General Question


Should the age of consent laws be lowered regarding sex?

Asked by RANGIEBABY (2097points) August 5th, 2010

Regarding the sexual activity of the youth of today, do you think they are mature enough to lower the consent laws?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

60 Answers

chels's avatar

Dear god, no.
There are already so many teenagers who think they’re ready, or get into horrible situations because they think they know what they’re doing and they don’t. The law is there to protect them and is fine the way it is.

aprilsimnel's avatar

Isn’t it 14 in some states as it is? I think they’re fine where they are. At too much younger than 16, a person really isn’t mature enough in the current mode of society. It’s not like anyone’s forced to fill the farm with workers these days, with Mom, Dad and grandparents around to help.

WestRiverrat's avatar

No, the consent laws are not there so much to protect the kids from each other, as to protect them from the predatory pedophiles that seem to be everywhere.

wundayatta's avatar

All the laws do is give the law an excuse to prosecute anyone over the age of consent who bonks anyone under the age of consent. It has nothing to do with actual protection of underage individuals. It’s just a way to skewer the people who take advantage of them, even if it is consensual.

Gray area morally speaking, but very clear, legally speaking. An 18 year old bonks a willing 16 year old, gets caught, prosecuted, and has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his or her life.

wgallios's avatar

Definitely no.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

No. My major problem with the age of consent is the fact that someone (in certain states) can have sex with someone who isn’t even considered an adult. Why do I find this to be a problem? Because those who aren’t considered adults in this country have no rights. How can they be considered ready to have sex (especially with someone old enough to be their father – or older), but are not considered mature enough to drink, vote, or drive, or even obtain an abortion – or even birth control in certain places – without parental consent?

Until 16-year-olds have full rights – NO adults should have the right to take advantage of them, and that’s exactly what these laws allow.

KhiaKarma's avatar


lapilofu's avatar

When I was 16 I feel I was totally qualified to give my consent. Probably younger, honestly. Everyone’s different, for sure, but I find 18 to be a really stupid age of consent. Most people are plenty ready to make their own decisions long before then.

Of course we’d also have to—heaven forbid—actually educate people about sex.

Blackberry's avatar

I feel bad because I want to say yes… They are already having sex with older men.

DominicX's avatar


The age of consent is no lower than 16 in any U.S. state. It’s 14 in Germany, Austria, Hungary, China, Brazil, some Mexican states, etc.

I do not think it needs to be lowered. Kids are still going to have sex at that age even if it’s illegal, but at least it can act as a deterrent (a deterrent from sex between people who are not aware of the consequences or are not mature enough for it). 16 is as young as I would want it to be.

A person can wait a few years; it’s not the end of the world.


If they lower it any more, people will be having sex with toddlers in diapers. Lol.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Sure let’s lower the age. I’m all for it. Lower it by say… 3 days? Yeah, 3 days sounds about right.

In another discussion on this topic, I looked up that law for my home state of Missouri. Although one can indeed be prosecuted for having sex with a minor under 18, Missouri law allows for special considerations all the way down to the age of 12. A judge has the right to acquit if it was consensual from a 14 year old. Lower than that, and it’s pretty much no contest.

I have no idea why or how this is justified.

lapilofu's avatar

Another way to look at it is that a law that is so widely ignored as the age of consent law is not much of a law.

I think the age of consent promotes a negative view of sex as taboo, gives us an excuse not to educate young people about sex, and on rare occasions is subject to abuse. Lowering the age of consent would not stop sexual assault from being illegal. I don’t see anything wrong with a consenting 16 year old having sex.

Does anyone have any information on whether places where the age of consent is 14 are any worse off than places where the age of consent is 18?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@lapilofu In my opinion, it’s a problem because lowering the age of consent allows adults to take advantage of those who have no other rights. If adults want to have sex with someone that young – and essentially treat them as a fresh piece of meat – because that’s what they’re doing, then a 14-year-old (or 16-year-old) should have just as many rights as an adult. It should not be legal to have sex with someone who can’t even obtain birth control or an abortion without their parents consent. If they’re deemed responsible enough to have sex at that age, then they should sure as hell be deemed responsible enough to deal with the consequences, but they aren’t, and that’s the problem.

