Oh, Matty. Have you been a naughty boy?

[Angry Floof]

I think age misrepresentation should definitely be a valid defense against these kinds of charges, yes.
I also think 16 years is a better cutoff for age of consent than 18. 18 (or above) is actually pretty rare in the civilized world.

I think grown ass men should walk away if there's even a whiff of possibility of a potential sex partner being underage. It's not like he had no choice. It's not like he had no ethical responsibility.

The kind of men who say "she said she was 18" have no moral compass or functional sense of empathy, and don't waste a second worrying about the balance of power there. The Matt Gaetzes of the world are well aware of their power and have no intention of being mindful of it beyond keeping up appearances. We see them.

While "she said she was 18" is utterly inadequate to me I don't think any whiff of a possibility of being underage is a reasonable standard--that means the baby-faced can't have sex. Should I have had to walk away because my wife doesn't look her age? (And, because of the language barrier you couldn't tell very well by talking, either. Also, she's petite enough that almost all her US-bought clothes are from the big girls section, not the women's.) Consider: In the course of one evening I have had one person say I looked too young to be married and another say that I was robbing the cradle. Both individuals were Mormon. (Relevant as they tend to marry young.) If I'm too young and I robbed the cradle doesn't that imply she's way underage?

Why would you even want to walk that line? Is your entitlement and drive for sex so great that you have to compromise your principles? (I'm assuming you have principles about the well being of others who might be taken advantage of.)

How about get used to not having sex when you really want to in order to avoid potentially abusing someone?

Why is this even a question? Find some partners that you know for sure are not underage. You too busy looking for reasons to think giving a shit about abuse might be unfair to YOU?

 

[Toni]

I guess Matt should have asked for her driver's license to make sure she at least 18. it's amazing how many men get away with these crimes, especially when it involves someone who is technically a minor.

It’s not a technicality: it’s the law.

Actually it is a technicality.

If you are the father of a 17 year old, then what Matt Gaetz is worthy of the death penalty.
However, if instead you are boinking the 17 year old, it is definitely a gray area and we shouldn't rush to judgment. After all, she does look legal.

Every law is a technicality by definition, so your distinction is not helpful in that sense. Certainly this person's age is not a gray area - it is a fact.
Whether one agrees with the law is a judgment, but the law is clear.

Whether she looked legal is irrelevant. People with agency should think with their brains not genitals. If that teenager lied about her age, Mr. Gaetz and you would have a valid point IMO.

I think Jimmy was being ironic

 

[bilby]

People with agency should think with their brains not genitals.

Now that's not very fair. Some men, albeit very few of us, do have agency.

 

[bilby]

How about get used to not having sex when you really want to in order to avoid potentially abusing someone?

Are you nuts? In my experience most men would rather risk the death penalty, than find out later that they could probably have had sex if they had just been a bit more insistent, or a bit less concerned about the details of consent.

Most men grow out of this by their twenties or thirties; Some even as early as their teens. But many never do.

And you only need to glance at popular culture to grasp why young men are so dangerous. Every hero in every story gets the girl only by persisting in the face of her reluctance, or by doing something hideously dangerous and/or violent, to impress her so much that she completely changes her mind about him.

Young men are horrible, and a danger not only to women, but to themselves.

As a society, we really need to stop teaching them that this is normal, right, and natural.

I'm not holding my breath. But I am cringing at the stupid stuff I did as a young man in a doomed effort to impress young women.

 

[Angry Floof]

How about get used to not having sex when you really want to in order to avoid potentially abusing someone?

Are you nuts? In my experience most men would rather risk the death penalty, than find out later that they could probably have had sex if they had just been a bit more insistent, or a bit less concerned about the details of consent.

No, I genuinely do expect men to ask these kinds of questions of themselves.

As a society, we really need to stop teaching them that this is normal, right, and natural.

Yeah, and start teaching them to ask these kinds of questions of themselves.

