“If the age of consent was 15, as depicted by your post, I don’t understand the need for this current action.”
I think it has something to do with making it easier to prosecute child molesters for rape. It probably just tweaked some definitions and loosened restraints on prosecutors.
Before the state had to prove the minor did not give consent. This, I think, says a minor (under 15) can not give consent.
“That 11 year old level age of consent in the early 1800s is shocking to me.”
Its France, what can I say.
But England and the colonies weren’t far behind.
England’s age of consent was 12 at that time and that carried over to the American colonies.
In 1689 in Virginia Mary Hathaway was 9 when she was married to William Williams.
In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10–12, (in Delaware, it was 7 in 1895). Inspired by the “Maiden Tribute” articles, female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign, which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16–18 years by 1920.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
We have to remember that childhood is a concept that didn’t take hold until the late 19th century.
If children were strong enough to work, they did. This was true in the cities and countryside.
Thanks for the informative post.
The historical records are appalling > IMO.
Evidently I’m not grasping this new law very well.
If 15 was the age of consent before, then any kid under that age would be unable to give consent. Now they need to tweak it? Either the age of consent means just that, or it’s a real red herring out there.
My gripe with this all along, is that we are lowering the ages of consent, just like the pervs want. “Oh we’re doing it to save the kids.”
NOT BUYING IT!
Now 15 year olds can say yes. Just great!