It’s not my opinion that 16-year-olds are too immature to have sex, because by that age, most people have the desire to have sex. It’s completely natural. My main issue is that the current laws are in place for adults to have sex with people our overall society deems to be too immature to handle most things, and that just isn’t right.

eden2eve's avatar

No. Children shouldn’t be having sex. They are not mature enough to make those choices, and they are not responsible enough to deal with the results of those choices. Just because they have the “equipment”, and the desire, that doesn’t make them emotionally mature enough to make appropriate choices as to when, how and who. If they are doing so, there need to be some laws which might cause an older individual (who SHOULD know better) to think twice before taking that risk.

If an 18 year old “bonks” a 16 year old, he surely knows the risk he is taking. It’s pretty hard for me to feel sorry for him if he gets caught. Besides, he could potentially have an “accident” to take care of for the rest of his life. That would suck, wouldn’t it?

lapilofu's avatar

@DrasticDreamer I see what you’re saying and it is a reasonable position. I think a person of any age should have access to birth control, the morning after pill, and abortion—so you’re right that that would be an inconsistency.

@eden2eve Yeah, but it would have sucked if my 18 year old girlfriend had refused to have sex with me during our relationship because I was 17 and she knew the risk she would be taking. It would be worse still if she had decided she couldn’t date me for that reason. Needless to say she wasn’t actually in much danger of being prosecuted, but you make a pretty callous argument. I don’t understand why an 18 year old is any more likely likely to have an accident with a 16 year old than another 18 year old. Maybe we just shouldn’t let anyone have sex if they don’t like babies? Oh, right. Birth control.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@lapilofu My state has a clause in the law that if the parties involved are within 3 years of age, they are not breaking the law. Unless the older one is in a postition of authority over the other.

lapilofu's avatar

@WestRiverrat That is certainly a good clause, but I stand by what I said about most 16 year-olds being able to make their own decisions. (Including to make their own mistakes. I’m not saying a 16 year old would never have sex they regret. But plenty of people above the age of consent do that too.)

KhiaKarma's avatar

My answer of no has more to do with the fact that a minor is still under the roof of their parents. Not that I think the laws should be made to help with parenting, but early sexual behavior often goes hand in hand with other “deviant” behaviors. Now, under the age of 16 is a firm no for me regardless because, physiologically, the frontal lobe that assists in rational decision making is still developing.

lapilofu's avatar

@DrasticDreamer An interesting thought just occurred to me. Of course, it’s hard to discuss these things in theory when there are so many practical considerations to take into account—but it seems possible that a lowered age of consent could be a catalyst to a lowered barrier to birth control, &c.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@lapilofu Possibly. But when does American society, on the whole, tend to do anything that makes sense? Also, there are still other issues. Lower the age of consent and adults – no matter how much older they are – can still have “sex” with people who are, for instance, 14. I put sex in quotations because, when that much of an age difference is involved, it becomes a power-play. It is completely unavoidable, simply because kids don’t have the same amount of life experience, or more literally, the same kind of reasoning abilities.

Ideally, I’m all for allowing teens access to birth control, condoms and the morning after pill (abortion becomes iffy – especially at the age of 14, because there can be many more complications that arise from them at that age). But by 16? I’m for all of it, no restrictions, no parental consent. However, I’m still not okay with adults being able to have sex with people that young – not until, anyway, people that young are granted the same rights as adults. I believe that if people are truly responsible to handle the consequences of sex (abortions, raising children, being a single parents, STDs, AIDS, etc), then they’re responsible enough to vote, drive, etc, etc, etc.

Now… If the age of consent was lowered to 14… (which right now, I’m clearly not comfortable with, because of laws) I think I would only support it if it was illegal for anyone other than two to three years older than the kids to have sex with them. (Brains are not even fully developed at that age – thus anyone older is by default taking advantage.)

Hm. By this point, I hope I’m still making sense. I think it makes sense for 14-year-olds to desire sex – with people around the same age. It’s in human nature to feel that way. I just don’t like the idea of older people choosing to sleep with someone that young.

lapilofu's avatar

@DrasticDreamer That does make a lot of sense. There are certainly concerns about adult-to-child coercion that I haven’t entirely wrapped my brain around (I find it so complicated when I try to think it through!) and I guess I’d like err on the side of protecting the vulnerable, within reason.

