Sex

Feud With Amber Tamblyn Shows James Woods' Confusion About Age-of-Consent Laws

"It's illegal," the actor says, explaining why a gay relationship between a 17-year-old and a 24-year-old is indecent.

|

Sony Pictures

Last week's Twitter feud between actors James Woods and Amber Tamblyn, which gave birth to an op-ed piece by Tamblyn in yesterday's New York Times, revealed some telling misconceptions about age-of-consent laws. Woods, despite his history of dating very young women, does not seem to understand that such laws vary from one jurisdiction to another.

The feud started when Woods suggested that the film Call Me by Your Name, about a gay relationship between a 24-year-old and a 17-year-old, is helping to "quietly chip away the last barriers of decency." His tweet used the hashtag #NAMBLA, referring to the North American Man/Boy Love Association, which opposes age-of-consent laws.

"Didn't you date a 19 year old when you were 60…….?" replied Armie Hammer, costar of the movie. Woods was 59 when he began dating Ashley Madison, who was 19 at the time. At 66 he began dating 20-year-old Kristen Bauguess.

Here is where Tamblyn chimed in. "James Woods tried to pick me and my friend up at a restaurant once," she tweeted. "He wanted to take us to Vegas. 'I'm 16' I said. 'Even better' he said."

Picking up on that anecdote, a Twitter user named Amanda Kendall asked Woods, "What makes a 24yo/17yo gay relationship inherently indecent but skeevy old guys trying to pick up a pair of 16 year old girls is okay?" Woods replied, "The first is illegal. The second is a lie."

I don't know whether the incident Tamblyn describes actually happened. In her op-ed piece, which cites Woods' response to her claim as an example of the disbelief faced by victims of sexual harassment, she argues that she has no plausible motivation to make such a thing up. But Woods is clearly wrong when he definitively states that a sexual relationship between a 24-year-old and a 17-year-old "is illegal."

To begin with, the age of consent in Italy, the setting of Call Me by Your Name, is 14. In this country, the age of consent is 16 or 17 in 39 states, so the relationship that Woods deemed indecent would be legal in all of those places as well.

By contrast, the age of consent in California is 18, and there is no close-in-age exemption. In other words, any sex involving someone younger than 18 is a crime, even if the other person is also younger than 18. The only exception is for married couples.

In California, which has no minimum age for marriage, minors can marry with parental consent and judicial approval. That policy is pretty puzzling, given that extricating oneself from a marriage is considerably more difficult than ending a sexual relationship. California law assumes that a 17-year-old is not ready for sex but allows that a 13-year-old might be ready for marriage (including sex).

Woods not only assumes every jurisdiction has an age-of-consent law like California's; he erroneously equates legality with decency, a much more subjective concept. Many people probably would find the seven-year age gap between the characters in Call Me by Your Name (41 percent of the younger character's age) less objectionable than the 40-year gap between Woods and Madison (200 percent of her age) or the 46-year gap between him and Bauguess (230 percent of her age). If the concern is an imbalance of power, it is not at all clear why the fictional relationship is more disturbing than the real-life ones.

Suppose California raised its age of consent for sex from 18 to 21. Would that retroactively render Woods' romantic relationships indecent or unethical? Or would he concede that such laws are inherently arbitrary, that reasonable people can and do disagree about what the cutoff should be, and that the goal should be ensuring genuine consent, as opposed to preventing outrage among those who think a particular pairing is icky?

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

128 responses to “Feud With Amber Tamblyn Shows James Woods' Confusion About Age-of-Consent Laws

  1. Here is where Tamblyn chimed in. “James Woods tried to pick me and my friend up at a restaurant once,” she tweeted.”He wanted to take us to Vegas. ‘I’m 16’ I said. ‘Even better’ he said.”
    Because trying to pick a 16 year old up at a restaurant and offering to take her to Vegas is the same as having sex with a 16 year old. A 16 year old without parents in a restaurant? Hm. Sounds like an “independent women” who can make decisions for herself and told James Woods “no”. Crisis averted.