 

[bilby]

How about get used to not having sex when you really want to in order to avoid potentially abusing someone?

Are you nuts? In my experience most men would rather risk the death penalty, than find out later that they could probably have had sex if they had just been a bit more insistent, or a bit less concerned about the details of consent.

No, I genuinely do expect men to ask these kinds of questions of themselves.

As a society, we really need to stop teaching them that this is normal, right, and natural.

Yeah, and start teaching them to ask these kinds of questions of themselves.

Well, yes.

I suspect it's going to take an extremely long time to get a majority on board though.

The problem is peer pressure - being civilised needs to start being an expectation that men have of other men, and they need to start calling out uncivilised comments and behaviours, rather than dismiss them. But until a sizable fraction of men agree that it is more manly to stand up to misogynisic peers than it is to join in with them, it's an uphill battle.

It's not without precedent. Within my lifetime, manly behaviours that attracted kudos, such as refusing to wear safety gear, or driving after a dozen beers, have become idiotic behaviours that attract ridicule. There's no particular reason to think that misogyny can't go the same way, but it requires cultural shifts across the board, and particularly in male dominated environments.

Things do seem to be moving in the right direction, at least in Australia, but there's still a long way to go.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think age misrepresentation should definitely be a valid defense against these kinds of charges, yes.
I also think 16 years is a better cutoff for age of consent than 18. 18 (or above) is actually pretty rare in the civilized world.

I think grown ass men should walk away if there's even a whiff of possibility of a potential sex partner being underage. It's not like he had no choice. It's not like he had no ethical responsibility.

The kind of men who say "she said she was 18" have no moral compass or functional sense of empathy, and don't waste a second worrying about the balance of power there. The Matt Gaetzes of the world are well aware of their power and have no intention of being mindful of it beyond keeping up appearances. We see them.

While "she said she was 18" is utterly inadequate to me I don't think any whiff of a possibility of being underage is a reasonable standard--that means the baby-faced can't have sex. Should I have had to walk away because my wife doesn't look her age? (And, because of the language barrier you couldn't tell very well by talking, either. Also, she's petite enough that almost all her US-bought clothes are from the big girls section, not the women's.) Consider: In the course of one evening I have had one person say I looked too young to be married and another say that I was robbing the cradle. Both individuals were Mormon. (Relevant as they tend to marry young.) If I'm too young and I robbed the cradle doesn't that imply she's way underage?

Why would you even want to walk that line? Is your entitlement and drive for sex so great that you have to compromise your principles? (I'm assuming you have principles about the well being of others who might be taken advantage of.)

How about get used to not having sex when you really want to in order to avoid potentially abusing someone?

Why is this even a question? Find some partners that you know for sure are not underage. You too busy looking for reasons to think giving a shit about abuse might be unfair to YOU?

How about paying attention to what I'm actually saying??

I'm not supporting things like this creep. I'm saying that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think age misrepresentation should definitely be a valid defense against these kinds of charges, yes.
I also think 16 years is a better cutoff for age of consent than 18. 18 (or above) is actually pretty rare in the civilized world.

I think grown ass men should walk away if there's even a whiff of possibility of a potential sex partner being underage. It's not like he had no choice. It's not like he had no ethical responsibility.

The kind of men who say "she said she was 18" have no moral compass or functional sense of empathy, and don't waste a second worrying about the balance of power there. The Matt Gaetzes of the world are well aware of their power and have no intention of being mindful of it beyond keeping up appearances. We see them.

While "she said she was 18" is utterly inadequate to me I don't think any whiff of a possibility of being underage is a reasonable standard--that means the baby-faced can't have sex. Should I have had to walk away because my wife doesn't look her age? (And, because of the language barrier you couldn't tell very well by talking, either. Also, she's petite enough that almost all her US-bought clothes are from the big girls section, not the women's.) Consider: In the course of one evening I have had one person say I looked too young to be married and another say that I was robbing the cradle. Both individuals were Mormon. (Relevant as they tend to marry young.) If I'm too young and I robbed the cradle doesn't that imply she's way underage?

