If anyone should be punished in this, it's the girl who lied about her age. Not that I think anyone should be punished. She wanted to get laid. Is that so wrong?

If he was preying on someone 12 or younger, I'd be all for throwing the book at him, but three years?

I'd have more sympathy, though, if this guy didn't go out of his way to make himself sound like a total idiot. "Ya know wut ah'm sayin'?"

I dunno. I'd be willing to punish the parents who chose to prosecute the "adult" who "defiled" their "little angel."

At least, that's often the case. Parents find out that the boy they hate is having sex with their daughter. She refuses to stop seeing him, so they have him thrown in jail, ending the relationship.

And ruining his life in the process.

Why is anyone surprised by this? Is it so hard to accept that for some people this is not only desirable, but the intended outcome?

Can I just say, had this ever happened to me I'd have killed the procecuter in my case, the judge, the parents of my "victim" the cops involved in my case and as many of the jurors I could track down.

Perhaps if the people who so cavelierly destroy lives had their own lives destroyed in turn we would see less of this.

Not to say I am advocaing murder.

this guy aught to talk to a lawyer, when she turns 18 sue her for fraud, sue her for intentional infliction of emotional distress, sue her for loss of income - over and over and over again. Even if he loses she'll wind up spending all her money defending against the lawsuits

lujlp, you have an interesting idea there with the fraud lawsuit.

You see, it's things like this that remind me why I don't have sex with sixteen-year-olds.

What's better is when you meet her in a bar, and she's got an ID that says she's 22, but she's really 16, and you're in a state with an age of consent of 18.

Her criminal actions don't absolve you in any way! You should have known she was 16, after all.

My starting bias is this young man likely got screwed, figuratively speaking, because our society does not value the lives of young men, by and large, relative to young women. But I cannot agree with the ideas suggested by the following:

"I'd be willing to punish the parents who chose to prosecute the 'adult' who 'defiled' their "little angel. ..so they have him thrown in jail, ending the relationship."

No state or federal jurisdiction ceded prosecutorial, judicial, and prisoner-custody authority to parents. The government retained that power in all areas within the United States. In fact, I am unsure if the parents even have a civil claim for statutory rape. Maybe some archaic one that is not typically recognized or permitted any longer. Parents are not to blame. The law is made by all of us, not parents.

On the issue of whether statutory rape laws should exist, I think they should. The laws are there to protect immature 15 year olds, not freakishly mature 15 year olds who act more mature than 45 year olds. But our courts cannot sort mature versus immature 15 year olds out with anything approaching accuracy. And there are many, many more immature 15 year olds as compared to mature ones.

So rather than spend a bunch of time in court finding out if this or that 15 year old was mature enough to consent to sex with an over age adult, society saves time by drawing clear, clear lines and then says, "Over this age? Then don't have sex with people under this age. Period. No exceptions, no 'oopsies' allowed. If you are over 18 you will be held responsible for knowing the ages of people you have sex with. Welcome to adulthood. F-ck others with care, people."

I prefer it that way to the alternative of trying to determine if this particular 19 year old was predatory towards this particular 15 year old. (Go watch a rape trial sometime if you don't understand why someone might feel that way.) Besides the invasion of privacy for all involved, the expenditure of court resources would be a waste. I would rather simply tell the 19 year old he screws 15 year olds, he does so at his peril. If he cannot get action elsewhere, tough. Let him (and it is almost always a him) wait until she is a few months older.

And saying "she lied!" cannot clear you when drawing bright lines to avoid the sort of wasteful, invasive inquiry I prefer to avoid.

On the issue of whether this particular guy should get in trouble under that law, it is commonly known, or at least should be, that "she lied" is no defense to the legal charges. It has been the law for quite some time, as I understand the matter. Again, it is not to much to say "f-ck with care, people." and hold people responsible for knowing the real ages of people they have sex with. It goes along with issues of consent and similar limits. Be aware of our society's concept of "consent", or you will be held responsible for not respecting it. Welcome to adult playtime, people.

That said, perhaps greater awareness of "jailbait" laws are needed. People were pretty familiar with them when I was a teen. I suspect that statutory rape laws are also part of the sex education classes in many schools. They were way back in the stone age when I went to school. I would support expanding that part of the curriculum if other places do not discuss it to help teens entering puberty understand these laws.

Stepping even further back from the immediate case, it is well within society's discretion to tell adults not to play in the shallow end of the dating pool. And it is well within society's discretion to draw the line at 18 and 16. Teens need some time to figure out the dating game, and the statutory rape laws help give them some space to do that without having older people (usually guys) too overtly involved. Statutory rape laws are also a recognition of the fact that even if the law did not prohibit older guys from macking on 13-16 year olds, fathers, brothers, mothers et al would too often step in to protect younger gals. And if the laws did not help them, then damn the laws about assault and battery, they would say.

So rather than have fathers kicking the crap out of suitors, we put in statutory rape laws to enforce societal expectations that older guys will stay away from girls turning into women.

All that said, prosecutors and judges need to be able to step back and see when a situation is just not one for prosecution. That involves judgment on the part of prosecutors. They will sometimes have an error of judgment and prosecute where they should not. The way to avoid that is to not have sex with under-age people, so this case is on the kid for not being careful about where he stuck his junk. But that mistake having been made, the prosecutor should apply some care as to whether the guy was really predatory, or just a hormone-soaked teen with a girlfriend three weeks shy of the cut-off date. The judge should also play a role by talking sense to the prosecutor if (s)he is a true believer on the matter. Finally, we can all play a role by expressing our doubt about whether a guy is really guilty of a crime in this situation. As more people do that, pressure builds on the states to get realistic once again.

