“When a girl is under 21, she’s protected by law. When she’s over 65, she’s protected by nature. Anywhere in between, she’s fair game.”--Cary Grant, Operation Petticoat
Before going to vote on Tuesday, I met my parents for breakfast. Politics and the smell of really greasy southern fried bacon filled the air. As I met my parents at the table, my dad looking slightly disturbed over his coffee, he tossed a green sheet over paper over the table at me with a gruff “read this.”
“What is it?” I had heard that tone many times and usually it does not mean that I have won the free trip to Disneyland!
“The amendments that they want us to vote on this time. You should read them ahead of time. Especially the first one,” his mood getting darker.
“I never understand that stuff. They write it in the negative so that I never understand if I am voting for or against it,” I said as I unfolder the green, rather innocent looking piece of photocopied paper. As I read the first few lines, I honestly could not believe my eyes. I had to read it twice more to truly understand as the words started to swim around on the paper in front of my eyes.
You see…they wanted us to vote to remove the portion of the state Constitution that prohibits any “unmarried woman” under the age of 14 from consenting to sex. Now…that is not what that paper said. It reflected that they wanted us to vote to move legal age of sexual consent for “unmarried women” to 16 years old. Now, never mind the obvious marketing ploy of calling a girl of 14 to 16 years old an unmarried woman because if you called her a little girl no one would vote for it.
But, lets get alittle closer to the reality of this situation:
- This state does not allow sex education. They teach abstinence only in the schools.
- Our local high school has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the state.
- The current age of sexual consent is 16 years old. Why are we even discussing this issue?
Now, just for a moment, lets just assume that a 16 year old is mature enough to make a sexual decision with enough money and transportation to buy a pack of condoms and the intelligence to use them despite her lack of sex education. The insanity is in the fact that this law protects the males. Not the “umarried women” of 16 years old.
HERE IS THE WTF part! What makes it even scarier is the second part of the amendment that gives the state the control to adjust the age of sexual consent of “unmarried women” in the future as fits the necessary good of society. So, by voting to get rid of a long forgotten, over 150 year old constitutional rider even though there is a modern law that set the age of consent for unmarried women at 16 years old, the people of this state have given away all rights to make future decisions about the sexual rights of their female children. Nice how it only affects the female children….right?
After all, laws are cheaper than sex education right?
So, I am sitting here asking myself over and over again…WTF? It is not about the age of sexual consent…it is about gaining the power to regulate yet another sexual piece of young women.
But why? Who gains? Is it seeking to change the statutory rape law? Is it seeking to control the possiblity of sexual education in schools? Is it seeking to stop the reality of young girls having sex (because the law has always had control of that!)?