Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[Derec]

There is a transitional stage in each year of development. Why the special interest in the age of legal fuckability as opposed to voting eligibility or enlisting in the armed forces or purchasing alcohol or any of the areas with dichotomous limits?

In this thread the focus was on sex because it's a thread about the Epstein sexual abuse.
But, you are right, transition between childhood and adulthood impacts all aspects of life, not just sex. That's why for example, we allow 16 year olds to drive but there are usually restrictions. Because it's not all or nothing.

And we have discussed criminal justice issues at length before, and I even mentioned this in post #157. Children are not eligible to be tried in criminal court (commonly called "tried as an adult") but teenagers under 18 may be tried in criminal court after a hearing.
Fauxgressive DA George Gascon did not want to try anybody under 18 in criminal court even for heinous crimes like murder, because he apparently subscribes to your and Jarhyn's false dichotomy and sees 17 year old gang enforcers as "innocent children" who do not know any better.

Another example is how there are many teenage Hamas fighters, but media lump anybody under 18 as "children", as if toddlers are the same as 17 year old terrorists.

 

[scombrid]

When women are sex objects

and emotional entanglement is not a concern then I guess a lot of things can be rationalized when procurement of sex is the only objective. It's a shame that the law has to get involved to stop exploitation but that's where we are.

What do you propose the law should be? Have nanny state ban any sex without sufficient "emotional entanglement", as determined by some busybody bureaucrat? And is that proposal one-sided or do you also want criminal charges for women who see men as sex objects?

I think intervening where old people exploit teenagers for gratification is sufficient nanny statism. But you people seem to oppose even that.

 

[scombrid]

There is a transitional stage in each year of development. Why the special interest in the age of legal fuckability as opposed to voting eligibility or enlisting in the armed forces or purchasing alcohol or any of the areas with dichotomous limits?

In this thread the focus was on sex because it's a thread about the Epstein sexual abuse.
But, you are right, transition between childhood and adulthood impacts all aspects of life, not just sex. That's why for example, we allow 16 year olds to drive but there are usually restrictions. Because it's not all or nothing.

And we have discussed criminal justice issues at length before, and I even mentioned this in post #157. Children are not eligible to be tried in criminal court (commonly called "tried as an adult") but teenagers under 18 may be tried in criminal court after a hearing.
Fauxgressive DA George Gascon did not want to try anybody under 18 in criminal court even for heinous crimes like murder, because he apparently subscribes to your and Jarhyn's false dichotomy and sees 17 year old gang enforcers as "innocent children" who do not know any better.

Another example is how there are many teenage Hamas fighters, but media lump anybody under 18 as "children", as if toddlers are the same as 17 year old terrorists.

IDF has plugged plenty of toddlers in the head and center of mass at this point.

 

[ZiprHead]

Disagree. The dirty books law he was convicted under was specifically intended for that sort of thing--like nailing Al Capone on taxes. It was meant to target coverups, it did exactly what it was supposed to do. (I do have a problem with it being preponderance of the evidence, though. Both sides have gotten very bad about trying to sidestep the Constitution.)

The law he was convicted under was a misdemeanor though, with the statute of limitations well expired. The US attorney passed on prosecuting him federally, and Bragg's predecessor in the Manhattan DA's office also passed on state charges.
So Bragg combined the state charges with a federal law that Trump was not charges with, much less convicted under, to upgrade the state charges to a felony and extend the statute of limitations.
These legal maneuverings, from a DA known for downgrading charges rather than upgrading them, against a political opponent, in combination with the salacious nature of the underlying case, led to it being a political suicide, even though it resulted in convictions.

How anybody can think that this whole case was not a mistake, even if technically Trump did break the law, is a mystery to me. It shows that the Resistance has learned nothing. Things like:
- Choose your battles.
- "You come at the king, you best not miss".

So you think the charges were for political reasons and you think the charges should not have been brought, wait for it, for political reasons. ???

 

[Elixir]

So you think the charges were for political reasons and you think the charges should not have been brought, wait for it, for political reasons. ???

That’s how very clever he is.
The inference being that if it had been anyone else falsifying records, assaulting women, defrauding people etc., they never would have been prosecuted. Which is par for the course, and utter bullshit. But if you’re an “imnotatrumpsucker” you have to peddle it.
Disgusting. But that’s just me …

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[TV and credit cards]

B Curious. Why would you be inclined to slide the age of consent from 18 to 16?

I am not inclined to "slide" anything. Age of consent around 16 is common in developed countries. Including many US states.

It is Jarhyn et al who are the outliers, not I.

