Sex Crimes

Two Teens Have Sex. Neither Could Legally Consent, But Only the Boy Gets a Felony Charge.

Underage teens having sex is awkward, but it shouldn't be criminal.


Teen romance

If two people are equally unable to give consent, but have sex anyway, should either be charged with a crime? It's a question that many college administrators wrestle with when drugs and alcohol are factors in sexual assault disputes. The verdict often seems to be that male students are uniquely responsible for ascertaining that their sexual partners are in a state of mind to consent, even when the female is the initiator and both are intoxicated.

This double-standard for men seems to apply to underage teenagers as well. Take, for example, this recent story in The Courier-Journal: the Kentucky Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of "B.H.," who was 15-years-old when he was charged with sexual misconduct and possessing pornographic material featuring a minor (the latter is a felony charge). B.H. was in trouble for having sex with his 13-year-old girlfriend and exchanging nude pictures with her. The acts were voluntary, though neither teen could legally consent to sexual activities since they were both underage at the time.

The girl's parents went to the cops when they found out, and B.H. was prosecuted. (Even though his parents could technically have done the same thing to his girlfriend, they opted against that course of action.) He plead guilty, had to register as a sex offender, and was remanded to a youth treatment center for almost a year. He is now challenging that outcome after the fact.

Assistant Attorney General Gregory Fuchs maintais that B.H. pressured the girl and had been involved in one other incident—a prank of a sexual nature—that justified his punishment:

He also cites the girl's testimony that B.H. said he "would tell me what to do and how to do it," and says B.H. was more culpable because he sent the first photo and threatened to tell friends they were having sex if she didn't send him one back.

"There was only one victim in this case, C.W.," Fuchs writes, "and it was just as illegal" for B.H. to "possess child pornography" — the sexted photos — "as it would have been if he was 51 years old."

That may be a defense of what was done to B.H., but it's not a very good defense of the soundness of the law. Of course it's different for a 15-year-old to possess nude photos of a 13-year-old than for an old man to do the same. One is predatory and unnatural; the other is an awkward, yet remarkably common part of growing up. When local authorities in the various states undertake it upon themselves to crack down on sexting, they invariably find that half the kids are doing it. What's more likely: that half of all underage kids need to put on the sex offender registry and packed off to reform school, or laws designed to prevent adults from abusing children were written so broadly that they are inadvertently ensnaring some unlucky young miscreants?

Even if I believed these teens were guilty of sexual crimes, I would balk at Fuchs' approach. What better way to foster unhealthy sexual predilections in a kid could there be than telling him he is an illegal exception, public labelling him a deviant, and exiling him to a school for other deviants?

Some states have recognized the absurdity of criminalizing consensual sexual experimentation between teens, either by granting exceptions if the they are close in age, both underage, or in relationships. As The Courier-Journal noted:

And in neighboring Ohio, the state Supreme Court in 2010 held that it was unconstitutional to criminally charge a child who was himself legally unable to consent when he engaged in sexual conduct with a same-aged peer.

"Each child is both an offender and a victim," that court said, "and the distinction between those two terms breaks down."

The distinction breaks down… except in the eyes of poorly-written laws and overzealous authorities. (RELATED: Cops Want to Give Teen an Erection and Photograph It… You Know, For Evidence)

NEXT: Republican Letter to Iran Dismissed as 'Propaganda Ploy,' Negotiations Not Bilateral

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I could only read a few seconds before the page blanked on me (Im not a subscriber). But I saw Woodford Circuit Court, which probably means this happened in Versailles, which explains everything. And nothing.

    BTW, for those not from around these parts, that is pronounced Ver-Sales.

    1. Just like Des Plaines is pronounced Des Planes.

    2. And, of course, Athens. (A-thins)

    3. Marseilles, IL + Mar-cells

      Vienna, GA =Vy-enna

      Cairo, GA =Kay-Ro

  2. Even though his parents could technically have done the same thing to his girlfriend, they opted against that course of action.

    Mutually assured destruction got us through the Cold War.

    1. I would have threatened them with it 5 minutes after finding out. And totally followed through if they didn’t back off.

      1. Yup

      2. But would the cops & DA have gone along? I seriously doubt it.

        1. If they didn’t you’d have grounds for a lawsuit citing violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

      3. That’s because you (correctly) have no faith in human decency and logic.

        Most people are idiots and trust their fellows.

      4. Amen! Both were under aged and were only 2 years apart. I thought there had to be a certain number of years difference in their age for one or the other to be charged. I would have filed charges against her in a heartbeat. Both were equally willing participants. This is sexual discrimination at its worst.

  3. The lengths that some people will go to in order to prevent their teens from having sex is truly disgusting. This girl’s parents are moral cretins.