Why would you even want to walk that line? Is your entitlement and drive for sex so great that you have to compromise your principles? (I'm assuming you have principles about the well being of others who might be taken advantage of.)

How about get used to not having sex when you really want to in order to avoid potentially abusing someone?

Why is this even a question? Find some partners that you know for sure are not underage. You too busy looking for reasons to think giving a shit about abuse might be unfair to YOU?

How about paying attention to what I'm actually saying??

I'm not supporting things like this creep. I'm saying that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

What is the baby and what is the bathwater here?

What am I "throwing away" by expecting men to not look for excuses, to not look for a line closer to them getting what they want?

What is the balance between a man getting his rocks off and protecting children? How close do you want to make that line and still claim that a man's gratification is the baby?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think age misrepresentation should definitely be a valid defense against these kinds of charges, yes.
I also think 16 years is a better cutoff for age of consent than 18. 18 (or above) is actually pretty rare in the civilized world.

I think grown ass men should walk away if there's even a whiff of possibility of a potential sex partner being underage. It's not like he had no choice. It's not like he had no ethical responsibility.

The kind of men who say "she said she was 18" have no moral compass or functional sense of empathy, and don't waste a second worrying about the balance of power there. The Matt Gaetzes of the world are well aware of their power and have no intention of being mindful of it beyond keeping up appearances. We see them.

While "she said she was 18" is utterly inadequate to me I don't think any whiff of a possibility of being underage is a reasonable standard--that means the baby-faced can't have sex. Should I have had to walk away because my wife doesn't look her age? (And, because of the language barrier you couldn't tell very well by talking, either. Also, she's petite enough that almost all her US-bought clothes are from the big girls section, not the women's.) Consider: In the course of one evening I have had one person say I looked too young to be married and another say that I was robbing the cradle. Both individuals were Mormon. (Relevant as they tend to marry young.) If I'm too young and I robbed the cradle doesn't that imply she's way underage?

Why would you even want to walk that line? Is your entitlement and drive for sex so great that you have to compromise your principles? (I'm assuming you have principles about the well being of others who might be taken advantage of.)

How about get used to not having sex when you really want to in order to avoid potentially abusing someone?

Why is this even a question? Find some partners that you know for sure are not underage. You too busy looking for reasons to think giving a shit about abuse might be unfair to YOU?

How about paying attention to what I'm actually saying??

I'm not supporting things like this creep. I'm saying that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

What is the baby and what is the bathwater here?

What am I "throwing away" by expecting men to not look for excuses, to not look for a line closer to them getting what they want?

What is the balance between a man getting his rocks off and protecting children? How close do you want to make that line and still claim that a man's gratification is the baby?

You said "if there's even a whiff of possibility". There are people that certainly look under 18 even when they are adults. That's a whiff in my book--and thus you're saying nobody should have sex with such people.

 

[bilby]

You said "if there's even a whiff of possibility". There are people that certainly look under 18 even when they are adults. That's a whiff in my book--and thus you're saying nobody should have sex with such people.

...without first forming a relationship with them that entails adequate knowledge of each other to be confident that sex is both lawful and appropriate.

The problem here is that many (most?) men are not going to let a lack of interest in a woman as a person stand in the way of their interest in getting to fuck her.

Only in such casual and fleeting sexual encounters does this question even arise; Men would be well advised to avoid such encounters when there is even the most minuscule doubt as to the legality and/or appropriateness of the relationship.

If a man is in his forties, and is pursuing sex with a woman in her twenties, but who looks like a teenager, he has a duty to ensure that he knows her well enough to be confident that her consent is truly being freely given, as well as that it is lawfully possible for her to consent at all.