Now, why do I think that's the appropriate age? First of all, it acknowledges reality. Many teens have sex before 18 anyway consensually. So to say that they can't consent stretches credibility. Note that there is a difference between whether something is a good idea vs. whether something should carry a criminal charge. Especially a felony charge with sex offender registration. Also, people can misrepresent age. Many 17 year olds can easily pass for even 21. So aoc of 16 strikes a balance between protecting teenagers and not being too draconian.

If we are talking about a person's ability to make sound judgements, the age of consent should move in the other direction.

If we go by a person's ability to make sound judgments, some people don't have that at 30. So that's not a good standard.
And what do you mean by "move in the other direction"? Age of consent above 18, like in Tunisia?

These executive functions of the brain aren't fully developed until the mid twenties, later for some. And this isn't even considering any role alcohol might be playing.

So what do you think age of consent should be then? 21? 25?

Why 16?

I think it's a reasonable compromise that is working in most of the developed world.

Yes it does acknowledge reality, the reality in place for many years set by, I would venture to guess, men very much past the age of majority mostly *at a time when knowledge of cognitive development was still a mystery. We know more now.
As it stand now, it is not the age of consent but the age of coercion. Romeo and Juliet laws? Fine.
You say this is "working in most of the developed world". Do we know this? Based on what? Reported incidents of forced sex?
We should follow the evidence. I'd defer to greater minds to determine what would be more appropriate and how fast it would be socially acceptable to move this along. Would it have any effect? Probably not but the law should not give it's blessing.


* Iraq moved to 9 yo just last year. Smart bunch them.

 

[Jarhyn]

B Curious. Why would you be inclined to slide the age of consent from 18 to 16?

I am not inclined to "slide" anything. Age of consent around 16 is common in developed countries. Including many US states.

It is Jarhyn et al who are the outliers, not I.

Now, why do I think that's the appropriate age? First of all, it acknowledges reality. Many teens have sex before 18 anyway consensually. So to say that they can't consent stretches credibility. Note that there is a difference between whether something is a good idea vs. whether something should carry a criminal charge. Especially a felony charge with sex offender registration. Also, people can misrepresent age. Many 17 year olds can easily pass for even 21. So aoc of 16 strikes a balance between protecting teenagers and not being too draconian.

If we are talking about a person's ability to make sound judgements, the age of consent should move in the other direction.

If we go by a person's ability to make sound judgments, some people don't have that at 30. So that's not a good standard.
And what do you mean by "move in the other direction"? Age of consent above 18, like in Tunisia?

These executive functions of the brain aren't fully developed until the mid twenties, later for some. And this isn't even considering any role alcohol might be playing.

So what do you think age of consent should be then? 21? 25?

Why 16?

I think it's a reasonable compromise that is working in most of the developed world.

Yes it does acknowledge reality, the reality in place for many years set by, I would venture to guess, men very much past the age of majority mostly *at a time when knowledge of cognitive development was still a mystery. We know more now.
As it stand now, it is not the age of consent but the age of coercion. Romeo and Juliet laws? Fine.
You say this is "working in most of the developed world". Do we know this? Based on what? Reported incidents of forced sex?
We should follow the evidence. I'd defer to greater minds to determine what would be more appropriate and how fast it would be socially acceptable to move this along. Would it have any effect? Probably not but the law should not give it's blessing.


* Iraq moved to 9 yo just last year. Smart bunch them.

Yeah, every report I see from the developing world says life there sucks, especially for women, and here someone is asking for adopting a standard of the developing world, one of the standards that is the reason for the suck, especially when being the "married husband" of a child gives someone power to control their movement, activities, contacts, education (or usually the lack thereof), and so on.

Its wild how someone is the thrashing themselves trying to justify the sexual exploitation of minors.

I also find it wild how we are accepting the defense of that to exist at all here. I thought that kind of apologia was not allowed here.

 

[southernhybrid]

Has anyone in this thread clarified the law when two teenagers have sex. Yes, they can be charged if they are under the age of consent, but they rarely are.

I think other than two teenagers having consensual sex, the age should be at least 18. I was 19 the first time I had sex and to be honest, I was too young, but considering the asshole I had sex with was my age, it wasn't a rape. I was just a very naive girl, who didn't understand that boys often don't give a shit about the girls they have sex with. With age and maturity, you learn whether or not casual sex is something enjoyable for you.