    1. A 16 year old without parents in a restaurant?

      That strikes you as weird? Were you never 16?

      1. To this day, lovecon ’89 brings his mom to first dates. If mom doesn’t approve, there is no second date.

        1. Is “mom” a real live person or just a dress and wig he puts on in the men’s room while they are waiting for their entree to arrive?

          1. How do I do I dress like a women again, Hugh? You are the sensei of cross dressing.

        2. Let’s be honest, there’s never any first dates either.

          1. You date your Mom, Citizen? Ewww. I knew there was some genetic retardation evident in your comments.

            1. Jesus, dude, you’re actually getting worse at comebacks.

                1. Your mom is getting worse at comebacks!

            2. Aw, all the Tulpas joining together.

              Do all your Moms know each other?

              You really should get off your own Moms.

              1. No, I’m Zeb. Only Crusty and Citizen are Tulpa.

      2. That strikes me as child abandoment!

        /CPS Nanny

        1. Parents should let their kids roam but they don’t.

          I just don’t see any of 16 years olds at $100-a-steak restaurants.

          Its all about perspective boyz and girlz.

      3. Yup back in the 1980s. I also used to be gone all day away from the house without parental supervision.

        I don’t see any 16 year olds eating at a restaurants without parents these days.

        Maybe I mistook “restaurant” to mean a nice place ($15+ per plate) and not Tacobell for a “restaurant”.

        1. Or perhaps successful child actors do things that are not typical of 16 year olds in general.

          1. Aw, look at Zeb with some insight about how grown up child actors are. Since James Woods violated gay dogma, this child actor now wants people to believe she has some anecdotal story about how creepy James Woods was when she was 16.

            “Or perhaps successful child actors do things that are not typical of 16 year olds in general.” Like have sex with older men? Or go to Vegas with rich older men?

            You don’t get to claim that James Woods is an attempted child molester and defame him without proof and then expect everyone to just accept what you say.

            James Woods violated gay dogma, so people will say he’s a child molester.

              1. I was just following your cue. You just take a bow, master babbler.

            1. OK, buddy.

              Nothing to do with being grown up. Just that they have the cash to go to expensive restaurants. It’s really not that complicated. I have no opinion on James Woods’s behavior or attitudes toward teenage girls or gay dudes.

              The story may well be made up. But your stated reasons for thinking so at the top of the thread are goofy.

              1. Okay Buddy,

                Its really not that complicated but whatever.

                I never said it was about being grown up. 16 year olds don’t go to restaurants because of lack of cash or whatever. The fact is that unsupervised 16 year olds at fine dining restaurants in not something I currently see nor have seen in the last 15 years. When that lady said, it sounded strange to me because I would never let my 16 year girl go to a restaurant in any manner unless it was family outing or a group and then I would have to give her cash to afford it. I would never let my 16 year old run off and do whatever she wants and not question where she got the cash to afford a nice restaurant.

                The reason why the story might be made up is because it might be just plain BS. I don’t doubt a 16 year child actress is unsupervised and can afford a nice restaurant. Child actors are really well grounded and have zero history of drug problems, so of course they should be allowed to run around LA and New York unsupervised.

                Your constant chiming in is goofy, especially since you don’t read my comments and completely misstate what I have said.

                1. Where do you get the ‘fine dining/$100 steak’ thing from?

                  I know Woods is pretty darn well off, that doesn’t mean he always eats at Chez Canard.

                  Not that this whole thing is or is not true, but its both possible she’s lying or Woods was trolling the local mall for some young tail.

                2. Mel’s Diner is the equivalent of Denny’s or Chilis. There are no 100 dollar steaks there, only 12 dollar burgers. What a stupid thing to latch onto to try to defame her.

