Idaho to pay for inmate child molester's gender reassignment surgery (court order)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
Wow, for someone berating people about science, why did you bother to make your post so intellectually dishonest and lazy? Did you even bother to read the PDF in your link? Unfortunately, it is clear that you didn't. If you did, you'd realize the PDF does not reflect the point of what you are trying to make. I suggest you take a moment to actually click, open, and read the document, you'd realize that every table, every data point is titled: "Lifetime suicide attempts."

At no point does that study quantify suicide attempts BEFORE or AFTER gender reassignment surgery. In fact, in their methods and limitations section, they outline the significant limitation of their analysis of the survey. The survey asked only a single question regarding suicide behavior: “Have you ever attempted suicide?” with dichotomized responses of Yes/No."

For someone berating others about not practicing science, how can you be so ignorant on the subject? May be if you did some actual reading on the subject you'd realize that gender reassignment surgery results in:
-Greater post-operative satisfaction
-Equal quality of body image and sexual life compared to cis people
-Low incidences of regret (between 2.2% and 3.8%)
-Expectations met at an emotional and social level
-95% reporting a global favorable outcome
-Higher degrees of well-being and social integration

Futhermore, a 2010, 2018, and 2019 meta-analyses found improvements in psychological symptoms, quality of life, and improvement in sexual function after gender reassignment. In addition, in one study, no attempts of suicide occurred after gender-reassignment surgery. Unfortunately, there is little data behind the suicide rate before and after other than a grossly misinterpreted study from PLoS that is floated around by intellectually dishonest blogs.

I suggest next time, before you lambaste others not knowing science, you actually take a moment and do some reading on the subject before posting. No wonder it seems so "retarded" to you, you don't have an ounce of intellectual honesty to take a moment and actually read the data before making a conclusion about the subject.
To be fair, he's known for being an internet tough guy who frequently overestimates his understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
Hey I want a brand new car but I cannot afford one. Should the taxpayers have to pay for my old car to be renovated so it looks the way I would like for it to? A sex change operation is not medically necessary and taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. Sewing up a stab wound or fixing a broken bone would be medically necessary.

When the individual gets out of prison he can pay for all of the surgeries he wants if he so desires and make himself look anyway he pleases. People ruin themselves all the time through these procedures.
And yet insurance plans pay for all sorts of items that fall in this category based on your definition of "medically necessary".

Eg Viagra, Chiropractors, massage therapy, weight loss programs/food, and a good list of pseudo-scientific medical "issues" and other unnecessary treatments.

Of course having car insurance pay for the repair of your car's scratched bumper isn't medically necessary for the car either, yet insurance payers pay for all types of cosmetically related car repairs for members that we all end up paying for,
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
All this thinking just hurts my head. I'm just a simple person and my gut tells me the solution is to kill rapists on the spot.

On a side note, I have never really understood statutory rape. Love doesn't really have too much to do with age and if two people, one above and one below some arbitrary age love each other and sex is part of that, where is the fucking harm. It's never seen as love, but only as one person praying on the youth of another for selfish reasons. How is love an expression of selfishness when you are ready to dedicate your life to that other person. Where it is predation, that's another matter.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Wow, for someone berating people about science, why did you bother to make your post so intellectually dishonest and lazy? Did you even bother to read the PDF in your link? Unfortunately, it is clear that you didn't. If you did, you'd realize the PDF does not reflect the point of what you are trying to make. I suggest you take a moment to actually click, open, and read the document, you'd realize that every table, every data point is titled: "Lifetime suicide attempts."

At no point does that study quantify suicide attempts BEFORE or AFTER gender reassignment surgery. In fact, in their methods and limitations section, they outline the significant limitation of their analysis of the survey. The survey asked only a single question regarding suicide behavior: “Have you ever attempted suicide?” with dichotomized responses of Yes/No."

For someone berating others about not practicing science, how can you be so ignorant on the subject? Maybe if you did some actual reading on the subject you'd realize that gender reassignment surgery results in:
-Greater post-operative satisfaction
-Equal quality of body image and sexual life compared to cis people
-Low incidences of regret (between 2.2% and 3.8%)
-Expectations met at an emotional and social level
-95% reporting a global favorable outcome
-Higher degrees of well-being and social integration

Futhermore, 2010, 2018, and 2019 meta-analyses found improvements in psychological symptoms, quality of life, and improvement in sexual function after gender reassignment. In addition, in one study, no attempts of suicide occurred after gender-reassignment surgery. Unfortunately, there is little data behind the suicide rate before and after other than a grossly misinterpreted study from PLoS that is floated around by intellectually dishonest blogs.