Texas Penal Code Section 21.11 provides that it is a crime to have consensual sex with a minor but also provides a special defense: " It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor is not more than 3 years older than the victim."

In other words, prosecutors won't even take a teen age sex case if either person is within 3 years of age of the other. This law protects 95% of all teen sex acts that could possibly be labeled crimes in other jurisdictions. Sadly, this law won't protect an 18 year old who has sex with a lying 14 year old.

But, get your legislators to pass a similar law and problem mostly solved.

One of the worst examples of society-wide hypocrisy is the confusion of pedophilia and hebephilia. Then, add in the term "child molester," and we've got ourselves a trifecta of ignorance.

Technically, any young adult man having sex with a minor who can't consent is a child molester and statutory rapist. But that doesn't make him a pedophile, it makes him an hebephile---just like the rest of us.

Pedophilia is about prepubescent children; hebephilia is about pubescent youth. As Amy wrote above, this young man isn't your uncle Chester, trying to stick his hand down your diaper.

Hebephilia is so omnipresent that it is scarcely visible anymore. The fashion and beauty industry uses fourteen year-olds to sell clothes, accessories, makeup, skin cream, to women. Let me repeat. Women are the market, and fourteen year-old Kate Moss clones are the tool. Fashion is but the most glaring example among many.

We are all hebephiles. We all, men and women, like to look at freshly-fertile young females, whether to imagine that we are them, or to be with them. We want them to star in our movies, sell us things, sing our pop music, and win medals in gymnastics, while we admire them for doing so. We are all hypocrites when an eighteen year-old goes to jail for sex with a teenage girl.

Texas Penal Code Section 21.11 provides that it is a crime to have consensual sex with a minor but also provides a special defense: " It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor is not more than 3 years older than the victim."

In other words, prosecutors won't even take a teen age sex case if either person is within 3 years of age of the other.

This is also the law in Arizona, with an additional affirmative defense if both parties are high school students. So even if the age difference is more than three years, an eighteen-year-old senior having consensual sex with a 14-year-old freshman isn't going to face this nightmare.

"On the issue of whether this particular guy should get in trouble under that law, it is commonly known, or at least should be, that "she lied" is no defense to the legal charges. It has been the law for quite some time, as I understand the matter."

Indeed Spartee, the problem I've had with that legal theory and its application in modern law/society is, we (the people aka gov) have no problem going after teens/kids who commit heinous crimes. Crimes like murder or assault or late term abortion (one boy got sent away after causing his gf's abortion via baseball bat, done at her request mind you) but we won't consider kids adults when they lie about something that does lead to a crime.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but here it goes. Statutory rape laws are a good thing, as Spartee pointed out. The problem lies with the sex offender registry, and how every crime that remotely has to do with sex can land someone on the list. And if it involves sex with a minor, it is lumped together with the child molesters. If the sex offender list can't be limited to forcible rapists and child molesters (in other words, the people everyone THINKS are on the list), then it should not exist at all. Otherwise, the result is this: "Oh My God, there are 170 sex offenders in town!!! I better lock up my kids and throw away the key!"

"Sadly, this law won't protect an 18 year old who has sex with a lying 14 year old."

By and large, I think most people agree that we, as a society, currently prefer to not permit seniors in high school to freely engage in sex with 8th graders.

Moreover, providing a "(s)he lied!" defense would likely turn statutory rape trials into a trial over whether a 12-13-14 year old lied to an 17-18-19 year old. That seems like a pretty stupid way to deal with the matter, if the goal is to keep the 18 year from freely having sex with 8th graders--which is our goal, I think.

The current policy puts it on the 18 year old to know the age of someone who he or she is having sex with. Is that outrageous? I don't think so.

And the fact that some young men do not know the ages of their sex partners is not convicing evidence that our expectation is outrageous.

If there is any concern about age--and clearly people had prior concerns when they later claim inquiry was followed by subterfuge--sex can be put off until age is verified. After all, it is not like teens slip on some ice and suddenly find themselves boning a 14 year old. Planning *is* involved.

Absent age verification, we can assume the older person is knowingly accepting the risk, as the rules are so well known that ignorance really is not a reasonable excuse, let alone a legal one.

That said, this guy doesn't deserve a life of BS for this. But his case does not invalidate the entirety of statutory rape laws, even when they are applied to 18 year olds like him.

Moreover, providing a "(s)he lied!" defense would likely turn statutory rape trials into a trial over whether a 12-13-14 year old lied to an 17-18-19 year old.

The only caveat I would insert to this idea is when the two future sex partners meet in a place where the assumption is that the person is of legal age. If the two meet at a local 21 and over club, it is reasonable to assume that all parties there are 21 and over. If it is college night, not so much. Easily provable due diligence is different than turning every trial into a 'who lied to whom'.

However, I agree that sex offender registries are useless. Unless the registry requirement runs concurrent to parole/probation, what is the point?

-Julie

Something tells me if this guy was the son of a politician or judge this would never have made it to court.

This is another situation where "old fashioned" sexual ethics would have saved much heartbreak.

"The only caveat I would insert to this idea is when the two future sex partners meet in a place where the assumption is that the person is of legal age."

You thus bring the "perpetrator's" state of mind into the matter: did (s)he reasonably believe the "victim" was above the age?

Under current law, that doesn't matter, and it is that way for a reason. It doesn't matter because if it matters, it permits--hell, invites--court inquiry into the victim's conduct prior to the crime.