As far as adult rights go, they’re are already staggered. In most (all?) states you can drive at 16 and in some you can get a learner’s permit at 15. You can smoke, buy porn, and vote at 18—but you can’t drink alcohol until you’re 21. It’s already inconsistent. It mostly doesn’t make sense to me either, though, so I see what you’re saying.

Pandora's avatar

No. I was pretty mature at 18 and I found it difficult to maneuver around grown men with experience trying to take advantage of me. My mind was mature in every other aspect except when it came to men. I knew how to handle boys my age but when it came to older men trying to manipulate me, I felt way out of my league. I was lucky to have guy friends who where good at helping me out but not every girl is so lucky.
There are men who primarily like to prey on young girls. Even if some are mature enough to handle such a situation, it doesn’t mean it would be fair to the girls who can’t. To lower the age would mean to make it duck season all year round. Before you know it, hunters will have a field day trapping young girls who aren’t ready. All of them claiming it was with the young girls consent.
Being that girls get pregnant also, I wish they would make it 18 years of age. Maybe less babies will be born to teenage mothers. If not at least any guy who gets a girl pregnant must be the one to take the baby home to raise. They may think twice if they thought they would have to raise the little tyke themselves.

lapilofu's avatar

@Pandora I still don’t understand this argument. Being 18 neither makes you unlikely to get pregnant nor does it give the father any automatic responsibility. Could you clarify?

Seaofclouds's avatar

No. I don’t think it should be lowered, but I have a bit different of a reason. In most states, teenagers must be 14 or 15 to work legally. If the child can’t legally get a job to support their child, they shouldn’t be legally allowed to have sex either. Yes, they will still do it, but I’d rather the law stay in place.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@Seaofclouds That’s the same line of reasoning I have. Unequal rights, deemed too immature to handle most things, but deemed mature enough to have sex? Nah… Does not compute.

FutureMemory's avatar


Kids are already screwing by 15–16. If I had had uptight parents they could have taken legal action against my girlfriend when I was that age. I say change it to 16.

DeanV's avatar

No way. And I’m 16.

I don’t want any of the people I know having sex, much less legal sex.

lapilofu's avatar

@dverhey What is it about you and your friends that makes sex a problem for you?

perspicacious's avatar

No. I don’t think they should have been lowered to 16.

JLeslie's avatar

No, but I do think some of the laws and punishments regarding statutory rape are ridiculous. In some states teenage boys who had consentual sex with a teen girl, or even just sexting can get a teen boy on a sex offender list for life. Come on! I do agree with the 4 year rule, more than 4 years apart in age and one is a minor is a problem. But, if two 15 year old kids have consentual sex, I don’t think the boy should have any chance of punishment. Even a 15 year old and a 18 year old should not get the guy on a sex offender list for life where he might have to attend group with serial rapists and child molesters and listen to their stories and sickness.

lapilofu's avatar

@JLeslie Not to mention that such an 18 year old could have to publicly announce their sex offender status and home address to the world in some locations or be forced to live under a bridge in others.

JLeslie's avatar

@lapilofu I used to live right near that causeway in FL, I had no idea. But, it is a more complex situation when we are talking about actual pedophiles.

lapilofu's avatar

@JLeslie That’s true enough, but considering how harshly we punish them, it should be pretty hard to become a registered sex-offender.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@lapilofu How harshly we punish who? Pedophiles?

lapilofu's avatar

@DrasticDreamer I meant sex-offenders in general. My understanding is that the examples I gave apply to sex-offenders in general, not just pedophiles.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@lapilofu Oh, oh. Okay, I just wasn’t sure what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.

mowens's avatar

Raisse it to 21

Trillian's avatar

Ask NAMBLA. They’re working on it.

lapilofu's avatar

@JLeslie @DrasticDreamer Actually, a note on terminology. We (I include myself here) should be more careful not to confuse pedophiles with child-molesters. There are good pedophiles, while there are not good child-molesters.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

Any age is going to be “wrong” for someone. Our society considers 18 adulthood; set it at that. Likewise the drinking age. As minors cannot enter legally binding contracts, no one should be allowed to advertise products or services to anyone under that age either.

