able to make intelligent, rational decisions about their own body and their sexuality, and below that they're just too stupid and/or immature to make any such decision. If that were actually the concern, I know plenty of 30 year olds who aren't able to make said intelligent, rational decisions... and plenty of 12 year olds who are. People mature at different ages. Get over it.

And this post is courtesy of a 49-year-old married man with kids of my own, but, unlike you, with a rational view of human sexuality. So much for your idea that anyone who thinks such things are OK must have problems with adult relationships. As a libertarian, I believe it's no business of the State to get involved with anything two people do consentually in private.

pervert...

Attraction to teenage girls doesn't make a person a "pervert". Persistent sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children may indicate paedophilia, but attraction to teens is as natural and healthy as anything in biology. Acting on those feelings might get you arrested, however.

Since they obviously don't care about actually educating the kids, just close the damn schools.
Why give the kids gives false hope with a false education?
Just let the kids from Kansas be like their redneck fore-fathers and work in the fields.
While we're at it, make sure we remove the sex education classes. STD's will help to keep their population under control so that civilized society will be able to keep them out of the way.
This is a state that allows 12 year old girls to get married. (http://www.ageofconsent.com/kansas.htm)

How can we expect Kansas to care about educating their kids? The school system there basically serves to keep the kids occupied until they are old enough to work. Kansas has a minimum employment age of 14, EXCEPT for farm work, where younger kids are put to work. (http://www.dol.ks.gov/ES/html/childfaq_DEE.html) Notice on that page that the links to what children under 18 can and can not do return 404's.

Big surprise here, a backwards, backwater state has a backwards, backwater educational system.
Why is this news?
News will be when California or New York try to do this.

HTH

Are 14 year olds capable of informed consent? If you say 'yes' to [this], most people will say you are sick.
No, if you say "yes" to this, most people will say you are a European.
And yes, apparently Chilean 12 year olds ARE capable of informed consent!

Well, that's the case except where the age of consent is less than or equal to 17, such as Nebraska, Rhode Island, Iowa, Conneticut, quite a few other states, and much of the non-US world.

A 16 or 17 year old in Florida can legally be with a 23 year old.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/florida.htm

• Better
• check the laws before you try that. Many states have an age limiter, so that for a few more years after the age of consent unless you're within 2-3 years of the younger partner it's still considered statutory rape. IIRC, AgeOfConsent.com lists the actual age where it's legal to have sex with anyone of any age. I can't quite check though as work blocks the site.

• It depends on what aspect of adulthood and what state. Since this is a case about potential sex with a minor it ranges from 16 to 18 throughout the US (check
• Age of Consent.com for the details.) In this case 18 is the age of consent in CA so it would have been considered a crime _IF_ he had met her. Yet he didn't, and hasn't been charged with a crime even though this occured 2 years ago. I'm quite sure AOL informed authorities along with firing him, otherwise they would risk liability.

  Yes we all did stupid things, but that doesn't excuse this type of lawsuit. She waits two years to file it? It's not filed just against the guy seduced her, but AOL as well, even though AOL FIRED him when they discovered he was breaking the rules (and about to break the law)? This looks like a classic money-grabbing scheme. That's the only possible reason to sue AOL here, they have deeper pockets than this guy does so that's where the money is. The lawyer's probably betting that AOL will settle to get the case our of the public eye instead of fighting.

  So yeah I can feel sorry for her for screwing up and falling for this guy. And yes the guy's an ass/idiot for what he did. But I feel not the least bit sorry for her current actions. She's 19 now, no longer a child and filing a lawsuit to try to get rich quick. This type of thing has a tendency to backfire though. Remember the girl who sued her school system because she was made co-valedictorian a few years back? She eventually won the suit, but it cost her dearly. Harvard dropped it's offer for her to come there, along with the scholarship (she had a full scholarship). Her legal bills were probably higher than the final settlement as well. She did get what she wanted though, she was named sole valedictorian. Too bad she ruined her life to get it.

  So I guess my ultimate point is, she's an adult now, why's she still doing amazingly stupid things?

Age of consent in Cali is 18. Old enough to drive, yet not old enough to screw. *shrugs*

http://www.ageofconsent.com/

AOL monitor. Seriously, don't they do background checks for this type of job. I understand not doing them for most jobs, but this type of job, you would think it would be par for the course. But I guess if he doesn't have a record and she was only 17 at the time and if he was like 21-24 its not that bad (illegal, but not like he was 45). But what is really sad is that she is the one sueing. She made the decision to meet someone from a chat room and now is sueing because she was allowed to meet the guy. Sounds like sueing for dollars more than anything. Isn't America great...

Not illegal in most states, the age of consent in most states is 16. (California is one of the few states where it is 18)

You can see what the age of consent is in most states and countrys here: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Uhm, yeah, the age of consent varies widly state to state too. In Michigan for example, the age of consent is 16, as Section 750.520e (criminal sexual misconduct law) states: "That other person is at least 13 years of age and under 16 years of age, and the actor is 5 or more years older than that other person ". So a 17 year old could "legally" have sex with a 13 year old. 18 with 14, 19 with a 15 year old, 89 with 16 year old.

Click here for a list of what the various legal age of consent is for various countries/states.

P.S. I know this information from a joke with a friend of mine, where it was illegal for him to have sex in wisconson with his girlfried (he is 18, she is 17, 18 or below illegal in wisconson) but could in michigan.

...age of consent in every country and state

http://www.ageofconsent.com/