I suggest next time, before you lambaste others not knowing science, you actually take a moment and do some reading on the subject before posting. No wonder it seems so "retarded" to you, you don't have an ounce of intellectual honesty to take a moment and actually read the data before making a conclusion about the subject.

Hahahaah you find your "sources" to be science? They are all fucking questionnaires that have their own questionable bias' as well. What a great time to question people IMMEDIATELY after a post-op to ask them if they are more satisfied.

Suicide isn't a bullshit questionnaire to "rate your happiness". Also not sure what you're trying to indicate about the parts in my linked study, if this chart doesn't give a flashing warning light then you're simply too stupid for words. Which isn't surprising given your inept position.

But go ahead and keep pedaling your own narrative to suite your cognitive dissonance peon.

1566682698440.png
 
Last edited:

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
Well, take a closer look at that study.

The authors suggest that people who identify as transgender -- Male to Female or FTM either way -- have a higher propensity to lifetime suicide anyway, so this may explain why there could be little difference between those with the surgery and those without.

Well, that's obvious. Something is fucked in the head where they feel they need to be in the body of the opposite gender. Sometimes it's not even so much the body but acting out stereotypical gender roles. Others? Not so much. For example, I would be totally fine if I had a woman's body. Shee-it, I'm only around a 5-7 in my view. Would definitely exchange for 9-10 woman's body and some lesbian fun. XD But anyway, getting surgery to try to correct it obviously isn't a real fix because they generally end up looking like an abomination of the genders.

Further -- " Collectively, these findings suggest that not being recognized by others as transgender or gender non-conforming may function as a protective factor for suicidal behavior. Conversely, one’s inability to not be recognized as transgender or gender non-conforming may create added risk."

Thus, more suicides for those who openly identify themselves as Trans, less suicides for those who don't.

Yes. How others view them is a big factor. That goes for ugly people too.

It's not continuous funding.

The risk to the prison-budget for ignoring the request would remain.

The inmate might likely be less disturbed and therefore easier to manage.

So free plastic surgery for incels to be Chads? XD
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
Hahahaah you find your "sources" to be science? They are all fucking questionnaires that have their own questionable bias' as well. What a great time to question people IMMEDIATELY after a post-op to ask them if they are more satisfied.

Suicide isn't a bullshit questionnaire to "rate your happiness". Also not sure what you're trying to indicate about the parts in my linked study, if this chart doesn't give a flashing warning light then you're simply too stupid for words. Which isn't surprising given your inept position.

But go ahead and keep pedaling your own narrative to suite your cognitive dissonance peon.

Hahaha. I needed a big laugh. This is great. Questionnaires aren't science, huh? Then why did you post this:
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Hmm, what does it say on the cover page?
"Suicide Attempts among Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Adults
FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION SURVEY"
LMAO. Good job on further demonstrating zero intellectual integrity. You posted a questionnaire, which isn't science according to you, but then apparently a questionnaire is a sufficient basis of your idiotic conclusion.

SInce you posted the table for everyone to see, what is the title of Table 5? Read it. What does it say as the very first word?
LIFETIME suicide attempts...

When they conducted your questionnaire, they asked each subject "Have you ever attempted suicide?” (See their methods and limitations section). Did you notice the word ever? They asked each person if they ever attempted suicide, it doesn't matter if was 10 years ago, 10 months ago, 10 days ago, or 10 hours ago. That means each person could have attempted suicide BEFORE or AFTER surgery, they did not ask when they had the suicide attempt in relation to the surgery.

Or better yet, why don't you read the sentence right after your highlighted text in your image:

"This pattern was observed all transition-related services and procedures that were explored in the NTDS. The survey did not provide information about the timing of reported suicide attempts in relation to receiving transition-related health care, which precluded investigation of transition-related explanations for these patterns. "

The investigators of your questionnaire freely admit they did not ask when the subjects attempted suicide, so they cannot determine if surgery reduced suicide or not. Yet, because you didn't read the study nor the table/text you posted, you come to your intellectually dishonest conclusions. For shame.