FutureMemory's avatar

@dverhey I don’t want any of the people I know having sex, much less legal sex.

You actually believe:

1. No one you know that is under 18 is having sex?
2. That anyone cares about the law when having consensual sex?

johnnydohey's avatar

What about adults that have the brain capacity that is no different then a teenagers, therefore, the adult acts like a teenager? Or just a regular adults who just acts like a teenager. That’s not uncommon either. Consent still play a role?

mowens's avatar

@FutureMemory My understanding is the age of concent is for anyone over 18 having sex with someone under 18. So, if the age of concent is 16, and a 26 year old has sex with them and both sides concent, it is not illeagal. My argument is a 26 year old has no business having sex with a 16 year old.

wundayatta's avatar

In a way, it’s ironic we’re talking about the age of consent when so many girls (and boys) are being sexually abused by relatives at much younger ages. And those relatives are getting away with it. It is my impression that maybe one-third of the women on fluther have suffered from such abuse. Maybe more. That kind of thing makes “age of consent” laws meaningless.

JLeslie's avatar

@wundayatta Well, I guess with those horrible relatives it is not sex that is really consented to. It seems to me these type of laws regarding age of consent are regarding statutory rape, where a 14 year old might want to have sex with her boyfriend, but it is assumed under the law she is not capable of knowing what she wants. Actually in some states even if both people in the relationship are under the age of consent, they both are technically committing an offense legally, I think California is like that. Generally children who are sexually abused were never comfortable doing what they did. They were coerced, or trying to please someone they loved, or who they were taught to respect. I see it as two different things.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land set it at 18? So you want teens under 18 to be able to be punished by law for having sex? Or, you just want it to be illegal with no punishment?

Trillian's avatar

Guys, guys…. All you have to do is watch any reality television show out there… People in their twenties are apparently not mature enough to make rational decisions regarding sex. Never mind the fourteen year olds, it’s pretty obvious that their maturity level does not allow for them to be able to deal with all the turbulent emotions surrounding a sexual relationship. And in addition to the emotional trauma and drama, (if I may) a much larger and more important issue is the resulting children who are then stuck being raised by narcissstic, immature, spoiled brat parents.
Think about it. Who are those really famous two right now? I think his name is Spencer. Or that Kardashian female. Or that girl the Chris Knight married. Can you see these people as effective parents? Really?

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

@JLeslie Just a uniform age of consent that coincides with the legal definition of adulthood. I’m not advocating any witch hunts. Teenagers are going to have sex no matter what the law says, but there should be some statutory mechanism protecting them from adult predators.

An adult guy who truly loves a girl under 18 and is truly concerned for her welfare can wait until she turns 18 before having sex with her. I did.

Michell's avatar

Most teens are going to have sex whether their parents like it or not.The parents probably had sex when they were under 17, also. And I don’t believe that a man should be made to register as a ‘sex offender’, if he’s caught having sex with his 16 yr old girlfriend.I don’t believe that ‘statutory rape’ is fair. The girl is usually a willing participant.

Michell's avatar

Back in the old days, and ‘cave man’ days, humans were having sex and children at a young age, because they didn’t live for a long time back then. If humans weren’t ment to have ‘early sex’, then why do girls mature at age 13, and are able to get pregnant ? It’s just another one of those things that we wonder about.

eden2eve's avatar

Nobody questions that children under 18 are having and will have sex. The OP’s question was do you think that children are mature enough that society should tell them they are old enough to have sex. I don’t know a 16 or 17 year old who is that mature. I would not trust them to always make mature choices. They certainly can not take financial and legal responsibility for their actions should there be unforseen results of those choices. They are still considered unable to be responsible in many other ways. Their parents are legally responsible for them for a number of very good reasons.

I don’t see anything in the question about statutory rape or what should happen to those who are held responsible for such underage sexuality. However, I do believe that people who are over age should be aware of the risks (not just the legal risks) associated with this behavior and behave rationally, as @stranger_in_a_strange_land so succinctly said. If they can not do that, they are no more mature than their younger-aged partner and need some form of social restraint. I don’t advocate life-long punishment for this, and don’t believe that those examples are common. But I do think the consequences should be substantial enough that it would at least give them pause. Does anyone have a suggestion as to what that might be?