    1. I strongly suspect that the parents are hypocrites as well. They were probably fucking like rabbits at that age.

      1. Not only were the fucking LIKE rabbits, they were also fucking THE rabbits, is what I heard… Then after that, they would also take and swallow the small round “smart pills” they’d find under the rabbit hutch, for good measure!

      2. Or showing other people their naughty bits, which is the truly awful part of this whole thing. A 15 year old has a picture of a 13 year old without clothing! He’s a felon!

      3. Watch it turn out they were teen parents.

    2. Under my roof, under my rules.

      1. Are you a roofer? Do you do roofies?

  4. Wait,you mean high school students have sex? When did this start.? I guess when boys grow hair on their balls do they become threats to the female public?

    1. Boys are always threats to the female public. What sort of threat their vulgar masculinity poses just takes different forms as they age.

      1. Boys are always threats to the female public.

        The one’s that aren’t threatening officers with pop-tarts are just rapists in training.

    2. Threats to the female pubic, you mean.

    3. Wait,you mean high school students have sex?

      If we could only make it a crime, lock them in a rape cage and ruin their lives as a deterrence, it would certainly stop.

      Worked for drugs…

  5. Eggs… omelets…

  6. holy shit that is insane.

    1. Yet you’re not linking to a business page?

  7. What the hell is wrong with prosecutors?

    1. What the hell is wrong with prosecutors people?


    2. besides the fact that they’re lawyers?

    3. They’re immoral power hungry cretins with the power to get people thrown in rape cages, for starters. I wonder if this particular prosecuter used “I got a dangerous sexual predator out of our schools!” for his re-election campaign.

    4. They’re bloody cowards that go for easy kills even when it involves kids they are oh soooooo concerned with protecting!! Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black!! Protect them from pedophiles so that WE CAN RAVAGE THEIR LIVES!! Sorry D.A., sorry parents, sorry everybody involved in this one-sided witch hunt. Female sex offenders across the board get off light compared with men who commit the same offenses with the same age of victim.

      1. A problem that a double standard causes in society. I can remember, in my youth, the sweet little twelve year old that could gotten me, a seventeen year old, in a world of trouble! Thank God the situations never ended in sexual contact!

  8. What a fucked up country this is. And it should be obvious why the boy is charged and not the girl. Everyone knows that sex is something the man does to the woman and, under some rare circumstances, the woman tolerates it.

    1. A well-bred woman is the perfect flower of virginal femininity. As such, all sexual encounters are imposed on her by the dastardly male by virtue of his superior strength and evil cunning. She does not tolerate it, she simply has no ability to resist.

      Oops. Am I writing for the wives’ handbook c. 1950 or Jezebel?

      1. This is why I will never date a woman who is not a deviant in her own right.

  9. When I researched this topic for a sociology paper back in 1984 I found a case in the Washington DC area that helped me gin up some moral outrage.

    The case was of a 17 year old daughter of a powerful attorney. She was having sex with her 13 year old boyfriend. At 3 months shy of her 18th birthday her father found out. So he went to the DA and the police and they charged the boy with statutory rape and corruption of a minor. Really. At thirteen, he was corrupting an almost-eighteen-year-old young lady.

    I don’t remember a lot of the details, but I think they charged him as an adult (this was at the beginning of the “charge children as adults because we don’t want 17 year old murderers to get away with it” movement) He was convicted on all counts and given a long prison sentence – I can’t remember how long. But everyone seemed fine with it at the time. Gotta get those delinquents away from our daughters.

    1. “Three weeks later, the her father was removed from the face of the earth.”

      True or not, let me ice things down after a nutshot like that.

      1. Space Shuttle? 1st lawyer in orbit?

        1. Parts of him made into orbit…

    2. These officials, judges and courts going along with this nonsense feels like 14th Century mentality, or modern Sharia Law.

      Who the hell is watching these nincompoops with far too much power then they obviously can handle?

      Police shooting unarmed homeless people get no time or sanction, but a 13 year old boy consensually schtupping a 17 year old girl gets sentenced equivalent to a violent rape.

      1. Please. They’re just protecting women. Because they need to be free from the patriarchy. Through the imposition of paternalism. Don’t worry about those Latin roots.

    3. Do you remember any names regarding the case? Anything at all would be of help tracking down this case.

  10. Hmm. Who knew? Something like 3/4ths of my high school graduating class could be defined as sex offenders – well, the lucky ones, anyways……

    Poor kid.