If it matters where they meet, the prosecution must now address the issue. And if there is a dispute (and there will be unless it is impossible to dispute), you have a trial to consider meetings. But hold on, one meeting is not the case. Typcially there will be multiple meetings. Where did they meet when they had sex, if that is different? Did they meet seven times, or just twice? How many times did they meet in a "adult" venue? At what time of day, adult only, or kids permitted times? Is that testimony consistent across witnesses? No? Oh, now let's inquire into whether the 14 year old is a liar generally, since now we must weigh her testimony as to meetings versus his. Hey, the guy's right to a fair trial is at stake here! Etc.

Morover, what sort of place qualifies as an adult venue? A liquor store? How about an AA meeting? The church basement while a divorce support group for young mothers is going on upstairs? A mall after 11 pm? Etc. In sum, what is a reasonable venue for a person to assume the person is of legal age? Very fact dependent inquiry.

As you move from bright lines--older party is responsible for the age of the younger--the obvious and natural response is for a defendant to engage in a searing inquiry into the matter, to make parents and the underage sex partner horrified at engaging a public examination of the matter. For similar reasons, we passed rape shield laws back in the day, to keep these sorts of terror-attack court defenses out of the system.

Every 55 year old busted for statutory rape can claim the benefit of the same break you want to give a 19 year old, unless you want to age-out defendants. (Of course, that creates another bright line you have to defend against unfairness.) So you get old guys engaging in "take-no-prisoners" criminal trials about meeting too-young gals to avoid being labeled sex offenders.

All of that expected ugliness is likely why the law defaults to a "no excuses" rule in statutory rape. We simply do not want to open up near-children to that sort of inquiry when the other option is to say to the adult, "you are responsible for knowing who you are have sex with."

Frankly, the more I consider it, the more I like the bright line approach we have now. Just get rid of the more draconian parts of the sex offender registry stuff, and I can live with 18 year olds being told they risk bad outcomes if caught having sex with 15 year olds, regardless of what they claim was said to them about age.

Neither of these people should be on a sexual offender register. Lair or not, the girl is still a 15-year-old child and she needs protection, even if she's too stupid for the time being to know it.

However I wish states had liar registers - once you have been shown to have made a false sworn statement, your name goes onto the register and from then on your signature or sworn statement no longer has any legal force. No jail time to cost and cost and cost the rest of us, no chance of being brutalized in the prsion system, but form then on the rest of society is protected from you. Your name is just one search away. Also, no more signing for your own apartment or mortgage, no more signing your ballot - nothing. bring a witness along, each and every goddammed time, until the day you die.

I realize the hardship this will work on used car salesmen and such, so I guess that's a side benefit.

It wouldn't have saved this guy unless he got her to swear in front of witnesses. I guess we all just have to travel in packs to protect each other.

We have research that shows that teen brains are not fully developed in their abilities to make good judgements. Supposedly that is part of the justification for not treating them as adults, for example prohibiting them from buying or consuming alcohol.

So how can it be OK to wreck their lives over the inability to distinguish between a 15 year old, and a 16 year old?

So how can it be OK to wreck their lives over the inability to distinguish between a 15 year old, and a 16 year old?

It can be difficult enough for an adult to do so, in some cases. I struck up a conversation with a woman at a temporary work assignment, and things were going well, and I swear that woman looked to be in her thirties, same as I was. But guess what, she turned out to be seventeen. I'm glad I found out before things went further (if they were even destined to do so).

"So how can it be OK to wreck their lives over the inability to distinguish between a 15 year old, and a 16 year old?"

You are forgetting the gender angle. In law enforcement and on the bench, men predominate - grossly, disproportionately. And how do middle-aged men see teneaged boys? As reflections of their own fantasies of what they were at that age - dumb young studs, endlessly horny and predatory. And how do they see teenaged girls? As their own blameless, innocent little daughters, unspotted from the world.

This is what you get when men run things - women get protected like frail little porcelain figurines, and lower-status males are expendable cannon-fodder.

There are so many things wrong with the way we handle these things.

Unfortunately, most dialogue turns into "if he kept his pants up he wouldn't be in this situation" or "her lying is not an excuse" etc. Fine, I wish every teenager kept their pants up, but that is a separate issue from whether or not a 90 year old man should be a sex offender because 72 years ago some 5'9" female with a size C bra and curves that would shame Nascar lied about her age the day before her birthday. The lack of empathy we have when punishment of males doesn't fit the crime is staggering.

Consider also the following.

The authorities often use information collected for investigating juveniles then use it to prosecute them as adults.

The authorities get people to sign confessions to the act, then after the signature tell them she was younger than he thought when the confession was signed. (Tell them what they are really signing a confession to after they sign it.)

The sex offender registry is full of errors, and often doesn't distinguish between a 30 year old that rapes a 9 year old and a someone who has sex on their 18th birthday with a girl who lied about her age the day before her 16th birthday.

Often, they wait until the statute of limitations is often up to prosecute, so if someone does something stupid at 18, they wait until he us 24 standing in court charged with a "crime" against a 16 year old. Doesn't help the perception.

We've lost our senses. There is a huge difference between someone who has consentual sex with an eager to participate 16 year old and someone who rapes a child. I'm not saying that it is okay to have sex with young people, but to equate it with violent rape or outright pedophilia is staggering in its ignorance.

We really need to overhaul this system (and our brains).

Here it is that they have to be within 24 months of age and older then some age or both over 18 years old.

A friend of mine met a 17 year old in bar and started dating her (he was 21 and she told him she was also 21). He later found out how young she was but by that time she was 18. Luckly nothing came of that for him. Scarey though.