          2. Is it all that atypical? Me and my friends went to restaurants all the time as soon as we could drive. Teenage budgets meant that Applebee’s was pretty much our top-price option, but that was the only limitation.

            1. Haha. Stop lying. You were eating fast food not at restaurants. You calling Applebees a restaurants is very telling.

              Keep doubling down on this nonsense that 16 year olds are so commonplace at restaurants around the USA.

              Tomato-tomatoe, I guess. A couple of you think Applebees is fine dining.

              1. No one said at what restaurant this supposedly took place. And considering she was a child actress, she probably had considerably more money than your average 16 year old. It’s not that strange of a scenario.

                1. Loveconstitution1789:

                  Because trying to pick a 16 year old up at a restaurant and offering to take her to Vegas is the same as having sex with a 16 year old. A 16 year old without parents in a restaurant? Hm. Sounds like an “independent women” who can make decisions for herself and told James Woods “no”. Crisis averted.

                  Typical people not reading what is written and trying to chime in.

                  Of course, this child actress had enough money to afford a nice restaurant and was able to do whatever she wanted at 16 years old in 2001. She is trying to make the story sound like she is some innocent 16 year old who is like every other 16 year old in the USA and James Woods asking her to go to vegas is because he is a child molester.

                  Since 16 years olds usually do not and cannot afford to go to nice restaurants, so Woods probably assumed she was a young adult woman. I was not there so I can only go by what was said. This lady makes the points that Woods even asking her to go to Vegas before he knew her age was horrible.

                  I think there is an axe to grind, so I call the story BS.

                  1. No, she’s making the point that when he found out she was 16 he was even more into it.

                    1. Don’t even bother, he has the reading comprehension of a doorknob.

                  2. She said he reiterated his request after learning her age. It’s almost like you’re intentionally being an idiot.

                2. She said it was at Mel’s Diner, which is the same as Applebee’s, price wise.

              2. What would you call Applebees if not a restaurant?

              3. People call Applebee’s a restaurant?

          3. Success has a low bar these days…

    2. Are you retarded? Assuming this happened (which it may not have, but that’s beside the point of the argument here), what exactly do you think he intended to do with them in Vegas? Hang out and watch PG-13 movies in a hotel room?

      1. He thought they might enjoy Cirque du Soleil, man.

      2. Are you retarded?

        The answer to that becomes clearer every day.

        1. Zeb|9.18.17 @ 2:45PM|#
          Are you retarded?
          The answer to that becomes clearer every day.

          We all know YOU are retarded Zeb. No more days needed.

          1. We all know

            Who is “we”? You and Reality?

            1. I know that you have a God complex and think you are “we” but “we” in this context means other people besides you.

              You are racking up all good support for my point. Thanks.

              Take a bow.

              1. OK, whose performance art is this? It’s time to take your bow. This is just too hilariously unself-aware to be for real.

                1. Take a bow Zeb. All the fantasy reality you need to live there.

              2. Look, Zeb, if you object to lc1789 claiming the “we” then that means you think you’re God. It’s so simple.

                1. This is getting uncomfortable to watch. Like when you’re sitting right there while your boss is yelling at a coworker.

                  1. $park? leftist poser|9.18.17 @ 3:56PM|#
                    This is getting uncomfortable to watch. Like when you’re sitting right there while your boss is yelling at a coworker.

                    If you think this is yelling, you must get “yelled at” a lot. I am sure you can find a safe space close by.

                    I wonder which other tulpas will arrive beside $parkY.

                    1. When Agent Tammie Preston on Twin Peaks exclaimed that tulpas are real, I damn near pissed myself.

                    2. That was pretty great. Now if only they’d all flip off into another dimension, or whatever the hell happened there.

                    3. If you think this is yelling, you must get “yelled at” a lot. I am sure you can find a safe space close by.

                      I wonder which other tulpas will arrive beside $parkY.

                      .
                      ..

                      ….
                      …..