If obedience to that moral duty blows away his chances of a one-night stand with a pretty girl, well, tough shit. His desire to ejaculate does not overrule her right to be treated as a human being; even if (and this might be difficult to grasp for powerful men who are used to getting their own way), even if he really really wants to get his end away.

The outcome where she was actually old enough, and really wanted to fuck, and he wanted to, but because he was concerned that she might not be old enough, they didn't actually fuck, is not a particularly bad outcome. Particularly by comparison to some of the other possible ways that the whole situation could play out.

Yet to hear some men talking, you would think that missing out on a perfectly lawful and moral fuck was the end of the world. And well worth taking the risk of ruining the lives of one or both parties, in order to avoid.

But it really isn't. If she's actually available, willing, consenting, and legal, then when you find this out later, you can still fuck! Nobody needs to miss out. If one or both of you have changed your mind at that point, it's probably for the best that nothing happened.

 

[laughing dog]

I think age misrepresentation should definitely be a valid defense against these kinds of charges, yes.
I also think 16 years is a better cutoff for age of consent than 18. 18 (or above) is actually pretty rare in the civilized world.

I think grown ass men should walk away if there's even a whiff of possibility of a potential sex partner being underage. It's not like he had no choice. It's not like he had no ethical responsibility.

The kind of men who say "she said she was 18" have no moral compass or functional sense of empathy, and don't waste a second worrying about the balance of power there. The Matt Gaetzes of the world are well aware of their power and have no intention of being mindful of it beyond keeping up appearances. We see them.

While "she said she was 18" is utterly inadequate to me I don't think any whiff of a possibility of being underage is a reasonable standard--that means the baby-faced can't have sex. Should I have had to walk away because my wife doesn't look her age? (And, because of the language barrier you couldn't tell very well by talking, either. Also, she's petite enough that almost all her US-bought clothes are from the big girls section, not the women's.) Consider: In the course of one evening I have had one person say I looked too young to be married and another say that I was robbing the cradle. Both individuals were Mormon. (Relevant as they tend to marry young.) If I'm too young and I robbed the cradle doesn't that imply she's way underage?

Why would you even want to walk that line? Is your entitlement and drive for sex so great that you have to compromise your principles? (I'm assuming you have principles about the well being of others who might be taken advantage of.)

How about get used to not having sex when you really want to in order to avoid potentially abusing someone?

Why is this even a question? Find some partners that you know for sure are not underage. You too busy looking for reasons to think giving a shit about abuse might be unfair to YOU?

How about paying attention to what I'm actually saying??

I'm not supporting things like this creep. I'm saying that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

What is the baby and what is the bathwater here?

What am I "throwing away" by expecting men to not look for excuses, to not look for a line closer to them getting what they want?

What is the balance between a man getting his rocks off and protecting children? How close do you want to make that line and still claim that a man's gratification is the baby?

You said "if there's even a whiff of possibility". There are people that certainly look under 18 even when they are adults. That's a whiff in my book--and thus you're saying nobody should have sex with such people.

I don't understand how hard a concept it is to grasp that is to make sure of the age of your prospective partner if there is even a whiff of a possibility they might be underage. Operationally, that means if your prospective partner looks underage, ascertain their age or forego the liaison.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think age misrepresentation should definitely be a valid defense against these kinds of charges, yes.
I also think 16 years is a better cutoff for age of consent than 18. 18 (or above) is actually pretty rare in the civilized world.

I think grown ass men should walk away if there's even a whiff of possibility of a potential sex partner being underage. It's not like he had no choice. It's not like he had no ethical responsibility.

The kind of men who say "she said she was 18" have no moral compass or functional sense of empathy, and don't waste a second worrying about the balance of power there. The Matt Gaetzes of the world are well aware of their power and have no intention of being mindful of it beyond keeping up appearances. We see them.

