I’m sure the statistics would back me up if I stated that most little girls/female minors are less at risk of being taken advantage of by perverted old men in bars, than they are from Daddy “tucking them into bed”.
I’m pretty new here, but is that Diogene a troll? Is it against board rules for calling someone else a troll?
I’m finding it hard to believe otherwise.
Yes, it’s against the rules (except maybe in the pit, I don’ t remember for sure).
And no, he isn’t a troll, he’s a regular here, but on this specific topic (and a couple related ones), it’s totally pointless to try to argue with him.
See the corresponding Pit thread for that type of talk.
Note that it’s been pretty much silent for a while now, but it will at least let you read his defense.
Yes, it’s against the rules. The next time you want to make a post that might break a rule, ask if it’s allowed before you make the post.
But then it seems his own 17th birthday was five days before, so he’s actually only less than a week older …
Your clock doesn’t matter. She’s 17 when it’s actually midnight in that particular jurisdiction.
It’s unlikely that a prosecutor would charge you for that, even if you think the girl would try t press charges against you.
Personally, (if I was single, which I’m not) I wouldn’t bother with anything under 30.
I like you.
That advice is singularly unhelpful to the 22-27 yr old contingent who is most vulnerable to the scam under discussion.
That’s nice. This thread isn’t about you - ether your age, or your opinion that it’s icky for a fifty year old to be screwing someone half her age.
(It is icky, mind you - from an objective standpoint, backed by all six of the ruling dieties. But icky or not it’s still perfectly legal - easily as legal as you and your wife going at it. Which is pretty icky if you actually think about it - you’re old people! Ew!)
Everyone does!
Dio, I expect to see you in this thread mentioning that you hope the sick bitch goes to prison for raping the poor 17 year old sexual victim.
I’ve read the thread. I was wondering if the same applies to selling alcohol to minor with a convincingly fake ID in most states. If not, does anyone else see how ridiculously inconsistent that is?
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (Mens rea - Wikipedia)
Shouldn’t this come into play even in statutory rape charges?
People don’t ordinarily get prosecuted for selling alcohol to a minor on just anybody’s say-so; if there’s word that a particular vendor is selling to minors, whoever regulates the sales (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, in my case) will set up a sting, using a minor as a buyer and another undercover agent in the store as an observer. The minors used for the stings definitely look like minors and do not carry fake IDs. Only after that buy will the vendor be prosecuted.
Not really surprised. But what I find hilarious is that sex offenders have to stay away for places like schools and daycare centers because they had sex with people like Courtney Stodden (who looked like she was way over their 20s when she was 16). The punishment is nowhere near the level of the crime.
You might as well complain that sex offenders have to appear on a registry, while violent non-sexual offenders don’t. It’s a function of the public ooginess over sex crimes.
Not in the state of WV. If a minor provides a reasonable fake ID to a vendor, then that is an affirmative defense to the charge of selling booze to a minor.
Although I agree that it’s inconsistent, I wouldn’t say “ridiculously” so. Selling a 17 year old a six pack of beer isn’t the same as having sex with her.
Wow, is this thing still going on? 
I know all too much about how uptight up Western Culture is with sex and I can tolerate things like that. I could also tolerate punishment for someone who unknowingly lusted after an underage minor with the appearance of a 20-30 year old, but as a sexual misconduct misdemeanor (even though its BS). But to treat him/her like he/she is into toddlers at daycare or school children is both an unnecessary and nonsensical punishment in my eyes.