An adult who has sex with a teenager should be charged with a crime, imo, unless the adult is very close to the age of the teenager. I'd make the age of consent 21, if I had the power. We know that our brains aren't fully developed until around age 25, but 21 is the age when a lot of adult things become legal, like drinking ETOH. It used to be the age when one could vote prior to my generation protesting for a change. Sometimes I thing we made a mistake on that one. It might be good to increase the age to 21 before someone can join the military. 18 year olds are too young to make such important decisions that may impact the rest of their lives in dramatic ways. This includes having sex with someone who is much older than oneself. But seriously, anything less than 18 should be a crime. unless we're talking about 2 teenagers. Most places have the Romeo and Juliet law for that, as explained below.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-sex-between-minors-a-crime/

Statutory rape does not require any evidence of force or coercion; a person is guilty simply by performing a sexual act with a minor below the age of consent. Depending on the state, the age of consent can be as low as 16 years of age, while others set the limit at 17 (e.g., Texas) or 18 (e.g., California).

In general, when two minors under the age of consent engage in "consensual" sex with one another, they are both open to statutory rape charges.

'Romeo and Juliet' Laws​

Since it would be a strange or unjust result to throw love-struck teens into jail for having consensual sex, many states have passed so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws. These laws allow minors to escape being punished as a sex offender or to receive only minor criminal punishment when both minors are within a few years of each others' ages.

In Texas, for example, a minor charged with statutory rape may raise an affirmative defense at trial if the minor is:

• Not more than three years older than his or her sexual partner,
• Not a sex offender,
• Not accused of having sex with anyone under 14 years of age, and
• Able to legally marry the sexual partner (i.e., are not same-sex partners).

Because of these defenses in many states, prosecutors will not file charges if two consenting minors are within the "Romeo and Juliet" law of their home state. However, some states, notably California, lack any sort of "Romeo and Juliet" law, and minors may be prosecuted for otherwise loving conduct.

I remember what it was like being a 16 and 17 year old girl. Girls that age aren't adults!

 

[bilby]

21 is the age when a lot of adult things become legal, like drinking ETOH

Not in the civilised world, it's not. I can't think of a single thing that is lawful for 21 year olds, but not for 18 year olds, in my jurisdiction.

 

[southernhybrid]

21 is the age when a lot of adult things become legal, like drinking ETOH

Not in the civilised world, it's not. I can't think of a single thing that is lawful for 21 year olds, but not for 18 year olds, in my jurisdiction.

In the US, you have to be 21 to legally buy ETOH. Not sure about THC, but I'd be surprised if it was less than 21. That might be the only thing left, but the voting age was also 21 when I was in my teens. It wasn't changed until I was almost 21. Anyway, it's just my opinion that adulthood doesn't start before about age 21. I'm not expecting anyone else to agree with me. Plus since my late father suffered severe PTSD after enlisting in the Marine at age 17, I think one should be 21 to enlist in the military. Not sure if one has to be 18 now or is 17 year olds can still enlist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

21 is the age when a lot of adult things become legal, like drinking ETOH

Not in the civilised world, it's not. I can't think of a single thing that is lawful for 21 year olds, but not for 18 year olds, in my jurisdiction.

Seeing that life expectancy is only about 25 for Aussies due to the common onslaught of things trying to kill Aussies, that'd probably be why. I mean the legal drinking age is 12 in Australia! People start collecting their pensions at 18.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[southernhybrid]

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...t-is-crumbling-fast/articleshow/123100081.cms

This article just came out yesterday.

The backlash is causing a significant drop in his approval rating. It is now at 38%, a six-point drop from April. The data reflects broader voter concerns, particularly among those who once supported Trump on his promise to expose the so-called "deep state." However, many believe he has done the opposite.


One of the most damning details? Fifty-nine percent of respondents familiar with Epstein believ ..

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Trump isn’t the only one catching heat. Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Speaker Mike Johnson are also under fire. Bondi, in particular, is facing accusations of flip-flopping after initially claiming the DOJ had an Epstein client list on her desk, only to later say no such list exists.

The Justice Department’s decision to transfer Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime partner, to a lower-security prison hasn’t helped either. Maxwell recently met with Deputy U.S. ..

My eyes are bleary so I'll stop here before I make a lot more. typos. Still, maybe enough MAGAs will realize they've been had.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, every report I see from the developing world says life there sucks, especially for women, and here someone is asking for adopting a standard of the developing world, one of the standards that is the reason for the suck, especially when being the "married husband" of a child gives someone power to control their movement, activities, contacts, education (or usually the lack thereof), and so on.

Where do you get "developing world"? I clearly wrote "developed world". Can't you read English? Or read a map? The map I posted clearly shows that aoc≥18 is found, outside of some US states, mostly in the developing world - such as parts of Africa and Central America. Developed world - parts of US, Canada, Europe, generally has aoc<18, with 16 being most common.