                      I got nothing. But don’t worry, I’ll make it a point to completely ignore your raving stupidity from here on.

                    4. $park? leftist poser|9.18.17 @ 4:06PM|#
                      .
                      ..

                      ….
                      …..

                      I got nothing. But don’t worry, I’ll make it a point to completely ignore your raving stupidity from here on.

                      Aw, poor tulpa has nothing. I am sure your sock puppet will arrive and have plenty to say.

                2. Look, Zeb Citizen is trolling for you again and seems to be concerned with the same thing. Hm…. I wonder why that is happening.

                  1. Because you’re a conversational Weeble and won’t be knocked down. Your idiocy is invincible. It’s kind of fascinating.

                    1. “conversational Weeble”

                      I like that.

                    2. You would. You bobble back and forth never really saying anything and need something to describer yourself.

                      I can have a medal or ribbon made up for you to be the bestest conversational Weeble on here.

                    3. Take a bow Citizen. You are idiotic alright and you get all the gold stars and ribbons for being so.

                    4. The exchanges on this thread got me through the day. Thank you all.

                      [wipes away teats]

                    5. *tears

                    6. Better with teats…

                      My next question was ” How many teats did you have in front of your today”?

                    7. Better with teats…

                      Lovecon ’89’s dating slogan, y’all.

                    8. You leave those teats right there.

                    9. Teat for tat.

                    10. You have a teat tat? To commemorate your first?

                    11. I have a tat for wanting tits! Huge titties. Big ‘ol knockers. Tatas. Love jugs. Melons.

                    12. Boobs. breasts. milk bags.

                    13. The idiocy you spout is not going to win any argument so nothing to knock down.

                      The funny thing is that you think you can knock anyone around with your childish little tulpa moves.

      3. Are you retarded?

        He probably wanted to bang her with his small schlong. Who knows. Since he didn’t say, only James Woods knows what he wanted to do. Woods did not kidnap her, has never been accused of raping any woman, nor having illegal sex with minors- that I have heard. Feel free to provide proof of otherwise.

        I know to you every woman who voluntarily goes with a man to Vegas is automatically chained in a basement and sexually abused for decades to then be murdered.

        Jesus Christ. Please stay in Taxifornia so you don’t corrupt voting habits in other states.

        1. I don’t think the problem is really James Woods being a creeper, it’s his being an asshole and a hypocrite, as apparently it’s only immoral when it’s gay.

          1. Or he’s an asshole and hypocrite because he saying something against gay dogma.

            1. Is it really dogma that gay dudes like to date dudes, or more of a “by definition” thing?

              1. Its gay dogma that people cannot never speak out against being gay or gay behavior being gross.

                1. Nobody’s stopping you from being a horrible person.

                  1. Lefty SJW beg to differ.

                    They want to stop/exterminate all dissidents that they label horrible persons.

                    1. It must be terrible for you going out of your house what with all those SJWs waiting on rooftops with sniper rifles.

                2. So that’s “dogma?” It seems to me that it is your “dogma” which is questionable here.

            2. Uh, what do you mean, “gay dogma?” Where exactly is the “dogma” here? Maybe you’re just a jerk who doesn’t like gays.

        2. Just because we aren’t mindreaders doesn’t mean we can’t make reasonable inferences about situations. A middle aged rich guy asking two random 16 year olds to go to Vegas sets off certain alarm bells.

          I also never said Woods raped anyone or that he had illegal sex with minors, or that he was plotting a dungeon murder, WTF are you talking about? I don’t see how that’s relevant here. The relationship he’s objecting to in the movie is consensual and not illegal in the country it takes place in.

          1. WTF are you talking about? There are no reasonable inferences about the James Woods story that may or may not be true.

            The knee jerk over-reactionaries are at it again and then ask, who me?