I know by coverage of a trial here a while back that at least here, state issued id (or faked state issue id) is a potential defense (at least in part). The under-age girl ran off and could not be found. The accused claimed that she had shown to him a birth-certificate that indicated she was 18 but he had no proof. The mother admitted that she had taken real looking fake documents from her daughter before. The court would not allow the jury to hear this because there was no proof - if the accused had taken a photo copy that he could then show the court that would have changed things. That was the big deal in all the news coverage. It was unclear how it would have changed things - some of the things he was charged with are illegal regardless of the age of the other person. They were clearly less charges though. One of them was something like "illegal imprisonment" but was different because the individual had argeed to it before hand. I don't know what finally happened, he kept getting convicted and then winning appeals on this or that - but not to my knowledge over the age issue.

lujlp writes: Can I just say, had this ever happened to me I'd have killed the procecuter in my case, the judge, the parents of my "victim" the cops involved in my case and as many of the jurors I could track down.

Perhaps if the people who so cavelierly destroy lives had their own lives destroyed in turn we would see less of this.

Not to say I am advocaing murder.

The hell you're not...

"This is another situation where "old fashioned" sexual ethics would have saved much heartbreak."

Absolutely right. People used to get married when they were 14, because married 14 year old naughty bits are sanctified, and thus, porkable in the eyes of a vengeful god (or government, same thing).

Thanks for getting the word out! This is injustice mixed with Puritanism and baked into a putrid pie by some scaredy cat lawmakers who want to look like they "care" about kids. They care so much that they're turning them into sex offenders. -- Lenore "Free-Range Kids" Skenazy

The hell you're not...

Posted by: Patrick

Legal disclaimer Patrick.

Ans Spartee you are a dispicable human being.

You have written that you would rather sent a child to jail rather than take the time to find out the truth of the matter because it might upset the sensibilites of the girl who lied about her age

WHAT THE FUCK IS WORNG WITH YOU?

I am not advocating this as it would be breaking the law, many laws in fact.

But I suppose one could use an anynomus pre paid cell phone to send picuters of underage girls to the judges and prosecutors phones in these types of cases and then call the cops and report them for possesion of child pornography

Listen, I got no bias on this cutting either way. I don't think children should be sexually pestered, nor should the larger society be micromanaging the underpants of young people who need to find their own paths through these matters...

But whenever I read "a girl he thinks is 16" My flesh starts to crawl... Like we're supposed to care how "Jeez, judge, in that low-cut blouse, you just couldn't tell!" Like were supposed to ask other people in the bar that night how old she appeared to be. Like we're supposed share his fascination, and investigate it.

No.

And this is the same sort of excuse-making you hear from all sorts of people who bungled their pairings: "Well, you just never know whether an alcoholic high school dropout with a long list of priors is going to pull his shit together at age 20 and become a loving husband" etc.

No

When someone kills another human being, we rightly distinguish between murder and manslaughter. We (usually) have the sense to know the difference between the premeditated intentional taking of one's life and inadvertently killing someone because of an accident or mistake. We should do the same thing with the word "rape." It has been cheapened.

When I first understood what the word meant, I would recoil in horror when I would hear of a woman being raped, which I believed meant she was violently forced to have sex against her will. Now I have to ask "what happened?" They may just mean she regretted it the next day, misrepresented her age, or maybe had regrets a few days later.

We've raped the word rape.

My aunt joined one of those big/little sister mentoring programs for a local orphanage a few yrs ago.

The firt night I met my aunts charge I was wondering why she got an 18 yr old as opposed to someone younger who would need the help more.

This girl was 5'8" 38c 30 34, and was 14. I found that out about a month later when she talked about looking forward to taking drivers ed.

With a fake ID she could have passed for 18, 19 easy. In a poorly lit bar she could have gotten served.

Until such time as the government offers courses in illegal document dectection(complete with blacklight portable scanner with linkup to a governmetn document database) why is "she had an ID showing her to be of age" not a useable defense?

Why is "she said she was old enough" not a defense.

Until then take a picture of the driver licence, and get them on camera claiming to be of age and agreeing to have sex

Ofcousre even then you might have the misfortune of running across a woman who will refuse and the cry rape when you rightly refuse to have sex.

@Original Post: "This is where you need legislators who aren't just about pandering for votes to take the initiative to make a righteous change in the law. "
___________

I think what is scary is that there is actually a significant constituency that this panders to, since I think imprisoning and permanently branding young boys for life for stupidity is nothing short of criminal.

Spartee: "Under current law, that doesn't matter, and it is that way for a reason. It doesn't matter because if it matters, it permits--hell, invites--court inquiry into the victim's conduct prior to the crime.

If it matters where they meet, the prosecution must now address the issue."

And again, we have courts/DAs/judges that are having no effing problem using the who/what/where and spinning it in their favor, often while blocking defense strategies via onerous rape shield laws. Goodbye reasonable doubt options.

Look at the Fitzroy Barnaby case in Illinois. IIRC, in his appeal given the way the law was written the judge supposedly had no choice but to put him on the offender list just because "unlawful restraint" of a minor was a prelude to molesting (via the law as written by idiot state reps and supporters). The judge couldn't read his mind either, yet the law itself was written as if reading into the minds of everyone who "restrains a minor". Letter of the law bullshit vs spirit of the law.

"I think what is scary is that there is actually a significant constituency that this panders to, since I think imprisoning and permanently branding young boys for life for stupidity is nothing short of criminal."