And again, what were the follow-up times of these studies, since you read them?
-Greater post-operative satisfaction
-Equal quality of body image and sexual life compared to cis people
-Low incidences of regret (between 2.2% and 3.8%)
-Expectations met at an emotional and social level
-95% reporting a global favorable outcome
-Higher degrees of well-being and social integration
Here's a hint, some of them are in the abstract... In addition, how is quantifying the incidence of regret a questionnaire? Further evidence you didn't read a single study in that group. Why not read the meta-analyses?

I highly suggest you delete your posts if you are genuinely concerned about science and intellectual honesty. You've demonstrated zero capacity to read your own questionnaires or even the text of a table that you post on here. Its hilarious watching you flounder worse than SlowSpyder.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
All this thinking just hurts my head. I'm just a simple person and my gut tells me the solution is to kill rapists on the spot.

On a side note, I have never really understood statutory rape. Love doesn't really have too much to do with age and if two people, one above and one below some arbitrary age love each other and sex is part of that, where is the fucking harm. It's never seen as love, but only as one person praying on the youth of another for selfish reasons. How is love an expression of selfishness when you are ready to dedicate your life to that other person. Where it is predation, that's another matter.
It's technically against the law, and gives parents a means of "justice" against someone they suspect of seducing their teenager. But it is arguably short of pedophile criminality, while the perpetrator still has to register as a sex criminal.

There are many cases in the social-page news of adults marrying teenagers. If they are marrying them, they may have had premarital sex with them.

In the case of Edmo the convict, one is tempted to look at his crime differently because it wasn't outwardly a heterosexual encounter. In his mind, it must have been a confused encounter.

But the fact that he was confused, that his confusion provided a basis for his molestation crime, and that sexual reassignment might help him with part of his confusion and much of his distress, isn't too debatable.

In prison, these people face all sorts of risks, humiliation and derision. As bizarre as his statutory rape crime seems to a bible-thumping twit, the risk and humiliation shouldn't be part of his sentence. Give the man (woman?) a new tool-box, and send him to the woman's correctional facility.

As for the public budget, these cases are likely very sparse. But if it weren't decided further in the future by a court proceeding, one could also make the convict liable for the expense once they've been paroled or released. Many people without insurance pay their medical bills after surgery and treatment, and hospitals had a practice of accepting monthly payments without interest.

But I wouldn't call this a "Lib-tard queer-love obsession". We just want to see people treated fairly. Maybe some time in the future, brain transplants may be possible, offering hope for reformation of the entire Right-Wing, White-Sup population.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
All this thinking just hurts my head. I'm just a simple person and my gut tells me the solution is to kill rapists on the spot.

On a side note, I have never really understood statutory rape. Love doesn't really have too much to do with age and if two people, one above and one below some arbitrary age love each other and sex is part of that, where is the fucking harm. It's never seen as love, but only as one person praying on the youth of another for selfish reasons. How is love an expression of selfishness when you are ready to dedicate your life to that other person. Where it is predation, that's another matter.
It is my understanding that a lot of statutory rape cases involves a young adult having sex with a minor not much younger then the adult, like only a few years. A few states are particularly really nasty even with a years difference.:eek::rolleyes:
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
It is my understanding that a lot of statutory rape cases involves a young adult having sex with a minor not much younger then the adult, like only a few years. A few states are particularly really nasty even with a years difference.:eek::rolleyes:

Girl is 18: BAWWWWWWWRIGHT! (Insert giggity giggity from Family Guy)
Girl is 17.999999999: How DARE you find her sexually attractive! Even if you don't actually know her precise age since you haven't even met her yet, how DARE you sexually fantasize about what you naturally are unable to control.

It really is getting pathetic about how in denial people are about sexual attraction. The moment a woman reaches puberty (often as little as 11-13 years of age), they are biologically made and primed for sex. That's a fact, regardless of what political correctness atmosphere you want to believe in. If you want to deny this then you are simply denying reality and should be locked in an insane asylum for stupidity or denial of facts.

