Oh, Matty. Have you been a naughty boy?

[Angry Floof]

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.

No, I am not. I'm talking about expecting grown adult male humans to NOT HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO LOOKS EVEN REMOTELY UNDERAGE AND IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY, WALK. THE. FUCK. AWAY.

Why is this so hard to understand? You and Matt Gaetz both have the capacity to set for yourself a principle, a personal principle, of protecting vulnerable people from predation and NOT protecting predators from accountability.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

If one cannot ascertain age with sufficient confidence, then don’t have sex. If one is worried about feeling fooled, don’t have sex.

I suspect the truly fooled are an extremely small fraction of the “fooled” category, and can be sorted out at pre/trial or trial stage.

 

[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.

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?

What you don't seem to get is that you're asking people to know something they can't truly know. There's no magic "I'm 18" indicator--doesn't matter what the dividing line, there will always be cases that are hard to tell. Thus I'm saying the law should specify what the adult is expected to do to establish that the person isn't a minor. Think of things like retailers carding alcohol and tobacco customers--the law requires they check the ID, the law doesn't hold them accountable for a counterfeit or even a genuine incorrect one (think of the Traci Lords case--she had a genuine US passport with the wrong birth date.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If one cannot ascertain age with sufficient confidence, then don’t have sex. If one is worried about feeling fooled, don’t have sex.

I suspect the truly fooled are an extremely small fraction of the “fooled” category, and can be sorted out at pre/trial or trial stage.

Summer child.

Think of the Traci Lords case--she had a genuine passport showing her to be of age. It was not sorted out like you think, but the government eventually dropped it because they would have to admit that they were holding the producers liable for a fraud the government had failed to spot--probably wouldn't have gone over very well with the jury.

 

[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.

No, I am not. I'm talking about expecting grown adult male humans to NOT HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO LOOKS EVEN REMOTELY UNDERAGE AND IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY, WALK. THE. FUCK. AWAY.

Why is this so hard to understand? You and Matt Gaetz both have the capacity to set for yourself a principle, a personal principle, of protecting vulnerable people from predation and NOT protecting predators from accountability.

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. Quite unfair to the baby-faced.

 

[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.

No, I am not. I'm talking about expecting grown adult male humans to NOT HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO LOOKS EVEN REMOTELY UNDERAGE AND IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY, WALK. THE. FUCK. AWAY.

Why is this so hard to understand? You and Matt Gaetz both have the capacity to set for yourself a principle, a personal principle, of protecting vulnerable people from predation and NOT protecting predators from accountability.

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. Quite unfair to the baby-faced.

But hardly in the same category of bad outcome as rape.

Oh dear, some people might find it difficult to get laid. What a disaster; We had better call open season on statutory rape, in an effort to help that maligned demographic.

 

[Angry Floof]

What you don't seem to get is that you're asking people to know something they can't truly know.

What you don't seem to get is YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW.

You just need have grown up self aware human principles such as "As a grown up decent human adult man, protecting children is light years more important than whether or not I stick my dick into someone tonight."

IF YOU DON'T KNOW, WALK. THE. FUCK. AWAY.

There is literally no good reason for any adult to seek out an excuse like, "wELL, i diDnT kNoOoOoOw."

IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, YOU SHOULD HAVE WALKED THE FUCK AWAY.

There's your answer. Very, very simple and clear. There's no condundrum here at all.

 

[Angry Floof]

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.

No, I am not. I'm talking about expecting grown adult male humans to NOT HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO LOOKS EVEN REMOTELY UNDERAGE AND IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY, WALK. THE. FUCK. AWAY.

Why is this so hard to understand? You and Matt Gaetz both have the capacity to set for yourself a principle, a personal principle, of protecting vulnerable people from predation and NOT protecting predators from accountability.

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. Quite unfair to the baby-faced.

No, we're not back to it. We're still there. And you're still protecting adults and not children.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

No, I am not. I'm talking about expecting grown adult male humans to NOT HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO LOOKS EVEN REMOTELY UNDERAGE AND IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY, WALK. THE. FUCK. AWAY.

Why is this so hard to understand? You and Matt Gaetz both have the capacity to set for yourself a principle, a personal principle, of protecting vulnerable people from predation and NOT protecting predators from accountability.

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. Quite unfair to the baby-faced.

The baby faced probably have no problem hooking up with people their age or younger.

 

[blastula]

House Ethics Committee quietly voted to release Matt Gaetz ethics report

The House Ethics Committee has quietly voted to release its report on the investigation into former Rep. Matt Gaetz, two sources said.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[laughing dog]

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. Quite unfair to the baby-faced.

Not if the baby- faced can verify their age to a someone who thinks with their brain instead of their genitals.

 

[Patooka]

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. complete strangers you haven't even had a basic adult conversation with. Quite unfair to the baby-faced morons who show poor judgement.

Fixed. Also, as I have said before so I'm fucking amazed that this needs repeating, if you are over 30 and are still looking for chicks that are or look 17 there is something fucking wrong with you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. Quite unfair to the baby-faced.

But hardly in the same category of bad outcome as rape.