I don't think there really is such a constituency. I think the problem is, as someone said up-thread (can't find it at the moment) most people have been led to believe by the media and their reps that the sex offender registry consists solely of middle-age men who diddle 6-year-olds. They are not aware of the incredible range of crimes, assumed crimes, and not-really-crimes that can land someone on the registry. For example, incest is a sex crime in most states, and so a 30-year-old man who has sex with his 28-year-old cousin will wind up on the registry, even though the sex was totally consensual and not even slightly deviant.

The registries came about due to the well-known fact that real pedophiles have a recidivism rate of close to 100%. However, what it has become is a way to sidestep the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment -- in effect, it's a social banishment. In most urban and semi-urban areas, it's impossible to find a residence that doesn't fall into one of the registry's numerous ban zones. It forces people on the registry to either live way out in the sticks, or go underground. It's a life destroyer, and a far worse punishment than that faced by many murderers or armed robbers.

Lujlp - And exactly how did you come to know the precise measurements of a 14-year-old girl, down to her cup size? Ick.

What I want to know is why 12-year-olds are apparently mature enough to go to prison for life, or at least be tried as adults in adult court, but 17-year-olds (old enough to drive in most jurisdictions that I know of in the US) aren't old enough to have sex.

And how it was that 13-year-old midshipmen, back in the days of fighting sail, were routinely given command of prize ships (basically, you had a midshipman, a few sailors from his ship, and the captured ship's crew to do most of the heavy lifting) and expected to bring them in to port---and did it. As a matter of routine. Were 13-year-olds different then? (By the end of the very well-done movie Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Mister Blakeney, a midshipman too young to be shaving regularly, is a war-wounded combat veteran...was he too young to have sex?)

To Spartee and KarenW: Thanks. Well said.

Let's face it, any defendant can lie and say the victim lied about age. If the "lying" victim were your child chances are you wouldn't be so sympathetic.

Besides, I've heard that even if you're a law-abiding citizen, you can go to jail for receiving stolen property if there's a reasonable chance you knew it was stolen. What's the difference? Ignorance, willful or not, should not be an excuse.

(I DO think we need two different types of "sex offender" registries - the lesser one would be for those caught urinating in allies, for example. However, if we're going to have statutory rape laws at all, the age difference cannot be less than three years, IMO.)

Lujlp - And exactly how did you come to know the precise measurements of a 14-year-old girl, down to her cup size? Ick.

Posted by: MomofRae

Because the girl who I thought was a month away from graduating high school was wearing clothing that left nothing to the imagination.

And being the only guy in a houseful of women for a few yrs growing up I picked up mesurments quickly.

Nice on the 'Ick' though. I mean after all as a man it is 'my responsibility' to magically devine the age of every girl taller than my mother & wearing clothes that would have gotten her arrested on a street corner and tits bigger than most porn stars.

But its my fault for not knowing at the momnet I met her what her age was, right?

Fuck you

Besides, I've heard that even if you're a law-abiding citizen, you can go to jail for receiving stolen property if there's a reasonable chance you knew it was stolen. What's the difference? Ignorance, willful or not, should not be an excuse. -- lenona

The difference is huge. There the prosecuter has to show that the accused had a reason to think that the property was stolen. For example, they knew that the giver was a thief. With the under-age rape, the accused is assumed to have known the individual was under-age -- even if there is evidence to the opposite. The only potential mitigating evident is if the accused can show that they were shown "good enough" fake state issued identification - like they have a photo copy of it.

Let's look at some of the last few months posts and you can see how this shit happens.

The case Amy blogged about where the 4x yr old woman bought sudafed twice in a week. She was prosecuted for being a drug dealer/ producer. If the prosecutor had passed, she would have been soft on crime come election time.

Judges face the same situation.

I can't remember the other blog, but it boils down to dismissing a case, the judicial system los "weak".

That's what sucks.

"I don't think there really is such a constituency. I think the problem is, as someone said up-thread (can't find it at the moment) most people have been led to believe by the media and their reps that the sex offender registry consists solely of middle-age men who diddle 6-year-olds."
____________

I don't know about that. Browse some blogs, mostly left wing blogs, and see the reaction to things like this. We even see it here from time to time:

"If he kept it in his pants, he wouldn't have this problem."

"He ejaculated, so he's responsible"

See the reaction if you criticize the anti-male divorce laws (the flee and fleece with huge cash and assets).

Obviously, not all women are like this. But, two things have become obvious to me:
1) the lack of empathy towards males who get shafted is staggering, especially from members of the self-proclaimed "more compassionate empathetic and civil gender"
2) I think many women like laws like these rape laws and divorce theft. Not that they agree with them, but they enjoy the power to punish a man who dumps them or who they dump through divorce laws, punish other males through biased "rape" laws (even if there is no rape)

I have yet to get a coherent argument from a feminist why they hold fast to all of the following:
1) it is unacceptable for a woman to have to remain pregnant for 9 months over a mistake, yet
2) it is acceptable for an 18 year old to be punished for his entire life over a mistake with someone who led him to believe she was 16 when she was really 16 minus one day.
And of course
A) a wife should have no obligations to her husband in marriage, yet
B) a husband should be obligated to his wife for life, even if she cheats on him and moves another man into the house he's paying for with his kids that he's paying for.

Modern feminism isn't about equality, if it was, fathers would have equal shot at custody and men could opt out of fatherhood, and men wouldn't be 25 times more likely to go to prison for inappropriately fondling a child as a woman is for maiming or killing one, to cite but a few examples. Modern feminism is about power, which is why there is such widespread support for civil and criminal atrocities against males.