Its wild how someone is the thrashing themselves trying to justify the sexual exploitation of minors.

If anybody is thrashing themselves, it is you. And I do advocate for sexual exploitation of minors, but at the same time I do not think a consensual sexual relationship with somebody <18 is necessarily "sex exploitation". Especially not if the older party is young themselves, even if ≥18.

I also find it wild how we are accepting the defense of that to exist at all here. I thought that kind of apologia was not allowed here.

You do not think people should be allowed to disagree with you. How very Trumpian of you. Especially when the opinion you want to ban is based on what the law is in many US states, Canada, Europe etc.

 

[Derec]

That's less than half. If there is actual evidence, maybe that was the angle Dems should have pursued, instead of the silly hush money prosecution.

 

[Toni]

If you are outraged over Epstein whatabout 24/7 Internet porn where pedophilia abounds.

Pedophilia may abound on the dark web, but it certainly does not abound on mainstream sites.

I have looked at it.

Why? That's a felony.

Extreme violent sex and sex abuse. Sadism. Some people get off on bound and gagged women naked and whipped, pissed on.

That's just BDSM and other fetishes. It may not be your cup of tea, or mine, but if participants are consenting, then what's wrong with that? We should not go in the direction of UK with ever increasing levels of censorship.

Bestiality is on line.

Interspecies erotica, please!

Internet porn addiction down to teens.

[citation needed]
And how do you even define "porn addiction"?

From reporting a part of it is sex trafficking, women coerced into performing on the net.

How do you define "sex trafficking"? How do you define "coerced"?
Some sex-negative illiberals see any sex work as "trafficking" and doing any sex work because one needs money as "coercive".

There are live sex sites and video sites with girls who at least look underage. Pandering to pedophiles.

Those are ≥18 year old actresses, even if some of them look young. To call that "pedophilia" which refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children is ridiculous.

Old men wit underage looking girls is a common theme.

As is younger guys with older women. Or stepbro/stepsis. Or women on the street in Czechia being given money.
Or any other silly porn setup.

You can imagine where it goes from here.

The next time you watch net porn think about what is behind the video you watch.

Consenting adults. Even if you are offended by what they do.

Consenting adults is one thing. But for certain, there is porn available where there was non-consent and under aged persons involved.

Yes, it’s very much true that some people look years younger than their actual age—and some who look older than their age. There is NO EXCUSE for using persons who are under age or who do NOT consent. Full stop.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, every report I see from the developing world says life there sucks, especially for women, and here someone is asking for adopting a standard of the developing world, one of the standards that is the reason for the suck, especially when being the "married husband" of a child gives someone power to control their movement, activities, contacts, education (or usually the lack thereof), and so on.

Where do you get "developing world"? I clearly wrote "developed world". Can't you read English? Or read a map? The map I posted clearly shows that aoc≥18 is found, outside of some US states, mostly in the developing world - such as parts of Africa and Central America. Developed world - parts of US, Canada, Europe, generally has aoc<18, with 16 being most common.

Its wild how someone is the thrashing themselves trying to justify the sexual exploitation of minors.

If anybody is thrashing themselves, it is you. And I do advocate for sexual exploitation of minors, but at the same time I do not think a consensual sexual relationship with somebody <18 is necessarily "sex exploitation". Especially not if the older party is young themselves, even if ≥18.

I also find it wild how we are accepting the defense of that to exist at all here. I thought that kind of apologia was not allowed here.

You do not think people should be allowed to disagree with you. How very Trumpian of you. Especially when the opinion you want to ban is based on what the law is in many US states, Canada, Europe etc.

In the US, sex for pay is illegal for anyone under 18.

Actually, in most of the world, the age of consent for prostitution is 18. A very few have a lower age and one or two have an older age.

 

[Toni]

That's less than half. If there is actual evidence, maybe that was the angle Dems should have pursued, instead of the silly hush money prosecution.

The reason the hush money was illegal is that he did not use his own money but campaign funds. He violated laws regulating what campaign funds could pay for.

I don’t care about who Trump has sex with as long as it is mutually consensual and the person(s) he has sex with are old enough to give consent—and where money is exchanged, ( ie prostitution), that age is 18 in the US. Where there is no consent—which includes persons under the age of consent, that is rape.

If accounts related by victims are accurate, Trump and Epstein raped children too young to be able to give consent or to act willingly as prostitutes. Those kids were raped repeatedly and otherwise physically abused.

 

[laughing dog]

That's less than half.

More than enough to cost him reelection.

If there is actual evidence, maybe that was the angle Dems should have pursued, instead of the silly hush money prosecution.

Yeah, law abiding behavior is only for the little folks.