            1. You’re the one who started the argument by saying “trying to take a 16 year old to Vegas isn’t the same as having sex with them.” My comment about reasonable inferences is that any reasonable person would conclude someone trying to do the former (in the context of the story) is trying to do the latter. I already said the story may not be true, my point is that if it is, your defense in the first comment is breathtakingly stupid.

              I just don’t get where you’re coming from. Woods got offended by a movie depicting a gay relationships between a 24 year old and a 17 year old, and people have criticized his hypocrisy considering his history of dating women not much older than 17 when he was in his 60s, as well as the allegation about trying to pick up 16 years olds. You’ve somehow twisted it so everyone but Woods is a hypocritical snowflake in this situation.

              1. By this chicks own account, Woods didn’t know this chick was 16 until after asking her to go to Vegas. Asking a younger woman to go to Vegas with you is not immoral. Commenting that its “even better” after finding out she is 16 years old is creepy but not immoral. Actually taking a 16 years old to Vegas when she is not your daughter and for sexual reasons is immoral and illegal. Unless you are going to marry her and even then icky.

                As with typical stupid people who chime in without reading, you have what I said wrong.

                You don’t get where I am coming from because you are not reading what I said.

                Woods made a comment about depicted underage homosexual activity between a 24 year old and a 17 year old. This caused the gay useful idiots to swarm. Then some actress publicly gave an account of how James Woods was like a child molester by asking her to Vegas.

                I am sorry that some of you people cannot see this for what it is. Even more telling that this is news for some reason.

                Reason… buttsex, weed, and progressives hiding as Libertarians.

                1. Dude, how stupid are you? You seriously expect people not to believe that, if this actually happened, he had no sexual intent here?

                  I just don’t get why you’re shocked that people criticized Woods for what he said. It’s like you think he has some right to say what he wants without anyone else criticizing him in response. When you attack a movie because it depicts a relationship between a 24 and 17 year old which you view as disgusting and immoral, and you yourself are a middle aged to elderly man with a habit of going after barely legal women, you look like a massive hypocrite. That’s all there is to it. But because Woods is the conservative here, for some reason you feel the need to defend him.

                  The angle for the article was age of consent laws and the mindset that legality = morality.

                  1. And are you sure you’re not AGAINST woods (and lovecon) because they are conservative? And AoC laws aside, if some older creeper heterosexual guy was after my daughter at 17, or if some chickenhawk homo was trying to get on my 17 year old son, I would likely have ap problem with that.

                    1. If the age-of-consent were 17 years in your state, there wouldn’t be a thing you could do about it.

          2. Of course that presupposes that he knew they were 16 before he (allegedly) propositioned them. If he came on to them not knowing they were 16 (but certainly knowing they were young) maybe he can’t tell the difference between 16 and 18–you have to admit it can be hard sometimes, and if it was a bar he could have reasonably assumed they’d been carded. What was his response after being told they were 16? She says one thing, he says another.

            1. That was my primary point. Glad some people on here read.

              Its not a good story nor fits into a narrative to smear him, if he replied to her age info “nevermind”.

            2. She gives his response in the article. Now, you can argue she lied or made it up. I’m not saying that’s impossible or that the story’s true. I’m saying that lc1789’s line of argument about how propositioning young women you just met to go to Vegas doesn’t have sexual overtones is beyond naive.

            3. Beyond that, whether 16 or 18, Woods still comes out looking like a massive hypocrite. It’s awful that people made a movie where a 17 year old has sex with a 24 year old, but it’s perfectly fine for a guy in his 50s to solicit an 18 year old?

      4. The age of consent in Nevada is 16. He knew what he was doing.

        1. Was he in Nevada when he asked? Since he wanted to “take her to Vegas”, I would guess they were in Los Angeles. This supposedly happened in 2001, so whatever the age of consent for California was for that year would probably apply. If he planning on having sex with her in Vegas, then Nevada age of consent would apply for the sexual act.

          It is still against the federal law to take minors across state lines for the purposes of sexual relations.