  11. Related, and very common:
    ‘Sexting’ lands teen on sex offender list

    He had just turned 18 when he sent a naked photo of his 16-year-old girlfriend, a photo she had taken and sent him, to dozens of her friends and family after an argument. The high school sweethearts had been dating for almost 2? years. “

    The same question applies here to his 16 year old girlfriend. Why wasn’t she prosecuted for producing porn of herself too?
    One difference though is that no law or amount of legal wrangling or leniency could’ve saved him the day he turned 18 despite the same 2 year difference as Robby’s case here. While I agree about the insanity of cases like these, this is why I disagree with Robby’s suggestion about adding even more arbitrary exceptions.

    1. Interesting that you say “arbitrary exceptions” when the law itself is based on something completely arbitrary (the day on which one was born). If we’re willing to accept laws that grant rights over the course of time, there will always be an arbitrary cutoff.

    2. I sympathize with teens in consensual relationships, but not with jerks who betray confidence. In the good old days, this punk would have been horsewhipped, and it would have served him right.

      But I will stipulate that a lifetime on the pariah list is too much. It is possible that in ten years he might mature into a decent human being.

  12. This is nothing more than legalized asceticism. The macabre side of law that when widespread leads nowhere but into brutal dictatorship and even to pogroms in its more extreme form.

    Any and all hints of legalized asceticism should be purged from the codes of any free society.

  13. “(Even though his parents could technically have done the same thing to his girlfriend, they opted against that course of action.)”

    Well, then, they really should have. This case makes for a terrible example of the problem.

    1. It wouldn’t have made any difference. And frankly, I think that’s misleading as people don’t “press charges” anymore, it’s all done by the police. People really don’t have much choice in it.

  14. uuuuuuugh… Can my home state make the news for something positive for once?

    This happens everywhere. Pictures, sexting, etc. The only reason this became a big deal (read: charges pressed) is because someone’s parents must be in positions of power or something. This place is notorious for smear campaigns.

    1. 31-0. Go Big Blue!

  15. The way I read our Romeo and Juliet exceptions, there is no available defense for anyone having sex with someone under 14, even if they are under the age of consent themselves (16.)

    Under the law, he would have to have been under 14 himself for it to be mutual non-consent.

    However, KRS 510.120(2) provides a defense to prosecutions under 510.120(1)(b) (where the actor is between ages 18 and 21) for sexual abuse in the second degree if the “victim” is at least 14 and the actor is less than 5 years older. Similarly, it is a defense to the Class B misdemeanor of “sexual abuse in the third degree” (KRS 510.130), defined as subjecting another person to non-consensual sex, if the lack of consent was due solely to incapacity by age, the “victim” is 14 or 15 years old, and the actor is under 18.

    The law seems to have an obvious flaw written right into it. they could have continued the step-down process, but chose to make a strict cut off at 13.999 years old.

  16. Seriously — am I the only one rolling on the floor that this prosecutor’s name is “Fuchs”???

    1. I only chuckled, so probably.

    2. It’s pronounced “Fronkensteen.”

      1. He’d probably say it’s “FEWKS”, not “Fuc.s”.

    3. Well I sure hope for Fuchs sake that nothing happens to that boy in prison or his parents might go a hunting

  17. The girl’s parents went to the cops when they found out, and B.H. was prosecuted. (Even though his parents could technically have done the same thing to his girlfriend, they opted against that course of action.)

    This kid’s parents and his lawyer both suck if this is the case. (Pro Tip: If a prosecutor offers you a deal in which he/she claims “this will all go away” it means that YOU will go away, to jail) They should have demanded that the girl be prosecuted for stat rape, if for nothing else than to force the other side’s hand and make them drop the charges or watch their innocent little snowflake (who was likely taking it in the pooper because buttsex is LOVE) get dragged through the system.

    He also cites the girl’s testimony that B.H. said he “would tell me what to do and how to do it,” and says B.H. was more culpable because he sent the first photo and threatened to tell friends they were having sex if she didn’t send him one back.

    He probably did tell her what to do and how to do it. Anyone who’s had sex with an inexperienced person knows that somebody has to direct traffic. Otherwise, somebody’s going to get any of a hundred hilarious rookie sex injuries. And how could he (B.H.) be more culpable based on this alleged threat of exposure, when actual exposure landed him in the Defendant’s chair? Come on now, Mr. Prosecutor. I know you get paid to be the state’s attack dog, but at least try to apply reason to the facts.

    1. Why would he need to apply reason to the facts? He has a jury.

  18. It Shakespearean drama: “Romeo and Juliet – TNG”

  19. He plead guilty

    Well, there’s your problem right there.

    1. They probably told him the old story that we have enough evidence to send you away for a very, very long time. Cooperate with us and we’ll recommend the D.A. go easier on you. It’s a common tactic that’s meant to scare the crap out of suspects and it works. That should be considered coercion and result in the whole case being thrown out WITH PREJUDICE so that it can never be re-heard again.

