You may be right. I'm not even sure I'd be able to resist.
In my state, as the laws are written, it *is* legal under certain (nearly impossible) conditions, and so for me there's this tantilizing little chance of hope there that I'm not sure what to do with. I could look at the wording (and it's been rewritten again and again, still containing the "loopholes") as a sign of societal change in our "favor", or I could look at it as a temptation to destroy myself in the court of society.

In Christ,
~CSL

Very long P.S.:

To put this clearly here are the relevan laws as written in MA:
( Chapter 265: Section 23. Rape and abuse of child)

Section 23. Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall, for the first offense, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction, and for the second or subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than five years; provided, however, that a prosecution commenced under the provisions of this section shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding.

Chapter 272: Section 4. Inducing person under eighteen to have sexual intercourse
(this is the more relevant one to most of the posters here)

Section 4. Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

In the first one, call your attention to the phrase unlawfully has sexual intercourse (also occurs in the second) and unnatural sexual intercourse. The first means, as phrased (according to experts whose identity I cannot reveal) means that this law is only in effect if the sex is otherwise unlawful. "Unnatural sex" is undefined in the law, and no definition is found elsewhere in the legal statues of MA, so it is upon the quality of the lawyers on each side to fight over it.

In the second, there are 2 additional points: First, induces means that at most this law prohibits an adult from comming on to a minor or doing anything to encourage the minor to agree to have sex with him. I would, then allow a minor to make the advancement upon the adult if it could be shown to have been the child's own idea (at least, seperate from any actions taken by the adult in question). The second is that the minor in question must be of chaste life. This, also, is not defined, and even if it were, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that an alleged victim's previous sexual history is inadmissable in court for any reason, so this point is irrelevant to any current court proceding.

**************************************************************************
In short: in MA, if you break no other laws along the way, and the boy comes to you -unbidden- for sex it is legal to say yes. It helps, and may become important if the federal precedent changes, if you are not the first person to have consentual relations with him.
**************************************************************************

Like I said, the conditions set here are nearly impossible. It also has no bearing on weather your name is released to the media, your church, your employer, etc. The most important thing is that it has nothing to do with the morality of the act, and since that is still, and probably will be for a long time yet, a matter for debate.... well you see why I sometimes feel so confused.

~CSL