This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

The table gives 21 as the unrestricted age of consent, but this is contradicted elsewhere in the article. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This contradiction still exists as of November 2024. I'm a passerby (i.e., not even vaguely versed in how to edit Wikipedia), but the discrepancy is explicit. How can this be fixed? 98.232.105.86 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chemical Engineer 109.126.189.182 (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an updated version of the Delaware code for 2024 (as it pertains to the age of consent) starting here.

It seems to have some potentially confusing aspects, and hence raises some doubts as to whether this meets the criteria for inclusion in WP. Fabrickator (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to section 768, it would appear that anyone who has intentional sexual contact with a person under age 18 is guilty of unlawful sexual contact in the second degree. If there are other authoritative sources that conflict with this, we may have a conundrum, because this seems to be quite plain on its face. Fabrickator (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Fabrickator (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is rare for people to dislike sticky headers after I add them to a table. This is the article with the sticky table headers:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_in_the_United_States&oldid=1302207556

BRMYX23 removed the sticky table headers. BRMYX23 is a very new editor (May 27, 2025 first edit under that name). They have also been warned about possible edit warring. They also removed the sticky table headers from here:

• Age of consent by country

On that article BRMYX23 called my edits vandalism which is a personal attack. See WP:NPA.

Can someone else return the sticky tables? Then there is more than one person who wants them, and my time has not been wasted. @Jroberson108: can you have a look at the sticky version, and tell me what you think since you (like me) are an expert on sticky tables on Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter and BRMYX23: I suggest only discussing the article's content here.

Reviewing the "Summary" table. It is tall with three columns next to each other with very similar age data. In my opinion, this can easily be mixed up when column headers are no longer visible.

I don't think Template:Sticky table start is needed, instead use Template:Sticky header because it isn't "very" wide, the text wraps, and most aren't going to read the "ref" column. Sticky column headers will help with not having to scroll back and forth to re-read column headers, especially on mobile.

Also, sorting on the ref column can be removed as it serves no purpose. Finally, the caption might be better rephrased as "Ages of consent in the United States" or "United States ages of consent".

I suggest reaching a consensus (WP:CON). Jroberson108 (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I had been offline for the past couple of days - However in response to the points listed, yes the sticky tables had been removed as they make the information on the summary tables harder to access than they had been previously - requiring scrolling through and along to the sides, hiding large chunks of information which are the core purpose / pieces of information of the page - A page which has existed for decades within the formats that it had been previously, until you came along and made large changes to the page - in the decades this page had existed at no point had objections been raised to the format and it was the format which was agreed upon for displaying the page by those who created the page originally and by all those who had edited on it -

the information on the original format indeed fixed, therefore and easy to view - Your changes make information harder to find and the page more complicated, unnecessarily and it goes against the agreed upon format for the page - and this edit was made without gathering information from others - Simply put you massively re-formatted the page on your own convictions in such a manner that hides information, and this was the reason for removal - the layout of information was agreed upon originally by the page creators your edit goes against that and hides / makes information harder to find - These were therefore the grounds for removal BRMYX23 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Or more accurately to revert back to the original format, agreed upon on the creation of the page - things have not altered on the topic enough between the page creation and now to justify an update to the way information is formatted, keeping it clear and there rather than making huge changes keeps in line with the intended format of when the page was developed) BRMYX23 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BRMYX23: Here below is the US table in the sticky table format suggested by Jroberson108: {{sticky header}}. Instead of the more compact sticky table format I used: {{sticky table start}}. Scroll down and you will see that the headers follow you down the page making it much easier to know what column a number applies to. I prefer {{sticky table start}} since it makes tables more viewable in portrait view in smaller cell phones. By making the left column sticky too.