Well said lujlp. Putting all responsibility for determining age on the man is ridiculously unfair given the age at which some girls mature. Reasonable caution yes, but if someone lies to you what are you supposed to do? And there's nothing wrong with having a fair idea of someone's measurements if they're on display, doesn't make you a perv or a pedophile. It all comes down to attitude - I've told 13 year old girls they were pretty in front of their mothers and no one was concerned, because my complete lack of intentions was obvious. Just compliments to people I had known since they were younger. And yes that puts me in technically the highest risk category for abuse. And I don't give a shit.

> if someone lies to you what
> are you supposed to do?

Go out with someone who won't lie to you.

Go out with someone who won't lie to you.

How do you know that for 100% sure beforehand Crid? Of course if you start seeing a pattern and stick your head in the sand that's stupid, and you can often judge peoples character pretty well up front by their behaviour - but anyone can get conned.

> How do you know that for 100% sure beforehand

You're a big boy: Figure it out.

Everybody loves tail... Including the young and pretty kind.

But when men, presumably grown ones, old enough to vote and licensed to drive, ask "if someone lies to you what are you supposed to do?", I wonder what they think sex and jurisprudence are supposed to be about. Are you really going to convince people that a young woman had you so deceived that you let your feelings get into a full NASA countdown, where –by golly– there was no turning back?

Do you think anyone in the world –especially the fellow adults who'd be judging you in a court of law for such misconduct– would ever want to hear that shit out of you? Do you imagine that any man whose judgment about this was truly cloudy wouldn't use "She lied about it!" as an excuse, if the thought it could find traction?

Do you truly, truly move through your years of maturity in the belief that very young (but sexually alluring) women are eager to "con" you? Is your candy so sweet that little girls will viciously warp the criminal justice system just to take a lick?

Dude. Seriously.

> if someone lies to you what > are you supposed to do?

Go out with someone who won't lie to you.

Are you really the one to be giving such advice?

Is your candy so sweet that little girls will viciously warp the criminal justice system just to take a lick?

Actual t-shirt seen on 15 year old with large tits: "Admit it. You'd do time for this."

I do agree that people should be certain to know one's age before hand, and teenagers should keep their pants on.

That's a seperate issue from whether or not someone should serve jail time and be labeled a sex offender for several decades over it.

Where are the feminists who often say "girls are more mature than boys?" Don't we learn in school that older boys and yonger girls are the same mental age? (total silence from the femi-dolts)

Hang on - we were talking about an 18 year old who gets lied to by a 15 year old, not me. By the time he finds out she's a liar, it's too bloody late, he's already fucked. Did you demand ID and birth certificates at that age?

In this country, you could easily meet her in a bar (drinking age 18 officially, in practice 16). Ok, it sounds nice to say you should figure it out and know someone first, but it doesn't always work out that way.

And no it's never happened to me. I just have a lot of sympathy for people who get a quick legover from someone who says they are of age then gets branded for life while the other willing participant walks. I don't think the "you're a big boy" theory works very well in that case when the consequences are so severe.

Maybe "conned" was the wrong word Crid. I don't think it's meant to be malicious. But young girls do lie about their age to appear more grown up. Again, how can you be sure if you're an 18 year old cruising bars?

Well that's some party trick, Lujlp. I'm a woman, grew up in a house of women except for my dad, have lots of female friends, and couldn't possibly divine those precise measurements down to cup size. Like I said, ick.

And nowhere did I say men should be able to divine a girl's age, especially when she's dressed to confuse or got a fake ID. But a little wariness wouldn't be out of the question, given that this has been happening for as long as teenage girls have been aching to be older.

You want to see another trick? Oh wait you cant see that

Oh well - fuck you

> Are you really the one to be
> giving such advice?

Yes. Nobody ever lied to me, and there was never any danger that anyone would. (Did you intend defamation? Some commenters here have been trying to crank up the personal invective to a new level for the holidays.) I have no threatening enthusiasm for young girls, and think society oughta protect them: Tamping down silly chatter about how 'you can never tell' is part of that work.

> Actual t-shirt seen on 15 year
> old with large tits

So you and LTW are tormented by conniving Lolitas. Must be Hell... The last time I felt personal interest for a 15 year old –or the jokes on her "actual t-shirt"– I was 16. (Didn't work out, but by autumn I found a senior at the school who *really* liked me.) Brian, you've always written sarcastically about romantic matters, as if any bond between adults is a thinly disguised commercial arrangement. I've wondered why you want to be admired for resisting attachment impulses; perhaps we've found a reason.

> Again, how can you be sure if
> you're an 18 year old
> cruising bars?

If you're an 18 year old, most states won't let you into a bar anyway. And even if yours does, you'd be expected to be attentive to that boundary. And as Paglia has so often noted, "cruising" is a risky set of behaviors for people of both sexes and preferences. Protecting adults who are so willfully pursuing their personal liberty may not be the best use of public energy.

> we were talking about an 18 year
> old who gets lied to by a 15
> year old, not me.

Amy can post whatever she wants, and I'm not contesting her perspective on this. Meanwhile, I don't see why those guys can't protect themselves the same way I did; readily and perfectly.

There are many punishing challenges in life which last for only a year or two, tops. But if the option is hearing 18-year-old men (and ONLY 18-year-old men) whine that clever 15-year-old vixens are toiling to entrap them, I'd rather sympathize with 50-ish women who complain about hot flashes (as I've had occasion to do in recent years). The women aren't demonstrating an attitude problem, or pretending their hazards are an injustice that the rest of the world needs to attend to.

> But young girls do lie

Not very many; not to men who'd care anyway; not so convincingly that a sensible guy would be fooled; not nearly as often as fevered fantasies suggest.