While "she said she was 18" is utterly inadequate to me I don't think any whiff of a possibility of being underage is a reasonable standard--that means the baby-faced can't have sex. Should I have had to walk away because my wife doesn't look her age? (And, because of the language barrier you couldn't tell very well by talking, either. Also, she's petite enough that almost all her US-bought clothes are from the big girls section, not the women's.) Consider: In the course of one evening I have had one person say I looked too young to be married and another say that I was robbing the cradle. Both individuals were Mormon. (Relevant as they tend to marry young.) If I'm too young and I robbed the cradle doesn't that imply she's way underage?

Why would you even want to walk that line? Is your entitlement and drive for sex so great that you have to compromise your principles? (I'm assuming you have principles about the well being of others who might be taken advantage of.)

How about get used to not having sex when you really want to in order to avoid potentially abusing someone?

Why is this even a question? Find some partners that you know for sure are not underage. You too busy looking for reasons to think giving a shit about abuse might be unfair to YOU?

How about paying attention to what I'm actually saying??

I'm not supporting things like this creep. I'm saying that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

What is the baby and what is the bathwater here?

What am I "throwing away" by expecting men to not look for excuses, to not look for a line closer to them getting what they want?

What is the balance between a man getting his rocks off and protecting children? How close do you want to make that line and still claim that a man's gratification is the baby?

You said "if there's even a whiff of possibility". There are people that certainly look under 18 even when they are adults. That's a whiff in my book--and thus you're saying nobody should have sex with such people.

Nope, I'm talking about consent and grown men being concerned with protecting children versus finding excuses to have sex with children based on some technicality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is the baby and what is the bathwater here?

What am I "throwing away" by expecting men to not look for excuses, to not look for a line closer to them getting what they want?

What is the balance between a man getting his rocks off and protecting children? How close do you want to make that line and still claim that a man's gratification is the baby?

You said "if there's even a whiff of possibility". There are people that certainly look under 18 even when they are adults. That's a whiff in my book--and thus you're saying nobody should have sex with such people.

When I drop my daughter off at middle school (which is attached to the high school), I see middle schoolers I could mistake for high schoolers. I see no high schoolers I'd mistake for adults.

I'm sure there are 17 year olds out there that can get into bars and be mistaken for being college. People in their 30s paying them with cash and drugs to fuck them is just creepy as all heck.

 

[blastula]

After withdrawing as attorney general nominee, Matt Gaetz lands a talk show on OANN television

Former congressman Matt Gaetz, who withdrew last month as President-elect Trump's nominee to be U.S. attorney general, has landed a job with the One America News Network.

apnews.com

Couldn't even get on Newsmax, let alone Fox. OAN is a much younger network though.

 

[Toni]

How about get used to not having sex when you really want to in order to avoid potentially abusing someone?

Are you nuts? In my experience most men would rather risk the death penalty, than find out later that they could probably have had sex if they had just been a bit more insistent, or a bit less concerned about the details of consent.

Most men grow out of this by their twenties or thirties; Some even as early as their teens. But many never do.

And you only need to glance at popular culture to grasp why young men are so dangerous. Every hero in every story gets the girl only by persisting in the face of her reluctance, or by doing something hideously dangerous and/or violent, to impress her so much that she completely changes her mind about him.

Young men are horrible, and a danger not only to women, but to themselves.

As a society, we really need to stop teaching them that this is normal, right, and natural.

I'm not holding my breath. But I am cringing at the stupid stuff I did as a young man in a doomed effort to impress young women.

In a more real to life example: Girls of my generation were raised to have to be coaxed into having sex, and only after certain words and promises were uttered—if you agreed too easily or too quickly, you got a reputation for being easy.’ Which had the real life consequences of it being harder to turn down a guy—i.e. you were more likely to be raped. Not that anyone would call it that in those days. Nice girls hid the bruises with turtle necks and long sleeves and make up.

This was not explicitly talked about or ‘known’ so much as it was just assumed.