The fact is that we (as a society) consider it morally reprehensible. There is some definitive "rightfully so" to go along with this, but to deny that males do not see a sexual attraction and are just going la-la-la-la you're ugly is just sad and overall a denial of science. It's the equivalency to my message at the top in saying that an 18 year old is attractive and totally hot but we should be able to infer as humans what an 18 year old is vs. a 17.9999 year old. That is absolutely absurd and laughable. Not surprising given today's regressive lefties shoving their heads in the sand.

On top of that (like you said) for plenty of states you are 1 border away from your actions being legal vs. illegal depending on the age of consent in said state and the by-laws of being within acceptable age-range for the age of consent.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
It is my understanding that a lot of statutory rape cases involves a young adult having sex with a minor not much younger then the adult, like only a few years. A few states are particularly really nasty even with a years difference.:eek::rolleyes:
I would bet a lot of punitive laws get written by people who hate themselves, having been told that the feelings they have are evil, suppressing them and then suspecting others of acting out of those very suppressed urges. Projection. Law in this way can serve to keep the sickness alive. Sex, which should represent the tenderest of love, the cherry on top of a Sunday, gets seen as selfish need. Sad really.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
Girl is 18: BAWWWWWWWRIGHT! (Insert giggity giggity from Family Guy)
Girl is 17.999999999: How DARE you find her sexually attractive! Even if you don't actually know her precise age since you haven't even met her yet, how DARE you sexually fantasize about what you naturally are unable to control.

It really is getting pathetic about how in denial people are about sexual attraction. The moment a woman reaches puberty (often as little as 11-13 years of age), they are biologically made and primed for sex. That's a fact, regardless of what political correctness atmosphere you want to believe in. If you want to deny this then you are simply denying reality and should be locked in an insane asylum for stupidity or denial of facts.

The fact is that we (as a society) consider it morally reprehensible. There is some definitive "rightfully so" to go along with this, but to deny that males do not see a sexual attraction and are just going la-la-la-la you're ugly is just sad and overall a denial of science. It's the equivalency to my message at the top in saying that an 18 year old is attractive and totally hot but we should be able to infer as humans what an 18 year old is vs. a 17.9999 year old. That is absolutely absurd and laughable. Not surprising given today's regressive lefties shoving their heads in the sand.

On top of that (like you said) for plenty of states you are 1 border away from your actions being legal vs. illegal depending on the age of consent in said state and the by-laws of being within acceptable age-range for the age of consent.
Actually it the regressive Right Wingers that push for the strictest Statuary Rape laws and enforcement while the liberal left supports reasonable laws and protection for close in age adults. What is really ridiculousness that the Right Wingers want to allow to allow adult men to wed underage teen girls...:rolleyes:
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Actually it the regressive Right Wingers that push for the strictest Statuary Rape laws and enforcement while the liberal left supports reasonable laws and protection for close in age adults. What is really ridiculousness that the Right Wingers want to allow to allow adult men to wed underage teen girls...:rolleyes:

I don't consider it a right vs. left thing in this regard. I've seen both sides react incredible irrationally to this subject in the name of social justice.

Please find me some progressive mainstream articles where they advocate for fucking at the age of 14-17?
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
I don't consider it a right vs. left thing in this regard. I've seen both sides react incredible irrationally to this subject in the name of social justice.

Please find me some progressive mainstream articles where they advocate for fucking at the age of 14-17?
Actually many are on record saying that the Age of Consent should 16. So there.
 

Luna1968

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2019
1,202
680
136
Anyone notice how many conservatives are only "deeply concerned" about gender identity when there's an edge case that they think makes transgenderism look bad, and not, say, issues with anti-transgender violence or discrimination? It's almost as if their real concern is that transgenderism exists in the first place, and they'd sure love it if some conservative leader declared transgenderism illegal.

taxpayers should not pay for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atreus21
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Actually many are on record saying that the Age of Consent should 16. So there.


(compiled from a bunch of sources - Wiki has a lot of it)

About 29 states have 16 as legal age of consent. The rest are 17 or 18.

Here in Canada it was raised from 14 to 16 in 2008. It had been 14 since 1890. Prior to that it was 12. At that time it was roughly the same in the Us except fro Delaware where it was 7. :eek:

The last state to raise the age of consent was Hawaii in 2001 (from 14 to 16)
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
(compiled from a bunch of sources - Wiki has a lot of it)

About 29 states have 16 as legal age of consent. The rest are 17 or 18.