    3. No one claimed it was a crisis. It’s just an example of Woods being a pervert.

  2. …she argues that she has no plausible motivation to make such a thing up.

    Well, actually…

    Hammer is supposed to be playing a 24-year-old in that film? He’s obviously not, which might be what makes the optics to Woods look illegal (AKA immoral). Or maybe Woods is a crank.

    1. James Woods is famous for having an above average crank.

      1. That… is a really strange thing for you to know.

        1. He’s famous and women that have seen his cock described it.

          I know that YOU have a tiny crank and that is because all the men that you have been with have described it.

          1. So you make it a habit to gossip about strangers’ cock size. Maybe we can be friends!

          2. See, that’s about an eighth-grade-level comeback at best. Rubber/glue and then end with “hurr ur a fag”? Weak as hell.

            And it still doesn’t explain why you’re reading about James Woods’s dick and then dropping it into conversation.

            1. I learned from you. The best in the biz.

              1. No, you didn’t learn from me. I’m explaining to you but you seem to be ineducable. It’s pretty sad.

                1. Aw, you won’t even take a bow to being a teacher of nonsensical childhood comebacks. What…a…shame.

                  1. You’re saying that not only are you really bad at comebacks, but you’d actually be worse if left to your own devices? I don’t think that’s the killer retort that you seem to think it is.

                    1. Aw, Citizen I don’t need comebacks because there is never a comment from you that is anything but tulpa bullshit or a link to get more comment traffic.

                      You see childish comebacks everywhere because that is why your are here- to drop childish nonsense. Not to discuss the articles in any meaningful way.

                      Hey, how about that James Woods violating gay dogma?

          3. This has got to be performance art. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if you verbatim quoted this onion article.

            http://www.theonion.com/blogpo…..cock-10861

            1. What’s the Onion?

        2. Wood’s endowment is pretty well known. Same thing with Jon Hamm apparently. Some chicks that work for me were gabbing about him.

  3. As always, I am fine with anything as long as it is legal.

    1. And how long is that, exactly?

      1. Crusty is all about the longer the better

  4. I still have trouble remembering that Armie Hammer is one dude and not two.

    1. You probably jerk off imagining yourself as his sloppy bottom.

  5. Tamblyn first says

    a business whose business is to objectify women

    and then

    to dream about […] anthropomorphizing Tom Hardy into a dreamy horse we could ride into the sunset

    I guess Hardy can just take care of himself?

    1. Shouldn’t that be hippomorphizing?

  6. “Woods was 59 when he began dating Ashley Madison, who was 19 at the time.”

    Wait a minute —- Woods dated a dating website?!?!
    How exactly do you date what is, in effect, just a publication, albeit in electronic form?

    And, is there any risk of electric shock if things get, you know, physical? (I’m asking for a friend who really, really digs Reason.com.)

    1. James Woods FOUND a way dammit! Cause he’s James motherfucking Woods!

  7. Who cares about what actors have to say about anything?

    1. Idiots. The unemployed.

  8. Here is where Tamblyn chimed in. “James Woods tried to pick me and my friend up at a restaurant once,” she tweeted. “He wanted to take us to Vegas. ‘I’m 16’ I said. ‘Even better’ he said.”

    I have an unwavering belief in the First Amendment and boobs.

  9. Tamblyn’s article is worth reading. I have no problem believing Woods did exactly as she says, but she makes a point of talking about how there aren’t two sides to every accusation, which isn’t exactly “inspirational”, or whatever people are falling all over themselves to call it. Honestly, it’s more like you have the two fringes arguing with each other, when the rest of us are left wondering what’s wrong with the both of them.

    1. I have no problem believing Woods did exactly as she says, but she makes a point of talking about how there aren’t two sides to every accusation, which isn’t exactly “inspirational”, or whatever people are falling all over themselves to call it.

      This is how I took her argument to begin with. Stupid.

