As I noted earlier, this is precisely the argument offered in favor of setting aside Constitutional protections in terrorism cases. Do you advocate that as well?
A child old enough to get a fake ID in order to seduce men probably won’t be psychologically destroyed by some sex. In the cases we’re talking about, the men aren’t predators here.
So if there was an actual case of child rape, the jury can still convict. This just gives them the ability to not miscarry justice if the situation doesn’t warrant it.
I haven’t lied about what you said and I’m not going to type in all caps like a hysterical moron.
Can you agree to the following?
a.) That you don’t have a moral hangup on the idea of casual sex.
b.) That you don’t think that what looks like a real ID to the average person is sufficient evidence of age.
c.) That you don’t think being in a bar is sufficient evidence of age.
d.) That you don’t think genuinely looking older than 18 is sufficient evidence of age.
e.) That your having daughters, one of which is close to puberty, is affecting your ability to approach the debate as rationally as possible.
What is sufficient, then? You said you don’t give a shit if people have casual sex, but in order to meet your criteria for acceptable evidence, it seems you’d have to hire a PI before you can fuck someone.
I promise you that there are 17 year old “children” (funny how they magically cease being children in certain states) out there armed with fake IDs, partying in bars who look much older than they actually are. According to you if I meet one and have sex with her, I’m a rapist.
What are you talking about? What Constitutional protections are being set aside for anyone accused of statutory rape?
I said “damaged,” not “psychologically destroyed,” and are you actually trying to argue that any child with a fake ID can’t possibly be damaged by sexual assault? Should we change statutory laws to reflect that? Hey, she’s eleven, but she had a fake ID, so she can’t be damaged by sex. Give me a fucking break.
Accusing children of “seducing men” is disgusting, by the way.
I meant the all caps. And nobody has lied about what you said, you’re simply ignoring what doesn’t help you.
And for God’s sake, do the words “probably,” “likely,” “plausibly,” “sometimes,” and so on not exist in your vocabulary? It’s all or nothing with you, isn’t it? You have the mental flexibility of a toy train.
I hadn’t had the displeasure of dealing with you on the board before (or if I have, I’ve forgotten), so you got the benefit of the doubt and I spent time explaining my points rationally and honestly discussing why I think you are wrong.
Now, I realize that was a waste of time. The strawmen you build, the false analogies, the obtuse questions, and the sheer stupidity all indicate to me that you just don’t have that level of rationality to make it worth my while responding to you. And this latest post, where you seemingly think that my arguing “it would do more harm than good” means that I must support anything that anyone in the entire world every used that argument for, is the little cherry on top of your inanity cake.
I’m not really interested in arguing with you. You’re so absolutist and extreme and hardheaded that it’s unproductive and boring. My discussion with Hamlet has been more interesting.
I’ve known girls (back when I was younger) who were in their mid-teens who liked to fuck older guys. Maybe they were already damaged with daddy issues, maybe that’s just what their interests were (I certainly wouldn’t be repulsed by the idea of sex with a 25 year old woman when I was 16). They were most certainly the aggressors and lied to the men about their age. I don’t know if any went so far as to get a fake ID for that purpose. I don’t think it’s inaccurate at all to describe them as trying to seduce older men. How would you describe it? The old men corrupted them with mind beams to make them the aggressors?
Yes, I know in your world of crazy absolutes, a 16 year old girl making herself out to be older (dressing, makeup, etc) and lying to pick up older men is pretty much the exact same thing as a crazed dude with a battleaxe going on a violent rape spree in a daycare center. But the real world has some degree of finesse to it.
This again. As I said in the other thread, this question only comes into play with complete strangers. Just because you haven’t hooked up with someone before doesn’t have to mean they’re total strangers. As I said in the last thread, they could be coworkers, college classmates, friends, neighbors , etc. – people you already have some kind of context or basis of knowledge about.
Even for random strangers in bars, there are plenty of adults who are obviously adults with no reasonable suspicion of age involved.
If the girl looks close, though, or even looks like being underaged is a possibility, then you are assuming a known risk. It’s only my advice, not a moralistic opinion or a position on what the law should be, that you should steer clear if she looks like she even might be underaged. And if she’s young enoigh to actially be underaged, she’s young enough to look like she might be.
I will also add that I don’t feel sorry for guys who guess and guess wrong, and I don’t think it would serve society well to open up the floodgates for "I was deceived* defense. Too bad. Those guys knew the possibility was there. They assumed the risk, and the damage to the child has been done.
Depending on the state, you might be. Be careful who you fuck.
Meh. Dio’s hung up on children-getting-fucked issues. I seem to recall him getting all internet-tough-guy when someone suggested that Dio’s own daughters might one day be fuckable, though my recollection may be faulty.
There’s lots of people here who are otherwise reasonably articulate yet have single-issue obsessions.
The all caps isn’t the reason I stopped responing to her.
Yes they have. I never said I was opposed to casual sex.
I don’t think there’s much to be defending because it strikes me as a minor point. I simply pointed out that the chance your sexual partner could be lying to you about his/her age is a consequence of having sexual with someone.
Again, it’s how the system works. Any defense attorney in the world, including the really bad ones, would raise the issue to the judge. I would go out on a limb and say that it is astronomically unlikely that the defense attorney would never mention the facts of the case to the judge.
It depends on the state. In most states I’ve practiced in, they have a sliding scale for child sexual assault cases, that take into account the age of the “victim”, the age of the “defendant”, and consensuality of the activity. Most of the examples given in these threads (young man, within 5 years of the minor, and an older child who consents) the charges are either low level felonies, or misdemeanors. And of those, a vast majority are either not charged, or are deferred. In my experience, of course.
I’ve covered this. “having a statutory affirmative defense would result in more people getting away with having sex with children than would ever be convicted and suffering jailtime for the extreme fanciful examples listed here.” Bricker has too: "Meanwhile, the strict liability laws protect the other 99.999-ish percent of the cases where the guy needs to be prosecuted but could hide behind a “I thought she was 18” defense and avoid justice thereby. "
**Dio’s **whole approach makes perfect sense when I think of him as Dwight Shrutefrom The Office (youtube link).
Carry on.
It makes me look like I’m getting sick of saying the same things to a fucking wall.
I didn’t lie. You’re perfectly welcome to prove me wrong… BY EXPLICITLY STATING WHAT YOU WOULD ACCEPT AS PROOF OF A STRANGER’S AGE. (Oh noes, there go the caps again.)
What if none of those are people you want to fuck? That’s like saying that a law against sex with a partner of the same gender doesn’t discriminate against bisexuals, 'cause hey, even if a bisexual woman sees a hot woman at a bar she wants to take home, there’s always some dude she can grab instead. 'Cause, you know, people work that way.
Not explicitly, you didn’t. You just set up a scenario whereby it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to ever have sex with someone they haven’t known for at least 16* years. If you’d like to refute this, I ask AGAIN for you to please provide what criteria you would consider reasonable and acceptable for determining, in such a way that the person would not be liable for having committed a statutory rape having verified such even if they later turn out to be falsified, that a potential partner is of legal age.
*Replace this with the age of consent for wherever you currently are.
I think the thing I take offense to at your argument is that I LIVED a “fanciful” example, so essentially you’re partially asserting that I and the few other people who provided actual scenarios are either liars or exaggerating. In my case this is manifestly untrue.
That I also disagree with your assertion concerning results is icing on the cake–I don’t believe an affirmative defense allows noticeably more guilty people to escape conviction. Does the affirmative defense of “self-defense” results in more murderers going free than it does protecting legitimate self-defenders? Does Indiana (which has an affirmative defense concerning belief-of-age to the statutory rape law) have a noticeably different rate of people being convicted for statutory rape than states which are strict liability?
What else do you call it when a 15-yr-old lies about her age AND GETS HER FRIENDS TO LIE ABOUT HER AGE to try to get into bed with a 20-yr-old who didn’t make the first move? This person WAS a friend of my classmates, and presented herself as part of their peer group.
Denial?
“Sorry sweetheart, I know you’re in a bar and you’ve got ID, but I’m going to go hit on those cougars.” You’re being ridiculous, man.
Are you fucking kidding? I’m 20 fucking years old. 18-21 is the age group I SHOULD be dating. I’m not going to swear that group off because they LOOK like they might be 17 year olds who just LOOK like they’re 18. What a fucking joke.
Yeah, all those poor 17 year olds getting emotionally damaged by their 18 year old boyfriends. I can’t take you seriously anymore, man.
“Anymore”?
Trolling fuckwit.
Even in this thread, people are writing long posts trying to explain positions and concepts to this numpty, and all they will get for their trouble is a bunch of semantic nitpicking that will annoy the fuck out of them until they give up and go home.
You really said, "I also said that it was perfectly possible for random stranger pickups to carry no reasonable suspicions about age.". You said that did you? From the quote above?
And you said, “If they look like they might be underage, you’re assuming the risk, though”
You dumb bastard, the whole fucking thread is about those cases where the girl DIDNT LOOK UNDERAGE. THATS THE FUCKING POINT.
She didnt look underage, there was no reason to think she was underage so, in your words, "random stranger pickups to carry no reasonable suspicions about age."
NO. REASONABLE. SUSPICIONS. ABOUT. AGE. Leading to the discussion of whether strict liability was fair. Which you proceeded to shit all over.