Here in Canada it was raised from 14 to 16 in 2008. It had been 14 since 1890. Prior to that it was 12. At that time it was roughly the same in the Us except fro Delaware where it was 7. :eek:

The last state to raise the age of consent was Hawaii in 2001 (from 14 to 16)
Didn't know any of the 13 Colonies even had the Age of Consent that low. Or was it just only The Of Marriage and the Husband wasn't legally allowed to deflower his child wife until she was older? I can't see how a seven year old girl can have such relations with an adult male without injury or at least a large degree of pain. And I don't even want to know at all.:eek:o_O

I thought the youngest age legally permitted for both was 10?
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Didn't know any of the 13 Colonies even had the Age of Consent that low. Or was it just only The Of Marriage and the Husband wasn't legally allowed to deflower his child wife until she was older? I can't see how a seven year old girl can have such relations with an adult male without injury or at least a large degree of pain. And I don't even want to know at all.:eek:o_O

I thought the youngest age legally permitted for both was 10?

Apparently it gets weirder. It was lowered to 7 (from 10) in 1871. And, age of consent back then wasn't about marriage, it was about rape.

"Sometimes misunderstood to refer to marriage, the age of consent in question actually had to do with the law of rape, similar to today’s statutory rape laws. Under English common law, which was adopted by Delaware and the other states, rape was defined as ”the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will.” 2 William Blackstone, Commentaries *210. "

http://blogs.lawlib.widener.edu/delaware/2014/07/07/the-age-of-consent-and-rape-reform-in-delaware/

If I understand the following correctly, it was lowered to make rape conviction easier for rapes of very young girls?

"In order to convict a man of rape, both force and lack of consent had to be proved, except in the case of a girl under the age of consent who was considered to not know right from wrong and was therefore incapable of consenting. The traditional common law age of consent was 10 or 12. In Delaware the age of consent was 10 until 1871 when it was lowered to seven. 14 Del. Laws 105 (1871) The same law instituted the death penalty for sex with a girl below the age of consent, before that the penalty had been up to 10 years in prison. It was probably the increase in the penalty which caused the age to be lowered, although reticence at the time to even discuss rape, means there is little mention of the change in law in the newspapers of 1871 and no legislative history."

http://blogs.lawlib.widener.edu/delaware/2014/07/07/the-age-of-consent-and-rape-reform-in-delaware/
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
taxpayers should not pay for this.

Well, that's the complicated part, really. My beef is more that some conservatives have this passive-aggressive streak where they try to hide their transphobia under various pretexts, but can't help but talk about it constantly. The common thread is always "transgender people bad."

I'm reminded of a former poster who would lie that he wasn't islamophobic, but curiously posted anti-Islam threads almost exclusively. In both cases, they think they're being subtle (they might not even realize there's a pattern), but anyone who's paying attention can see it.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
Well, that's the complicated part, really. My beef is more that some conservatives have this passive-aggressive streak where they try to hide their transphobia under various pretexts, but can't help but talk about it constantly. The common thread is always "transgender people bad."

I'm reminded of a former poster who would lie that he wasn't islamophobic, but curiously posted anti-Islam threads almost exclusively. In both cases, they think they're being subtle (they might not even realize there's a pattern), but anyone who's paying attention can see it.
Yep. I said this in the third post. This folks don't disagree with elective surgeries being paid for as suggested, they oppose procedures for transgenders because they oppose transgender folks.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Well, that's the complicated part, really. My beef is more that some conservatives have this passive-aggressive streak where they try to hide their transphobia under various pretexts, but can't help but talk about it constantly. The common thread is always "transgender people bad."

I'm reminded of a former poster who would lie that he wasn't islamophobic, but curiously posted anti-Islam threads almost exclusively. In both cases, they think they're being subtle (they might not even realize there's a pattern), but anyone who's paying attention can see it.

Yep. I said this in the third post. This folks don't disagree with elective surgeries being paid for as suggested, they oppose procedures for transgenders because they oppose transgender folks.