Even girls like me: reluctant daters—in my case for a plethora of reasons but the most consciously acknowledged was that I very badly wanted out of my town and even more badly wanted to go to college and in my family, that meant earning an academic scholarship. Boys seemed like a distraction not worth taking. And of course, years before I was allowed to date, I had been sexually assaulted, a risk that was ongoing until well into high school. I worried that some perfectly nice guy might try to put his arm around me and I’d react by slugging him.

So as a consequence, I never went out with anybody the first time he asked me. I wasn’t playing coy: I just wasn’t comfortable with the idea of dating and preferred the friend zone. The occasional creep who asked me out wasn’t a problem to turn down. But, not as a premeditated thing or game, I never went out with anyone the first couple of times he asked. Indeed, I usually said yes only to convince the guy that we were not a good match and really should just be friends.

So yeah, I inadvertently contributed to the whole: badger her until she gives in culture, albeit not deliberately or consciously.

 

[Patooka]

After withdrawing as attorney general nominee, Matt Gaetz lands a talk show on OANN television

Former congressman Matt Gaetz, who withdrew last month as President-elect Trump's nominee to be U.S. attorney general, has landed a job with the One America News Network.

apnews.com

Couldn't even get on Newsmax, let alone Fox. OAN is a much younger network though.

That's kinda like saying Parler is a younger social media network than Twitter or tiktok

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about paying attention to what I'm actually saying??

I'm not supporting things like this creep. I'm saying that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

What is the baby and what is the bathwater here?

What am I "throwing away" by expecting men to not look for excuses, to not look for a line closer to them getting what they want?

What is the balance between a man getting his rocks off and protecting children? How close do you want to make that line and still claim that a man's gratification is the baby?

You said "if there's even a whiff of possibility". There are people that certainly look under 18 even when they are adults. That's a whiff in my book--and thus you're saying nobody should have sex with such people.

I don't understand how hard a concept it is to grasp that is to make sure of the age of your prospective partner if there is even a whiff of a possibility they might be underage. Operationally, that means if your prospective partner looks underage, ascertain their age or forego the liaison.

Yes, you verify--except we have no foolproof means of doing so. The problem is the law doesn't consider that good enough and blames those that fall for fake ID. I'm fine with busting someone who doesn't check, I'm not fine with busting someone who is fooled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said "if there's even a whiff of possibility". There are people that certainly look under 18 even when they are adults. That's a whiff in my book--and thus you're saying nobody should have sex with such people.

Nope, I'm talking about consent and grown men being concerned with protecting children versus finding excuses to have sex with children based on some technicality.

The problem is you are talking about a fantasy world where age can unquestionably be verified. I'm talking about the real, imperfect world and saying that instead of strict liability the law should mandate what checks are warranted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is the baby and what is the bathwater here?

What am I "throwing away" by expecting men to not look for excuses, to not look for a line closer to them getting what they want?

What is the balance between a man getting his rocks off and protecting children? How close do you want to make that line and still claim that a man's gratification is the baby?

You said "if there's even a whiff of possibility". There are people that certainly look under 18 even when they are adults. That's a whiff in my book--and thus you're saying nobody should have sex with such people.

When I drop my daughter off at middle school (which is attached to the high school), I see middle schoolers I could mistake for high schoolers. I see no high schoolers I'd mistake for adults.

I've been mistaken for an adult when I wasn't. In person I've had people off by 50%, online I've been asked how many grandkids I had when I was 17.

 

[bilby]

You said "if there's even a whiff of possibility". There are people that certainly look under 18 even when they are adults. That's a whiff in my book--and thus you're saying nobody should have sex with such people.

Nope, I'm talking about consent and grown men being concerned with protecting children versus finding excuses to have sex with children based on some technicality.

The problem is you are talking about a fantasy world where age can unquestionably be verified. I'm talking about the real, imperfect world and saying that instead of strict liability the law should mandate what checks are warranted.

Why?

What is wrong with the rule "if in doubt, do nowt"?

Is it really such a hardship for people to simply not have sex with anyone who might be a minor? What's the big deal?