So you and LTW are tormented by conniving Lolitas

Crid, I'd like to see you point out where I even implied that. All I said was I don't think anyone should get a lifetime punishment on a sex offender registry because their partner is a few months from their 16th birthday. Maybe you need to think about what you say before you start accusing others of defamation.

Amy can post whatever she wants, and I'm not contesting her perspective on this. Meanwhile, I don't see why those guys can't protect themselves the same way I did; readily and perfectly.

But you are contesting her opinion, go read it again... Well done for being perfect by the way, I congratulate you.

If you're an 18 year old, most states won't let you into a bar anyway.

You must have forgotten to read the bit where I said I'm from a different country. Which makes my point somewhat divergent from the original article I admit - but it was an example that maybe it's hard to tell in some circumstances. And it doesn't have to be in a bar, you can meet women at the mall too, go out on a few dates with them, and still maybe not know them well enough to know whether they're pretending to be older than they are. Your point seems to be society should protect young girls by assuming male guilt when caught - but an automatic lifetime sentence is harsh. I still think the "you should have known" argument is not fair, even if you think having to exercise judgement will muddy the waters. Of course it will. That's the hard part of jurisprudence.

Once more with quote marks...just to clarify

>So you and LTW are tormented by conniving Lolita

Crid, I'd like to see you point out where I even implied that. All I said was I don't think anyone should get a lifetime punishment on a sex offender registry because their partner is a few months from their 16th birthday. Maybe you need to think about what you say before you start accusing others of defamation.

>Amy can post whatever she wants, and I'm not contesting her perspective on this. Meanwhile, I don't see why those guys can't protect themselves the same way I did; readily and perfectly.

But you are contesting her opinion, go read it again... Well done for being perfect by the way, I congratulate you.

>If you're an 18 year old, most states won't let you into a bar anyway.

You must have forgotten to read the bit where I said I'm from a different country. Which makes my point somewhat divergent from the original article I admit - but it was an example that maybe it's hard to tell in some circumstances. And it doesn't have to be in a bar, you can meet women at the mall too, go out on a few dates with them, and still maybe not know them well enough to know whether they're pretending to be older than they are. Your point seems to be society should protect young girls by assuming male guilt when caught - but an automatic lifetime sentence is harsh. I still think the "you should have known" argument is not fair, even if you think having to exercise judgement will muddy the waters. Of course it will. That's the hard part of jurisprudence.

If you're not into it, then we're all happy that I'm wrong, and my apology for maligning you is sincere...

But let's drop the stupidities about "if someone lies to you what are you supposed to do?", shall we? Being "lied" to by a child isn't exonerative: If she told you she was Catwoman, would the jury excuse you for letting her jump off a building?

> But you are contesting her opinion,
> go read it again...

I never bother with the videos. (You'll have noticed that I often speed through the comments.) Amy's argument is fine so far as it goes for this specific case, but it's a difficult thing to care about a lot. My argument is with others, nearly always men, who weakly but loudly extrapolate.

> That's the hard part of jurisprudence.

When I get called to this jury, you'll be delighted by the ease and speed of our deliberation.

Thanks for your highly qualified apology Crid. Very kind of you.

I never bother with the videos. (You'll have noticed that I often speed through the comments.)

Probably why you make very little sense. Juries decide guilt, but the judge decides the sentence (in most Western countries at least, mine and yours included). The point of allowing discretion to the judge/magistrate is to appropriately deal with specific cases like this. The jury has no choice but to convict, you have obviously broken the law, but the judge can take into account mitigating circumstances. The sex offender registry concept destroys that, it's effectively mandatory sentencing leaving the judge no leeway.

Being "lied" to by a child isn't exonerative

Both UK (by extension the rest of the Commonwealth, including Australia where I live) and US law used to be based on the "reasonable man" defense - if you could show you had reason to believe what you were doing was legal that was considered a valid defense. The bar was always high for this (rightly so) so it's risky but it should still apply. Your black and white interpretation - guy meets girl, one or the other finds out later the other was underage - does it matter which? - then your life is fucked approach is exactly what Amy was objecting to. Mandatory sentencing results in exactly this specific situation.

This is a verge; Somebody has to be an adult. Who gets the responsibility?

I say we give it to the older person. Tidy, fast, clear. OK, so we 'bout done here? Yes? Great! I just woke up. Time for 'nog, bay-bee!

Saying 'She lied to me, so I fucked her lights out!' isn't something a "reasonable man" would do. Besides, law used to be about Hammurabi and worse... So what? (E.g.: "The structure of the code is very specific, with each offense receiving a specified punishment.") As noted above (twice), part of the problem with this whining is that these "men" are asking for one last indulgence of childhood from strangers who ought not be bothered; they want society to take a seemingly parental interest in their perceptions, as if they hadn't known that this could be a problem.

No. You wanna be an adult, be an adult. Lord knows we need all the grownups we can get.

Besides —

> Your black and white interpretation
> - guy meets girl, one or the other
> finds out later the other was underage
> - does it matter which?

What the fuck does that even mean?

Be a big boy: Stop pretending a man could be surprised. Stop pretending the light was bad and the room was noisy; stop pretending there wasn't time to investigate. There's a very good reason that you're not identifying the precise force which compelled the man to break the law.

I think you're trying to use the plot of a porno movie as the basis for what's "reasonable"... After all, those are the dreams we all share, right?

Well, buddy, showbiz is never the good way to go for this sort of thing.

Hello Lenore!

I just watched the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode about stranger danger a few days ago. I read your article about Izzy taking the subway when you first wrote it, and I was also blown away by the vociferous reaction. You'd have thought you had abandoned him on the Serengeti wrapped in steaks or something. Your son has the most amazing hair ever, by the way.