JLeslie's avatar

@eden2eve The whole point is teenagers are not mature, and have trouble understanding and accepting there are consequenses to their actions. It something is part of the law, then breaking the law usually comes with a consequence. If your son, at the immature age of 16 has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, do you want some zealous lawmakers to come after your son as though he is a criminal? I don’t understand not acknowledging legal punishments when considering the topic of what is legal? It’s like the pro-lifers, if they ever win their goal of making abotion illegal again, what will be the punishment for those who get an abortion, the same as premeditated murder?

eden2eve's avatar

Please note that I did acknowledge legal punishments. I stated that I don’t advocate life-long punishments, but feel that there should be some consequence substantial enough to deter them from the activity. If it was my son, I’d feel no differently. My sons (and daughters) should, and did take responsibility for their actions, and that is what made them responsible adults. Fortunately, with three sons, I never found myself in the situation we are describing above. Nor did my daughters have to face the consequences of these types of activities. Perhaps that is because they were taught that they would be responsible if they made choices which resulted in harm themselves or to another.

If you mean that a person who breaks the law is a criminal, then that may or may not be the appropriate term. But it’s yours, not mine. I don’t think we are helping our teenagers to become responsible adults by mollycoddling them and making them aware that we don’t hold them accountable for their actions.

But that is exactly why I asked the question as to what might be appropriate consequences, in an entirely sincere attempt to find solutions to this difficult problem. We need to protect children from their own lack of wisdom and maturity, in some cases. Teaching them that we give them a free pass because they are dealing with urges they most certainly CAN control is not the answer. I know many who HAVE controlled them.

I just don’t understand why anyone would suggest that we should lower the age of consent, giving CHILDREN the message that society deems them as mature enough to engage in activities which, in may occasions, create other CHILDREN. That would be extremely irresponsible of society, as it is irresponsible of parents not to teach their children to use their sexuality responsibly. It CAN be done!

Please don’t equate this discussion to pro-lifers, and murder. I find that offensive. That is no different than when some people with your world-view castigates conservatives for using the “slippery slope” argument regarding same-sex marriage.

JLeslie's avatar

@eden2eve I agreed that 16 should not be lowered, my concern was legal consequences, if you see my very first post. But then someone brought up raising the age to 18, and I don’t agree with that either (except for the 4 year rule, that I am fine with raising it to 18). I was not referring to a slippery slope with the abortion example, but I get what you are saying. I am just sticking with if something is illegal there can be legal punishment. What is the point of having the law with no punishment? Just to let people know society does not approve? I am not sure what the punishment should be for teenagers having sex. I am pretty sure legally I don’t think there should be any punishment, except I do agree with the 4 year rule. If a boy is four years or more older, and the girl is under 18 then he is in trouble in my book.

I agree with your point that the family can instill expectations and hopefully many children will think about consequences. The laws on the books now do not stop 14 year olds from getting pregnant, so I am not even sure the Romeo and Juliet laws do anything anyway.

eden2eve's avatar

I prefer to use the word “consequences”. I visited my youngest son’s family recently so I could take care of their three children whilst they took some time, and his little two-year old did something against the rules. I said… “Oh oh… did you do that?”. Without another word, that little cutie pushed his chair up facing the wall and climbed up on it, sat there for about three minutes, then said, “Grandma, I thinked about it and I decided I won’t do that any more. Can I get down now?”. And he didn’t, at least for the rest of the week while I was there.

Even very little children, when taught the concept of consequences, can understand and learn to control themselves. They quickly learn that it’s nicer and easier to keep the rules, as long as the rewards and consequences are kept in appropriate balance, and they are treated with respect.

My kids didn’t start dating until they were 16, then they dated in groups for awhile, so they weren’t even thinking about having sex when they were 14. They had plenty of very fulfilling activities, lots of sports, dancing and school activities, and they were very busy and happy. One young man who was appropriately a year older, waited for my daughter to be 16 and be allowed to date, so he came frequently to our home and we loved having him around. He was almost like a part of our family. I think that anything over two years age spread is too great at these ages, and wouldn’t encourage those relationships.