State/territory	By age	By authority	Unrestricted	Ref.
Alabama	—N/a	16	19	[1]
Alaska	—N/a	16	18	[2][3]
American Samoa	—N/a	—N/a	16	[4]
Arizona	—N/a	—N/a	18	[5][6][7]
Arkansas	14	16	18	[8]
California	—N/a	—N/a	18	[9][10][11]
Colorado	14	—N/a	17
Connecticut	13	16	18	[12][13][14][15][16]
Delaware	16	—N/a	18	[17]
Florida	16	—N/a	18	[18][19][20]
Georgia	—N/a	—N/a	16	[21][22]
Hawaii	14	—N/a	16	[23][24]
Idaho	—N/a	—N/a	18	[25][26][27][28]
Illinois	—N/a	17	18	[29][30][31][32][33][34]
Indiana	14	—N/a	16	[35][36]
Iowa	14	—N/a	16
Kansas	—N/a	—N/a	16	[37]
Kentucky	16	—N/a	18	[38]
Louisiana	—N/a	—N/a	17	[39]
Maine	14	—N/a	16
Maryland	14	16	18	[40][41][42][43]
Massachusetts	—N/a	—N/a	16	[44]
Michigan	—N/a	16	18	[45][46][47]
Minnesota	13	16	18	[48][49][50][51][52][53]
Mississippi	—N/a	—N/a	16	[54]
Missouri	14	—N/a	17
Montana	—N/a	—N/a	16	[55]
Nebraska	—N/a	—N/a	16	[56][57][58]
Nevada	—N/a	—N/a	16
New Hampshire	13	16	18	[59][60][61]
New Jersey	13	16	18
New Mexico	13	16	18	[62][63]
New York	—N/a	—N/a	17	[64]
North Carolina	13	—N/a	16	[65]
North Dakota	15	—N/a	18
Northern Mariana Islands	13	16	18
Ohio	13	16	18	[66][67][68]
Oklahoma	16	18	20	[69][70]
Oregon	—N/a	—N/a	18
Pennsylvania	13	16	18	[71][72][73][74][75]
Puerto Rico	—N/a	—N/a	16	[76]
Rhode Island	14	—N/a	16	[77][78][79][80]
South Carolina	14	—N/a	16
South Dakota	—N/a	—N/a	16
Tennessee	13	—N/a	18	[81]
Texas	—N/a	17	18	[82][83][84][85]
United States Virgin Islands	13	—N/a	18	[86][87]
Utah	16	—N/a	18	[88]
Vermont	15	16	18	[89]
Virginia	15	—N/a	18	[90][91][92]
Washington	—N/a	16	21	[93][94][95]
Washington, D.C.	—N/a	16	18	[96]
West Virginia	—N/a	—N/a	16	[97]
Wisconsin	—N/a	—N/a	18	[98][99][100]
Wyoming	—N/a	—N/a	17

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This table as I am presented with it seems fine - As long as the physical information (the states and laws themselves aren’t hidden and are locked / fixed in place) - I have no accessibility issues on my end - I could see some finding issue with the header following them down (I don’t know if there’s a way of making this optional for users?) but I am generally speaking fine with this version of the table and am happy to agree on it BRMYX23 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a source for this? The source attached states that it bans any age from someone in position of authority, not just up to 26. HeavyGoat1491 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HeavyGoat1491: The explanation that was provided with the edit states:

Michigan has no unrestricted age. Literally stated in this article itself: "In March 2012 the Michigan Senate passed a bill which was to prohibit sexual relations between students of any age and teachers."

I am not an advocate of trying to convey the age of consent in the form of a table. (As to the age of 26, perhaps that's supposed to represent the upper limit for the age of a student... though a couple of states have a dash in this column.) Once upon a time, the bulk of the states simply had a single age of consent, but now, each state has its own idiosyncrasies, and the table presentation really hides more than it reveals. Fabrickator (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was my edit, I'm talking about Hamon669's edit that changed it from N/A to 26. Thing is, I see it being banned regardless of age no matter what, not just up to 26. Therefore I don't see how 26 comes in.

Sure I ain't a fan of a table either, there are nuances. But it is the most easily interpretable format. Of course, being easily interpretable must also mean people can derive their perception of truth reasonably from it. HeavyGoat1491 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HeavyGoat1491

I interpreted the "unrestricted" age of consent to mean the age at which a person may consent without any age-difference, restrictions authority, or restrictions special-vulnerability protections. So things like authority restrictions (teacher, counselor, etc.) apply to the actor, not the “unrestricted age”

This is not the only issue with the ages in this table and I will try to fix them all tomorrow.

@Hamon669 as you are the person who originally put the 26 in, I think this might be relevant for you. WashedFootballer (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that. But of what I've read, it is never so in Michigan. No matter age, these protections seem to be in place. HeavyGoat1491 (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't see you weren't Hamon669. Whoops. HeavyGoat1491 (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750.520d (f) is the section that lists 26 as the age limit that a special ed teacher can have sex with a student. Also, that bill that would have gotten rid of the age limit for teachers was just that, a bill, which only passed the Senate but not the house. Hamon669 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]