From the looks of the wiki article, which I trust to be correct (love the wiki), it doesn’t seem so. For the US states with AOC of 16, as long as that individual is 16 or above and it is consensual for both parties, is legally free to have sex with anyone 16 or above. At least that is how I understand it, but I could be wrong. Laws are confusing to me so I’d make a terrible lawyer haha.
But do keep in mind that this is my generalization for all AOC-16 states and that there may be technicalities/special cases/additional laws for each individual state that specify all of their restrictions and whatnot.
As for your original post: …Perhaps popular culture is brainwashing us into waiting until both parties are 18 to have sex. I wouldn’t doubt that. Or maybe they just appeal to the max AOC [18] US states to avoid liability issues for some 16 year old kids in an AOC-18 state getting ideas from popular culture that potentially said “she’s sixteen so it’s ok” or something along those lines. I mean it’s pop. culture so it could be anybody’s guess
Massachusetts (AOC 16) has an odd provision - inducing a person under the age of 18 “of chaste life” to sexual intercourse, is also a crime, separate from sex with a minor. So if you have sex with a 16 or 17 year old virgin, it’s conceivably a crime. The next person is free & clear though.
In Canada, the AOC is 16 except for anal sex (a difference that has been struck down in courts in Ontario and IIRC Quebec as discriminatory), for people in a position of authority, and for appearing in depictions of sexual activity; in these cases the AOC is 18.
There is a close-in-age exemption for someone within two years of a complainant aged 12 or 13, and within five years of a complainant aged 14 or 15.
I bet that phrase doesn’t refer to any virgins. Giving what I know about Massachusetts, I’d bet that it means nuns, or at least someone of similar status. I don’t know this for a fact; it’s just a guess.
It is really interesting and IMO super fucked-up that you can apparently get married at 13 or 14, which is supposed to be a life-long committment, but cannot have sex, which is (provided no pregnancies or STDs) much more short-term. I mean, I am not advocating for the lowering of age of consent…I think the age of marriage should be raised! I don’t really think you should be able to commit to something like that until 18. Marriage is a hell of a lot of financial responsibility, way more than a credit card, and yet we let children engage in it?
But I don’t make the laws and I have no kids, so I have no real dog in this fight.
This does not work in California. While stationed at Travis AFB (1995) my roomate brought girl home from an 18 and over bar. Told her she looked realy young for 18, she showed us all her California ID (faked). When her parents found out he was arrested by the Vacaville police. Months later he was convicted of statutory rape.
We USED to have one like that, it was called “seduction”, but in our case it also required that the inducement be under false promise of marriage, and at some point during its existence courts struck down the “of chaste life” part. Essentially it was an archaic “so Daddy can charge the cad with something” article.
This is just plain unfair, if you ask me.
To the O.P.: YES. if you’re in a AOC 16 state, you cannot be prosecuted for sleeping with a sixteen year old.
However, be on your toes. There are still corrupting the morals of a minor charges that can be brought for any number of things, including any use of pornography or giving her alcohol or drugs.