I was just searching for some appropriate consequences, so these young people could realize that they won’t get away with this without some regrets. They don’t have to involve incarceration or life-long sexual abuse lists, they could be something like having to take a summer class about responsible sexual behavior, which makes it not possible for them to graduate with their senior class. Or being told that they are not mature enough to have a driver’s license until certain things are accomplished. Maybe they have to clean up junk on the side of the road, or clean up graffiti all summer instead of playing. Just a few ideas, but you get the drift. They need to be age-appropriate, and something they would not particularly enjoy, but not damaging in the long term.

But I still like 18 as the legal age. That’s what it is in California, and it has been effective in protecting some young girls I know. And when it comes to the legal-age people who take advantage of younger children, they need some consequences that are more legal in nature. I’d advocate for some jail time.

lapilofu's avatar

I think it’s a problem that in this discussion we’re seeing sex as something harmful and dangerous rather than something wonderful and rewarding on many levels—which it is when practiced safely. @eden2eve said, “They had plenty of very fulfilling activities, lots of sports, dancing and school activities, and they were very busy and happy,” but I’m pretty sure we all know that fulfilling activities neither render sex unnecessary nor curtail libido. Sex is not something most teens do because they’re bored or unhappy (some, admittedly)—sex is actually worthwhile on its own merits.

I don’t think the teen pregnancy argument holds (much) water. Abstinence—it has been shown—is not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and being 18 doesn’t make a person any less likely to get pregnant. I do see @DrasticDreamer‘s point that if birth control isn’t available to teens, they shouldn’t be having sex because they’re not equipped to deal with the consequences, but I think the solution is to give them birth control. My high school distributed condoms and I think every high school should. The same logic applies for any argument revolving around STIs. The problem is not teens having sex—the problem is not being educated about how to do it safely and carefully. And once again, being over 18 doesn’t automatically endow you with the secrets of safe sex and it doesn’t make you less likely to contract an STI.

(And this is where my education argument takes off: Age of consent law combined with the influence of puritanical religion means that socially our education system has an excuse not to teach teenagers about sex. If they don’t learn about sex, they can’t learn to do it safely—knowledge which would dramatically reduce teen pregnancy if it were taught. Furthermore, after high school, you’re unlikely to go out an learn about sex on your own—firstly because there’s the crazy notion in society that sex is something you “just know how to do” and therefore shouldn’t have to ask about, and secondly because the topic is taboo to discuss—so there are a lot of uneducated adults in our society, having unsafe and unsatisfying sex because of the shitty sex education provided to them in high school. It’s not just about teens—it’s about being well-informed about sex as a society. But that’s all sort of a sidenote to the issue at hand.)

I agree that there’s some merit to the idea that children need to be protected from manipulative adults, but I think all of that should fall under sexual assault law, not age of consent. Adults sometimes often need to be protected from other manipulative adults as well.

And age is not an altogether reliable indicator of maturity. I have a friend who dated and lost her virginity to a 21 year-old when she was 17. She has no regrets about the experience and frankly she was much more mature than he was, so unlikely to be manipulated by him. Putting him in danger of prosecution would have been a travesty of justice.

Perhaps we’re worried about teens making mistakes and having sex with people they’ll regret later. This is a valid concern, but once again—not limited to teens—and I think not as dangerous as we think it is. Adults have sex they regret all the time. One mistaken night feels bad the morning after but (assuming all was practiced safely) isn’t a black mark on the rest of your life. Sex is a big deal, yes, but one night of bad sex won’t ruin a mature teen’s life. I would agree that some teens aren’t mature enough to deal with sex, but I would say that many are—and they deserve to be validated and educated. (I would also say I know many adults who are not mature enough to deal with sex responsibly, so the correlation there is fuzzy to me.)

I guess what my argument boils down to is this: many teens are already having and enjoying sex and sexual activities. The statistic I heard was just under 50% of teens were sexually active, but I imagine it’s higher if you take into account so-called “abstinent” teens who do everything other than penetration—activities which require just as much safety and education. If they have to be surreptitious about it and no one tells them how to do it right—then of course they’re going to make mistakes. If we validated that sex, we could also support them by providing them with health resources and educating them about potential problems so they could learn to avoid them and enjoy each other’s bodies happily and safely all the way into a happy and safe adulthood.

mattbrowne's avatar

It’s too high in most states of the US. Check this out

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther