No, don’t. You’ll get the warning if you mention his daughters.
That’s got a nice libertarian ring to it, but I think it’s kind of sweeping some issues under the rug. Strict liability for having sex with underage partners isn’t just about punishing the guilty, it’s about avoiding the crime in the first place. If we want to reduce the chances that people will unknowingly screw underage partners, it’s reasonable to write the law so that screwing underage partners is a crime even if done unknowingly. This is an issue in which intent is very, very hard to judge.
And frankly, while I’m all in favor of casual sex between consenting adults of whatever age or degree of previous acquaintance, I’m just not seeing the individual’s freedom to fuck an unknown pickup as being such an important fundamental freedom that the law should be required to prioritize it over the protection of underage teens from predators. As others have noted, this is really a very easy crime to avoid. The only downside is that avoiding it may mean forfeiting an opportunity to have sex with a stranger, but so what? There are lots of other strangers and non-strangers out there to have sex with.
If you want to take the risk of guessing that the random hookup who looks 21 and has an ID with a 21-year-old birthdate actually is a legal sex partner, fine by me. If you don’t want to take that risk, also fine. But if you do knowingly take the risk and turn out to have guessed wrong, you don’t really look like a victim of oppression here: you look like a gambler who took a gamble and lost.
What about underage cougars? Do they even exist?
Children acting out sexually or showing “sexual aggression” is not the same thing as being “manipulativce.” Obnviously children who are sexually abused can show sexual aggression towards others, but it does not involve a cognitive awareness or calculation tht could accurately be called “manipulation.” Even toddlers who are sexually abused might show what appears to be sexually agressive behavior, but that doesn’t mean they really understand what’s going on, and it’s sick to accuse these kids of “manipulation.” No man who puts his dick in a tn year old’s mouth is being “manipulated,” he’s being expoitive.
The desire in these threads to keep twisting child rape victims (ten year olds, for fuck’s sake)into preternaturally calculating, lying, deceiving, fully aware succubi is really starting to get fucking gross.
This, this this. So much this. Thank you. This is EXACTLY how I feel. To the letter.
Thank you, Dio. You know, while I’m happy that my post successfully expressed what you meant, maybe next time you should call me in before your own attempt to express what you mean spawns 7+ pages of indignation in two different forums? Just a suggestion.
So?
I wasn’t asking about a possible adult’s response, myself, just the kid’s behaviour.
Then tell some more people to go fuck themselves, if that’s what works for you.
But Dio, that’s not what you said.
You said there is no way a 15 year old can deceive an adult into believing she is of age.
Ostensibly anyone who ‘‘takes a gamble’’ with a random hookup partner and loses was successfully deceived, no?
These two ideas are contradictory, but you have claimed them both. So will you admit for fuck’s sake that it’s totally possible to mistake a minor for an adult, and that really you meant the second thing?
Cuz that’s what I’m seeing.
What the hell? No I didn’t. I said I didn’t believe a 15 year old could pass for a 21 year old.
More precisely, it is much easier to just assert that ignorance of age is never possible than it is to justify disallowing an honest-error defense after the possibility of honest error is conceded.
Kimstu makes an attempt in that direction by arguing that it’s Really Really Important not to let any of the guilty get away with it, and so Sacrifices Must Be Made. The problem with this argument is easy to see when it is noted (see several of my earlier comments) that it is identical to the neocon argument for Nacht-und-Nebel treatment of terrorism suspects. (e.g. “If you want to take the risk of guessing that the Saudi-based charity that looks legit and has paperwork indicating that its funds go to humanitarian aid actually is a legitimate relief organization rather than a terrorist front, fine by me. If you don’t want to take that risk, also fine. But if you do knowingly take the risk and turn out to have guessed wrong, you don’t really look like a victim of oppression here: you look like a gambler who took a gamble and lost.”)
That isn’t what Kimstu said, nor is it remotely analogous to denying civil rights to terrorism suspects.
Proposed solution - if you’re going to hook up with women (or inadvertently girls who appear to be and identify themselves as women) in bars, get a cellphone camera and snap multiple pictures of her before going back to your place.
Cue Saturday morning cartoon hero music.
Super Retard Think of the Children Team Unite!
Bolding mine. I was wrong. You said a 13 or 14 year old couldn’t be mistaken for being of age.
All this says is that the “ignorance-is-not-an-excuse” argument is inappropriate when applied to charitable donations that unknowingly support terrorist societies. It doesn’t show that the same argument is inappropriate when applied to sexual encounters that unknowingly involve having sex with an underage partner.
I think, as a matter of fact, that this is an excellent illustration of why it’s reasonable to expect individuals to exercise more careful scrutiny over their sexual encounters than over their charitable donations.
ISTM that the problem with your arguments here is that you’re relying too heavily on analogies that aren’t really fully applicable: “Having sex with underage partners is like selling alcohol to minors, so it’s unjust to exact harsher penalties for honest mistakes in the former situation!” “Having sex with underage partners is like donating to terrorist-front charitable organizations, so a bad law in one context must be a bad law in the other as well!”
Uh, yeah, those arguments would be very powerful if the analogies they were based on were actually convincing. I’m just not buying the premise that there aren’t enough differences between having sex with underage partners on the one hand, and selling liquor to minors or donating to terrorist-front “charities” on the other, to justify having different types of laws to deal with them.
My issue is primarily with the idea that there’s no possible due diligence that can be taken. I think any time you start talking in terms like that, you’re not making good law.
I don’t even need it to be an EASY out–and it absolutely shouldn’t be. But if there’s not some standard for “okay, this is how you prove someone is a legal partner” then I think you’ve got an unfair system.
Your insistence that post-pubescent children are little angels with no desire for sex and no ability to lie and manipulate says a lot more about your personal fears of your daughter’s sexuality than anything else.
No one has said that the facts of the matter (that post-pubescent children want sex and can manipulate people) are just perfectly fine. No one has said all children are “succubi”. What is under discussion is, to my mind, exactly the same as the question of “should we try children as adults for murder”–and we do, we as a nation have held 11-yr-olds responsible for homicide as adults in adult court. GIVEN THAT STANDARD, I see nothing reprehensible whatsover about also holding them liable for deliberate, premeditated fraud (which is the only possible way to describe “representing oneself as a legally-aged sexual partner”). Furthermore, as it’s literally impossible to be an exploiter without the intent to exploit, what exactly good does it do to prosecute someone who took due diligence and checked ID, for god’s sake? Congratulations, while you’ve caught a evil sick pedophile in THE DIO ZONE, in reality you are now wasting judicial time and prison space on a normal guy who had no intent of exploitation and has no attraction to typical underage girls. That guy’s going to hate the system for its injustice, and he votes. Good job, asshole.
How about lets weigh the “social damage” done by having, say, a 16 YO WILLING to fuck and WILLING to go to some lengths of deception to do that actually getting fucked by an adult to the damage done to a unknowing adult being tried in a trial and thrown in the clinker and being labeled for life.
I say fuck the 16 year-old.
I mean, assuming that’s what’s involved.
16 is the age of consent in Canada and some states.