Oh dear, some people might find it difficult to get laid. What a disaster; We had better call open season on statutory rape, in an effort to help that maligned demographic.

You're not addressing my point at all.

I'm not objecting to the concept, I'm objecting to the yardstick. People don't come with a label that says "underage", define what should be done to verify.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. complete strangers you haven't even had a basic adult conversation with. Quite unfair to the baby-faced morons who show poor judgement.

Fixed. Also, as I have said before so I'm fucking amazed that this needs repeating, if you are over 30 and are still looking for chicks that are or look 17 there is something fucking wrong with you.

Which still doesn't address the baby-faced. Everyone's addressing this from the standpoint of the older person and not seeing that it causes a problem the other way around.

Consider two data points, both at the same party: Guy A says I look too young to be married. Guy B says I robbed the cradle. How young must they have thought she was? (And, no, I definitely did not rob the cradle.) She would not have been interested in anyone who was actually as young as she looked.

 

[Patooka]

Which still doesn't address the baby-faced. Everyone's addressing this from the standpoint of the older person and not seeing that it causes a problem the other way around.

I've known people who look "baby faced". They've never raised what you claim as an issue. And you are delving so far into the hypothetical weeds it's laughable.

 

[Arctish]

Which still doesn't address the baby-faced. Everyone's addressing this from the standpoint of the older person and not seeing that it causes a problem the other way around.

I've known people who look "baby faced". They've never raised what you claim as an issue. And you are delving so far into the hypothetical weeds it's laughable.

Are we talking about someone "baby faced" looking for someone willing to have sex with someone who looks underage, and is disappointed that everyone around them has too much self restraint to bang a maybe-kid unless and until they get enough information indicating the maybe-kid is old enough to give legal consent before they'd consider taking a chance on a one night stand?

I suppose that could happen. But anyone old enough to give legal consent has surely learned by now how to live with brief bouts of disappointment. And anyone "baby faced" has most likely learned to be wary of strangers who want something from them, since they look so young and strangers who want things from kids are skeevy.

 

[laughing dog]

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. complete strangers you haven't even had a basic adult conversation with. Quite unfair to the baby-faced morons who show poor judgement.

Fixed. Also, as I have said before so I'm fucking amazed that this needs repeating, if you are over 30 and are still looking for chicks that are or look 17 there is something fucking wrong with you.

Which still doesn't address the baby-faced. Everyone's addressing this from the standpoint of the older person and not seeing that it causes a problem the other way around.

. Let me get this straight. You are against the principle of refraining from having a sex with someone who looks underage and who cannot verify their age because it is unfair to them. But you are okay with people killing people who maybe armed and maybe dangerous even though that is much more unfair to the victims.

Seems to me that your priorities are completely out of whack.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. complete strangers you haven't even had a basic adult conversation with. Quite unfair to the baby-faced morons who show poor judgement.

Fixed. Also, as I have said before so I'm fucking amazed that this needs repeating, if you are over 30 and are still looking for chicks that are or look 17 there is something fucking wrong with you.

Which still doesn't address the baby-faced. Everyone's addressing this from the standpoint of the older person and not seeing that it causes a problem the other way around.

The baby faced will likely be able to fuck people their own age. Oh the humanity! Being the same age, it'll be a lot easier for both parties to know age.

 

[ZiprHead]

The report on Rapey McForehead will be released tomorrow.

Apparently god has a sense of humor. Rapey resigned to keep the report quiet. But here it comes.

You better sign that contract with OAN before that report comes out.

 

[bilby]

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. Quite unfair to the baby-faced.

But hardly in the same category of bad outcome as rape.

Oh dear, some people might find it difficult to get laid. What a disaster; We had better call open season on statutory rape, in an effort to help that maligned demographic.

You're not addressing my point at all.

I'm not objecting to the concept, I'm objecting to the yardstick. People don't come with a label that says "underage", define what should be done to verify.

You're not grasping the point at all.

Verification is unnecessary; That you think it is needed is the entire problem.

The actual problem is creepy old guys who are trying to find ways to fuck women who are FAR younger than them, without the risk of legal sanction.

The solution is for those creepy guys not to fuck FAR younger women.

At which point verification is a simple matter: If in any doubt, make the simplfying assumption not to fuck her.

There are two binary variables, and so four outcomes:

Underage and no fucking - No problem
Overage and fucking - No problem
Overage and no fucking - Dissapointment at missing out
Underage and fucking - Rape

We are seeking to avoid rape. We agree that determining over/underage is difficult.

You are seeking a solution to the difficult problem.

I am advocating bypassing the difficult problem, by the simple expedient of making the avoidance of rape the priority, and accepting as the price of this that sometimes people won't be able to avoid disappointment at missing out.

If these two bad outcomes were of similar weight, you would be right to seek a solution to the difficult problem. But as they are of such extremely different weights, it is a futile exercise - we can just cut the crap, and say that if there is even the smallest doubt, we can avoid rape via the simple and mostly harmless expedient of just not fucking.

There are no edge cases of sufficient import as to overwhelm the vast difference between the minor annoyance of disappointment at missing out on a nice fuck, and the major crime of rape.