      “To disprove stodgy, old conservatives’ notions that we *need* laws conditionally voiding minors’ ability to consent to sex, I’m going to totally and credibly accuse this old guy of being both a pedophile (and a homophobe).”

  10. He dated Ashley Madison?

    Joke’s on him. It’s mostly dudes.

  11. . . . disbelief faced by victims of sexual harassment, she argues that she has no plausible motivation to make such a thing up.

    Couple things here.

    1. What she faced from Woods at 16 wasn’t ‘sexual harrassment’. At all. It was an old dude trolling for chicks waaaaaaaaay too young for him. It might have been creepy. It might have even been illegal. It wasn’t sexual harrassment.

    2. Yeah, she does have a plausible motivation to make such a thing up – to make Woods look worse. Though at this point its hard to do that better than Woods himself is doing it.

    1. This is potentially a smear tactic of hers because Woods violated the gay dogma and thou shall not speak ill of gay behavior, EVER!

      1. True. And now they’re free to slowly bring groups like NAMBLA back into the fold. NAMBLA was part of the mainstream gay rights movement until the early 80’s when the movement figured out how toxic NAMBLA made them appear to the voting public. Gay culture is still very heavy on chickenhawks going after very young teen boys (I am not talking about 17 year olds).

  12. “Or would he concede that such laws are inherently arbitrary, that reasonable people can and do disagree about what the cutoff should be, and that the goal should be ensuring genuine consent, as opposed to preventing outrage among those who think a particular pairing is icky?”

    Um, isn’t that NAMBLA’s whole argument? And doesn’t that just fall to reductionism? If 18 is ok, what’s the difference between 17 and 18? Ok, so 17 is ok. If 17 is ok, what’s the different between 16 and 17?…

    1. If 18 is ok, what’s the difference between 17 and 18? Ok, so 17 is ok. If 17 is ok, what’s the different between 16 and 17?…

      17 is a prime number. 18 and 16 are not. I propose Eratosthenes Dating Sieve; proper “dating” occurs between two or across a single prime number, inclusive. 24 and 16 is not OK, 13 and 11 is not OK, 21 and 16 is, 16 and 12 is, 24 and 20 is.

      The narrowing between 19 and 23 to 29 and 31 (and 41 and 43, etc.) is not only sensible but willed by whatever God put those prime numbers so close together. If you’re confused, you’re either a moron, pervert, or both.

      1. Rule of law…

        We generally consent to an agreement about what is what. In this case, states decide what is age of consent for certain behavior. I personally think there should be one age of consent for it all and that be somewhere around 18 years of age. This would allow 18 year old to join the military, drink alcohol, smoke weed, enter into contracts, etc.

        If you are under 18, then your behavior should not be treated with the same harshness and responsibility as an adult at 18 and over. This way two under 18 year olds having sex dont get into trouble. Under 18 year olds drinking dont go to jail.

    2. Using your logic, we should be able to go upward in age just as easily. “If 18 is still immoral, why not make the age-of-consent 19, 20, 21, etc.?”

  13. This whole thread confuses me. Let me just cut to the important question, are there pics of hot women involved?

    1. That is an excellent question.

  14. But Woods is clearly wrong when he definitively states that a sexual relationship between a 24-year-old and a 17-year-old “is illegal.”

    To begin with, the age of consent in Italy, the setting of Call Me by Your Name, is 14. In this country, the age of consent is 16 or 17 in 39 states, so the relationship that Woods deemed indecent would be legal in all of those places as well.

    By contrast, the age of consent in California is 18, and there is no close-in-age exemption. In other words, any sex involving someone younger than 18 is a crime, even if the other person is also younger than 18. The only exception is for married couples.

    I’d say “clearly wrong” is overstating things here. Is he in Italy watching the movie in Italian as he said that and speaking to Italians as he said that? Otherwise he’s correct for where he lives. If the law on the matter is one thing it is “definitive”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.