  20. Nothing good can ever come from attempting to legislate and control a basic human need.

  21. If both minors participated in the same acts, and they both have “child pornography” of photos of themselves, voluntarily selfies and trading them between each other, then to charge one of them and not the other given everything else is the same, is sheer sexism and illegal under equal protection laws.

    That alone should be a reason for attacking the criminal prosecution of the boy, irrespective of guilty plea.

  22. What better way to foster unhealthy sexual predilections in a kid could there be than telling him he is an illegal exception, public labelling him a deviant, and exiling him to a school for other deviants?

    Not to mention convincing the girl that she’s a victim simply for doing what teenaged loverbirds tend to do, and have done, for thousands of years. I’d say both these kids are going to be really messed about sex for a long time. Therepy is probably in both their futures

  23. I submit that the fact that a woman has less of an ability to consent than a man is what accounts for the difference in their salaries.

    1. All 2-3%? I’d actually be okay with that standard in the criminal proceedings.

    2. I don’t think the feminazis ever think that logic through when they support nonsense like this or college kangaroo courts for drunk sex. They themselves are making and argument that women are legally and mentally inferior to men.

  24. But, but, but?..the man is ALWAYS at fault and eeeevil! And the woman is never fully in control of her destiny, except when she does as she is told by her Wise Female Elders, and NO that is NOT an argument for denying her the vote! You’re just MEAN!


  25. Get over it. It’s international women’s day, or week, or something.

  26. Why was the girl not charged, asks idiot.

    – Anna Merlan, M.A. in Journalism from Columbia University

  27. It’s either her body to do with as she pleases or it belongs to the state and they will tell her what she can do with it. I think we all know which one of those it really is no matter how much progress has been made in women’s rights. Apparently some people are unable to tell the difference between the two.

    True feminism is dead along with all logic and reason. Obviously, men are to blame since all women are born saints and only become powerless with liberal application of man power as man power is inherently more powerful. This is what modern feminism has taught me.


    1. I wonder if they’ve ever realized their own argument leads to the conclusion that women are inferior to men?

  28. Assistant Attorney General Gregory Fuchs really?

  29. my comrade’s relative makes $65 hourly on the PC . She has been unemployed for seven months yet a month ago her paycheck was $17046 simply chipping away at the PC for a couple of hours. pop over to this site —www.TradeValt.Com

  30. he may as well suicide now, his life is over.

    i say this as somebody who was falsely accused of rape in highschool, he will be branded a sex offender FOR LIFE, even if he survives to get off the list, it wont matter, that shit never goes away, nobody will hire you for a decent job with a sex crime on your record(if your male that is, females have zero issue finding work due to such things…)

    sad to say, but this kids in for a living hell for the rest of his life….unless he can flee the country…..

  31. This is what you get when feminazis who hate men combine with religious puritans deluding themselves about the fact that teens have sex.

  32. my comrade’s daughter makes $65 hourly on the PC . She has never received a W-2 yet a month ago her check was $17046 simply sitting at the PC clothed a certain way and posing for nice people for a couple of hours. pop over to this site —www.TradeValt.Com

  33. The boy’s parents were dumb for not filing charges against the girl to gain leverage.

  34. my classmate’s ex-wife makes $60 /hr on the internet . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $20806 just working on the internet for a few hours. hop over to this web-site……….


  35. Sad to say, but this is the stuff, which is only a part of the massive wave of sexism against men in today’s society, that sets the fuse for violence. When you ruin an innocent young man’s life and leave him with nothing to lose, you ignite that fuse. This double standard may sooner or later set off the next campus massacre — and then the talk will be about “violent males,” not about double standards.

    I sincerely believe it all could have been so very different — so much better — between men and women. There may still be hope. See:

    “The Sexual Harassment Quagmire: How To Dig Out” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-quagmire/

    This may be the most exhaustive analysis you can find of what I think is the sexes’ most alienating and destructive behavioral difference, which is responsible for much of what is called sexual assault of women.

  36. All things being equal, punish both or none at all. If the goal is equality of the sexes, we can’t treat one sex as a damned, dirty bastard and the other as a helpless victim then expect mutual respect in return.

  37. In rejecting the extreme form of this prejudice, you’ve endorsed the more usual version. Contrary to what the article says, it is normal for heterosexual men of any age to be attracted to post-puberal
    teenage females, and there is nothing “predatory” in having a photo of one.

  38. No surprise. The monstrosity that is the modern bureaucratic-police-state ‘village’ will be leveraged by horrendously shitty human beings for their own ends. Who could have seen this coming? That shameless fucks would have no compunction about using the force of government to save face for their daughter instead of dealing with it like actual human beings? Remember, government is what we do together to fuck each other over.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.