Nope, you are both 100% wrong. I have no issue with trans people, I truly believe that in America one is free to do what they want so long as they are not harming others' right or putting others' rights at unreasonable risk of being harmed (think drunk driving). Other than that, have at it, this is your life and your consciousness, only you can make the best decisions for you, we each have the steering wheel to our own lives. I completely and totally accept that a trans person has the right to live as a woman outwardly even if that person is a biological male, as an example. That person has a total right to change their body how they see fit, it is their choice. Though I may not personally get what they're about, I understand that they do get it and they're not harming me or others, so more power to them, that trans person is as human as you or I and entitled to all the same rights that you and I enjoy. I feel that is what equality is. Where I break with the left is that you push for more than equality, today the left fights for privilege for anyone that isn't a male, or white, or god forbid, the ultimate evil, a white male. And in this particular case, while I accept this person is free to pretend they don't have an X and Y chromosome in every cell in his body, he is free to go about life that way, I don't have to pretend and lie to myself about what he is for the sake of his feelings. And certainly the tax payers should not be on the hook for this surgery.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
So snip his nads and be done with it. He can go to Thailand and get the full nip and tuck when he's out of jail.

What you have there is a totally inapplicable analogy or parallel. The inmate attempted to castrate himself twice. He was in a state of severe emotional distress and possibly prone to suicide. Whether or not you abhor his crime is superfluous, and as I already said, but for the genders of the criminal and victim, the crime was more consistent with statutory rape -- a gray area. That's why they call it "statutory" rape.

You can call it "elective" surgery, but it would not have been "cosmetic" surgery. He isn't buying a new car. To make a funny play on words -- the man requested a new tool-box.

This is hardly a matter for political debate. It's trivial. The court judgment does not make it a precedent for any and all potential prisoner requests for sexual reassignment.
Indeed, they could commute his sentence and his sexual reassignment could then be his own responsibility.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
Apparently it gets weirder. It was lowered to 7 (from 10) in 1871. And, age of consent back then wasn't about marriage, it was about rape.

"Sometimes misunderstood to refer to marriage, the age of consent in question actually had to do with the law of rape, similar to today’s statutory rape laws. Under English common law, which was adopted by Delaware and the other states, rape was defined as ”the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will.” 2 William Blackstone, Commentaries *210. "

http://blogs.lawlib.widener.edu/delaware/2014/07/07/the-age-of-consent-and-rape-reform-in-delaware/

If I understand the following correctly, it was lowered to make rape conviction easier for rapes of very young girls?

"In order to convict a man of rape, both force and lack of consent had to be proved, except in the case of a girl under the age of consent who was considered to not know right from wrong and was therefore incapable of consenting. The traditional common law age of consent was 10 or 12. In Delaware the age of consent was 10 until 1871 when it was lowered to seven. 14 Del. Laws 105 (1871) The same law instituted the death penalty for sex with a girl below the age of consent, before that the penalty had been up to 10 years in prison. It was probably the increase in the penalty which caused the age to be lowered, although reticence at the time to even discuss rape, means there is little mention of the change in law in the newspapers of 1871 and no legislative history."

http://blogs.lawlib.widener.edu/delaware/2014/07/07/the-age-of-consent-and-rape-reform-in-delaware/
I seem to recall that Englang before the late 19th early 20th Century allow Adult men to marry girls younger then 10 but couldn't have sex with her until she was 10.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
I seem to recall that Englang before the late 19th early 20th Century allow Adult men to marry girls younger then 10 but couldn't have sex with her until she was 10.

Doesn't sound right. Rooting around online shows England's first age of consent law set it at 12, established in 1275. It didn't change until 1875 when it was raised to 13 and then 16 in 1885.

Wait, I did find this which seems sort of related to what you thought was the case

"In Roman law and canon law the age of female consent was aligned with female marriage and with puberty (particularly the ability to reproduce). Maturity and marriage was expected to occur from the age of 12 for females, although in its early incarnations the legal age of consent was flexible in line with marital arrangements. Consent in itself was not the focus of these laws, in which a man’s right to take a girl’s chastity – ideally, but not necessarily, with her consent – came with marriage. The thirteenth-century Statutes of Westminster consolidated in law that sexual intercourse with a girl ‘within age’ – taken to mean under the marital age of 12 – was illegal with or without her consent. In 1576 a new law made sexual intercourse with girls under the age of 10 a felony while leaving offences against girls aged 10-12 as a misdemeanour. This act implicitly created a two-tiered system, in which the highest sentences were reserved for offences against the youngest girls."

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/pol...y-of-1885-girls-and-the-age-of-sexual-consent