# Why is ignorance of age not an excuse? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677 "2010-05-07T20:44:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/461 "2010-05-20T15:41:55Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > You have \*\*two doctors \*\*telling you that an 11 year old could look like she or he is \*\*of the age of consent \*\*(and have documentation to prove it). Thank you for being my cite. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/462 "2010-05-20T15:44:27Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > I offered something but you didn’t respond to it. You mentioned Romeo and Juliet exceptions which already exist, and which I don’t have a problem with. That’s not a replacement for age of consent, though, unless you’re suggesting that the two year line (or whatever it is) should exetend all the way down to infancy. Incidentally, even with Romeo and Juliet laws, you’re still going to get the scenarios where a guy is a week or a day too old, and whatnot. It doesn’t solve the “abitrary line” argument, it just draws _different_ arbitrary lines. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/463 "2010-05-20T15:57:08Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You mentioned Romeo and Juliet exceptions which already exist, and which I don’t have a problem with. > > That’s not a replacement for age of consent, though, unless you’re suggesting that the two year line (or whatever it is) should exetend all the way down to infancy. > > Incidentally, even with Romeo and Juliet laws, you’re still going to get the scenarios where a guy is a week or a day too old, and whatnot. It doesn’t solve the “abitrary line” argument, it just draws _different_ arbitrary lines. Well they don’t exist where I live and based on your arguments you seem to be _against_ them. See your response to **Zeriel** ’s query. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/464 "2010-05-20T15:57:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Thank you for being my cite. I’m the cite that you’re lying. _Again_. Saying that an 11 year old can look 16 or 18 is \*\*not \*\*the same as saying they can look 21. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/465 "2010-05-20T16:06:49Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Well they don’t exist where I live and based on your arguments you seem to be _against_ them. See your response to **Zeriel** ’s query. I’m not against them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/466 "2010-05-20T16:08:40Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I’m the cite that you’re lying. _Again_. Saying that an 11 year old can look 16 or 18 is \*\*not \*\*the same as saying they can look 21. The claim was made in this thread that they can look 21. I don’t even buy that they could pass as 18. Maybe at a glance, but not after any significant level of interaction and convrstaion. I guarantee I could not be fooled. It’s against the rules to call people liars outside the Pit, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/467 "2010-05-20T16:18:18Z")
I’m not calling you a liar. I’m saying you _are lying_ when you make that statement. If you would like to prove me wrong, please provide a cite for the post(s) where anyone claimed that an 11 year old could look 21. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/468 "2010-05-20T16:22:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Actually, there are people who ahve tried to argue that it’s a real possibility that someone could think an 11 year old is a 21 year old, so yes, there are people literally trying to make a loophole for fucking pre-teens. No, they have “literally” tried to demonstrate that it is possible for someone who is a minor to pass as a legal adult, which is something you have said is impossible. This is in support of the notion that a 15 year-old could possibly pass as 20 or older; after all, if even an 11 year-old can appear much older than is usual for someone that age, how much more possible is it for a 15 year-old to pass for 20 or older? You are deliberately projecting your own phobias onto these arguments and declaring that they are attempts by a horde of pedophiles to justify having sex with prepubescent girls. Which, by the way, must include many of the female posters who have tried to demonstrate this point to you. And “pre-teen” does not necessarily mean “pre-pubescent.” > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The younger the girl and the older the guy, the higher the potential for damage. The 40 year old raping the 15 year old obviously has a very high potential to cause damage\>snip\< Cite? How do you know that a greater age difference has a higher potential for damage? And again, _how are you defining “damage?”_ Please try to answer that question for me, at least. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/469 "2010-05-20T16:29:46Z")
You’re wasting your breath (fingers?). He’s just going to define it with the definition again. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/470 "2010-05-20T16:30:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The artificial legal lines are there to prevent any _chance_ of damage. If you don’t want a hardline age of consent, what do you propose we replace it with? Maybe an intelligent judge or jury considering the pertinent facts of the cases and determining what level of culpability is appropriate for the parties involved? We have cases of minors being tried as adults based on circumstances and motives and the mental capacity and state of the offenders, so even though there is a “hard line” that can be amended, altered, or suspended according to the discretion of officials in the legal system. So keep your arbitrary, inconsistent hard line if you must, but allow for extraordinary cases to be handled according to any evidence available which might prove to be a reasonable mistake, as opposed to the “anyone fucking a minor is a slimeball predaphile” blanket assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/471 "2010-05-20T16:40:43Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > You’re wasting your breath (fingers?). He’s just going to define it with the definition again. Good catch. I’ll amend the question then: Anyone can look up the definition of the word “damage.” In what specific ways are the minors “damaged,” how is it diagnosed (preferably with cites) and how is the “damage” actually inflicted? Please use specific examples in support of the assertion that minors actively seeking sex with legal adults are being “damaged” if they succeed in procuring it. And while you’re at it, explain why it’s then OK to REALLY subject them to possible “damage” including social stigma, ostracism, trials, etc., by prosecuting the case, even if the minor testifies that they consented. Is it OK to “damage” them through this traumatic experience even if, based on all available evidence, they suffered no “damage” from the act itself? And here’s my “Dio Disclaimer” in case it’s needed: I have never fucked a minor, even when I was a minor myself. Late starter I guess, judging by most accounts. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/472 "2010-05-20T16:41:23Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I’m not calling you a liar. I’m saying you _are lying_ when you make that statement. That is still against the rules. > [@](#): > > If you would like to prove me wrong, please provide a cite for the post(s) where anyone claimed that an 11 year old could look 21. I’m not going to go back and search, but **Drain Bead** alleged it happened to her when she was eleven, and there was a lengthy discussion about it. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/473 "2010-05-20T16:45:42Z")
Calling \*you \*a liar is an attack against you personally. Saying you \*are lying \*is an attack against your _words_. And that’s always been the distinction of what is and is not allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/474 "2010-05-20T16:46:46Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > No, they have “literally” tried to demonstrate that it is possible for someone who is a minor to pass as a legal adult No, they’ve said pre-teens can do it, not just “monors.” > [@](#): > > which is something you have said is impossible. No, I said it’s impossible for an 11 year old to do it. > [@](#): > > And “pre-teen” does not necessarily mean “pre-pubescent.” Disgustingly irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Cite? How do you know that a greater age difference has a higher potential for damage? And again, _how are you defining “damage?”_ Please try to answer that question for me, at least. The If you don’t already understand the answers to the questions, then I’m not going to be able to explain it to you. The short answer is that the greater the age difference, the greater the power differential and the less the equality of mental accuity and comprehension. A 40 year odl is not a menatl or emotional peer to a 14 year old. The “damage” is that a child is being exploited for sex. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/475 "2010-05-20T16:48:20Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Calling \*you \*a liar is an attack against you personally. Saying you \*are lying \*is an attack against your _words_. And that’s always been the distinction of what is and is not allowed. Neither is allowed in this forum. I’m not reporting you, but read the rules. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/476 "2010-05-20T16:49:33Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Calling \*you \*a liar is an attack against you personally. Saying you \*are lying \*is an attack against your _words_. And that’s always been the distinction of what is and is not allowed. Sorry, but this is wrong. [Liars, lying and lies in Great Debates](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9294639&highlight=liar#post9294639) > [@MEBuckner](#): > > Questioning or disputing the accuracy of another poster’s statements–“I don’t think that’s right”, “That’s incorrect”, “You are mistaken”, or even “That’s not true”-- is what Great Debates is all about. **However, questioning the intent of another poster in making an arguably false statement–e.g., “You are a liar”, “You are lying”, “That is a lie”, “That’s not true and you darned well know it isn’t true”–is crossing the line into attacking the other poster rather than attacking the other poster’s arguments, and will be considered a violation of the rules of the forum.** Emphasis mine. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/477 "2010-05-20T16:51:18Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > Maybe an intelligent judge or jury considering the pertinent facts of the cases and determining what level of culpability is appropriate for the parties involved? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. The child has to go on trial too, and the judge will arbitraily decide what her “culpability” is? That’s completely asinine. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/478 "2010-05-20T16:56:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. The child has to go on trial too, and the judge will arbitraily decide what her “culpability” is? That’s completely asinine. Again, this can be referring to a 17 year old “child” as well as an 11 year old one. And what’s wrong with a jury “arbitrarily” deciding responsibility as opposed to a prosecutor doing the same thing? As others have mentioned, 16 year old “children” have been prosecuted as adults before, so clearly the idea that they are incapable of forming intent is foreign to everyone except you. Edit: Also, apologies, the above post I linked to isn’t “Lying, liars and lies in Great Debates” but “NO DIRECT PERSONAL INSULTS OR “FLAMING” IN GREAT DEBATES.” ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/479 "2010-05-20T17:01:49Z")
There is absolutely no way that even the most precocious eleven year old could pass as a sixteen year old, still less eighteen, in any serious conversation. They just don’t understand things in the same way as adults. Simple but famous example - get them to consider a starving man stealing bread to feed his family. They’ll all claim it is wrong (except for the sociopathic bastards that so many of the child “geniuses” turn out to be, who won’t even understand that concept)… they just don’t get shades of grey. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/480 "2010-05-20T17:03:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Disgustingly irrelevant. No, it’s absolutely 100% relevant. It’s the part you’ve been avoiding this whole time: people’s apparent ages from puberty to the age of consent are very much dependent on the age where they enter puberty. An 11 year old who started menstruating when she was nine could very well look much older than a 17 year old who hasn’t gotten her period yet. > [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Sorry, but this is wrong. Thanks for the cite. I completely misremembered. **Dio** , you have my apologies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677.md?page=25)