Crid-I think you're right. In this gray area, someone does have to take responsibility, at least until our sexual predator laws become less stupid (don't hold your breath for that). This has come up a couple times on this blog recently (the article about the guy in the UK who picked up that drunk girl, etc.) and in each case, none of the guys showed a lot of common sense.

That is not to say that I think their sentences were justified, they weren't. Our legal system is ridiculously broken when it comes to sex offender laws, and I believe that the way they are enforced actually endangers children. After all, who has time to run after actual pedophiles when you're busy hounding guys who got on the list after banging their slightly-younger girlfriends as teenagers?

And as for all the posts here about girls who look a lot older than they are-so fucking what? They can't help being a D cup, but you'd think they were deliberately growing big ole' boobies just to entrap guys from the way people are writing about them. Having big titties is not the same as having a fake ID or lying about your age to some guy. And a teenager wearing a suggestive t-shirt does not force you to climb on top of her.

I look a lot (I mean a lot) younger than I am. I get hit on by high school guys a lot, particularly in the city here (I shop at a couple record and thrift stores that are local punk kid hangouts). I still get carded everywhere. But I'm not going to jump on some high school kid, and I'm not such a dumbass that I can't tell when one is misrepresenting his age. But then, I'm not a horny 18 year old anymore.

To reiterate: We definitely need at least two different types of "sex offender" registries - with different NAMES. It's probably safe to say, after all, that statutory rape cases where the parties are within four years of each other are not, most of the time, about predatory behavior. In such close-age cases, those convicted could go into the lesser registry.

(Besides, I don't know all the details of the Roman Polanski case, but given HIS age at the time, do we want to hear any excuses from him? I hope not. Does ANYONE want to hear excuses when the victim is 13, no matter what she said or looked like?)

One thing not mentioned here so far is how men's rights' activists (MRAs) are becoming more and more unhappy about the slap on the wrist given to women who seduce boys - especially, of course, when the women become pregnant and demand child support. While the MRAs are not comfortable with the harsh penalties imposed on male (or female) seducers who are only four years older or less, I think it's plain that unless we stay strict about automatically calling it statutory rape when there IS a three-year difference or more, the MRAs are never going to get any sympathy, even regarding cases when the boy is 13 and she's 30.

Crid, I suggest you actually read what I write rather than project your fevered imagination onto me. I did specifically say that I would expect a jury to convict, so you can stop trying to convince me about who should bear the responsibility. But circumstances should permit the judge leniency in sentencing, and I agree with Amy's point that the law should be changed to distinguish between horny teenagers having sex and the real predators. In the same way that degrees of murder/manslaughter are recognised. (Thank you lenona for making that point clearer.)

>> Your black and white interpretation
>> - guy meets girl, one or the other
>> finds out later the other was underage
>> - does it matter which?

>What the fuck does that even mean?

I was unclear there I'll admit, what I meant was would it matter whether it was the boy or girl who was underage. No more, no less. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. But if you're not sure what I mean, just ask. (Thank you again lenona for your more intelligent comment on the differing attitudes to underage boys vs girls).

>I think you're trying to use the plot of a porno movie as the basis for what's "reasonable"... After all, those are the dreams we all share, right?

All I can say to that is I have no idea where you got that from, and fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Your dreams are no business of mine.

I'll make it very simple for you - I don't think an 18 year old and 15 year old having sex merits lifetime punishment for either party. I don't even think it's all that bad, people get attracted inadvisably, believe they love each other, do things they shouldn't - not every 18 year old is a predator. It might even be legal where I live - I'm not sure because I have no idea what our age of consent laws are these days, it's not relevant to me anymore. Contrary to what you seem to think, I don't have a fantasy about seducing teens.

> I don't think an 18 year old and
> 15 year old having sex merits
> lifetime punishment for either
> party.

I don't much disagree.

> Contrary to what you seem to
> think, I don't have a fantasy
> about seducing teens.

Golden. I love being wrong about that.

So, if you're retreating from the "what's the guy supposed to do", our work is done.

Again, two issues. The sex is wrong. The punishment for is even more wrong.

I also think it is wrong for a woman to lie to a man about being on birth control to trick him into pregnancy and financial obligations, but I wouldn't advocate making her register as a felon-gold-digging-sex-offender for the rest of her life either.

>So, if you're retreating from the "what's the guy supposed to do", our work is done.

I'm not retreating from anything Crid. That would be the reason for leniency I was talking about - and judges (not juries) get paid to tell the difference. Learn to read. Or argue. Or something. Actually addressing the points I make would be good. And not making up shit about stupid excuses like bad lighting etc that I never made would be even better.

Trust - why is the sex wrong? When I had sex at 15 with my 16 year old girlfriend and we were together for 6 years after that, was that wrong? What earthly difference would it have made if she or I had been a couple of years older? Her husband doesn't seem to care, I was MC at their wedding - why should you?

Creepy.

You want creepy asshole? They named their first son after me - first and middle names, and her maiden surname was the same as mine. So technically he has exactly the same name as me. Good reasons for all of that. You don't qualify to hear them.

They who? I'm talking about your argument, not your friends. You're creeping me out. Missing the cut on your best judgment might not be the nightmare you think it is.

Didn't really understand your comment there Crid - what was creepy about my argument? I really want to know. And I didn't get the last sentence at all. Please elaborate.

I ALREADY DID. Repetitively. You can read it again if you want.... Outta gas now. I'm certain you don't pester children: So let's not make space for people who do.