Absolutely outrageous.

Not sure I think his sentence is wrong or that society benefits from a lessor sentence.

Nothing he did is "right" and as in driving too fast on a motorcycle on busy or curvy roads bad stuff can happen.

Schools should make his situation known (he got screwed twice) and let the chips fall where they may.

That paragraph in one article says the judge ordered that the kid's probation be supervised in his state rather than the one where the kid lives. Reminds me of that situation awhile back where the judge was getting kickbacks for sentencing kids to a certain facility. Sounds like someone needs to take a look into this judge.
And that part where the mom asked the 14 year old where she was going all dressed up and the kid didn't answer, so she figured she must have just been going down the street, so she didn't push further...grrrr.

So just to be clear Bob in Texas, you think this guy deserves 25 years of hell and being forced to change is career, and be banned from the internet for five years becuase a woman lied to him?

But if the I.D. is fake and she is actually underage, you can still be convicted of statutory rape.

You can be convicted, I suppose, if the ID is fake and it is obviously a fake.

Now, what if she's using her older sister's ID?

I recall an incident back in the late 1980s, were DoJ was sure they were going to nail big name pr0n producers for producing child pr0n. Turns out that the "victim", Traci Lords had an actual government issued passport that showed her being above the age of consent, even if that was a lie.

Those prosecutors ended up yelling at clouds.

This is a procedural "crime", Bob.

I'm guessing that for a 19 year old, a 17 year old is perfectly legal. Maybe 17 is the age of consent for any partner she chooses of any age.

And remember: she chose to participate. She downloaded the app, she signed up for the service, she made/responded to contact and arranged to meet. But he has a penis, so he must be at fault.

He should sue her for fraud that caused him material harm.

That the judge is a jackass - no, excuse, me a fucking jackass (go ahead, send an arrest warrant for me, your dishonor) - is of no matter. The prosecutor thought it was a good idea to move forward with this.

Also, from hotornot's website:

If you are between the ages of 13 – 17, we are afraid you cannot chat or share photos with anyone above 17 years. If you are 18 years old or over, we do not allow you to start new conversations or share photos with anyone younger.

I wonder if this case had anything to do with that language, which presumably didn't apply at the time these two got together?

See, if she's 14, she's not legally capable of consent. Like it or not, that's how the law works. Hot or Not isn't a legal entity, their disclaimer isn't law. It isn't relevant which of them has a penis, it is relevant which was an adult. Suing her is an absurd suggestion. Isn't about her anyway, it's about his breaking the law, he was the adult. We can agree leniency was called for here, but most of society like the law just fine. Leniency was at the discretion of the judge, and he chose not to grant it.

Two points:
1. He knew the risks in what he was doing both age-wise and STD-wise. WTF should I care if he got burnt. He wanted to be a player and sometimes blood is drawn. You play w/knives you get cut. Damn whiner.

2. It's a serious subject and when it's not treated as such stuff happens. Google Rotherham child abuse and see a good example of racist fear combined w/cultural bias.

"... the report said police "regarded many child victims with contempt"."

"It lays out how Rotherham Council and the police knew about the level of child sexual exploitation in the town, but didn't do anything about it."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089

They either didn't believe what they were being told, played it down, or were too nervous to act. The failures, the report says, are blatant.

The report estimates 1,400 children were sexually exploited over 16 years, with one young person telling the report's author that gang rape was a usual part of growing up in Rotherham."

Bob in Texas, you've made it quite clear - you can't see the difference between one man having sex with a young woman who plotted and lied to get him into bed, and gang rape. You understand neither the difference between force and choice nor even the difference between one and many.

See, if she's 14, she's not legally capable of consent. Like it or not, that's how the law works.

Unless the 14yr old is a male

Suing her is an absurd suggestion.

Course were she a he and the guy a girl and she got pregnant she could sue for child support - so yes it is about his having a penis.

Also had the girl murdered someone they would have charge her as an adult.

Guy should have not pled, he should have filed a rape charge against her, as had he known her age he never would have slpet with her.

Then sued the DAs office for civil rights violations when they refused to prosecute.

Make the whole thing one giant cluster fuck in the press so they would want to make it go away.

Women are prosecuted for statutory rape of boys as well. Sex and murder aren't the same thing and juveniles are not automatically tried as adults. Child support isn't a penalty for an offense, nor is it about penis. It is support for a child. It is crazy when statutory rape victims have to pay it, and we should carve out an exception for them. The rest of your comment is just total batshit. You should consider getting some help with that.

@ markm - He made the choice to take a chance and just as if he got Aids he got screwed. The child's involvement is not the issue. He took a chance for an easy lay and got caught w/something he was not expecting (could have been a STD or a pregnancy or OOPS! she's a juvie). That's life.

Also, many of the Rotherham rapes were one-on-one and consensual (as in wined and dined). The girls had a choice at first but perhaps not later. How are you going to separate out the "bad" guys from the "OOPS!" guys, and should you. Are the "bad" guys the ones that only did it once w/consent?

I'm curious Bob in Texas, how do you go about ascertaining the woman/women you fuck are legally able to consent to sex?

Allison - you beat me to it. Teens and small children lie about anything and everything (often out of greed, anger or fear) if they think it will get them what they want, without thought for how they might hurt other people. All the more reason for older teens to avoid hook-ups and for adults to take every precaution not to be alone with unfamiliar children (as in one-on-one; it's generally considered safe for teachers if there are other child witnesses in the room). I mean, just how often does a teenage boy try to hook up with an over-18 woman anyway, only to find out she was underage? Doesn't happen, for obvious reasons.

Of course, parents also need to deal harshly with their children whenever they start telling lies that could be dangerous to others - or to themselves. (This is especially important now that every 4-year-old - unlike 40 years ago - knows that adults will be in big trouble if they touch kids in certain ways. It's too easy to lie about familiar subjects, compared to things a kid has never heard of.)

Let's not forget that any older teens or adults, male or female, could claim that the younger parties lied about their ages when they probably said nothing at all. Maybe the punishment is too harsh in this case, but overall, society has better things to do than to protect people old enough to drive - or even vote - from the consequences of anonymous "consensual" sex. (BTW, there are ways of finding minor's ages other than ID cards; Google often works pretty well.)

I mean, I don't know how parents of boys under 16 tend to react when older women have sex with them, but how many parents of underage girls REALLY think that a four-year difference or more shouldn't automatically make it statutory rape? Maybe there's a reason parents don't think that's too harsh? (Leaving aside the question of just what the punishment should BE for statutory rape, of course.)

I admit, I know nothing about how the laws tend to work when both parties are underage - I'm sure it varies quite a lot.

Also, from what I can tell, the commentators at MRA sites don't really want adult female offenders to be punished a lot more harshly - they just want adult males to be punished very lightly. Again, I don't see parents of girls agreeing with that.

You don't go for a quick fuck with someone you do not know.

I see, so you are a "moral" law and order kind of guy?

Why do your feeling on the morality of hookup trump someone else's?

Or, to put it another way: How many of those men who scream for underage girls to be prosecuted for lying about their ages would feel the same way if THEY had young daughters?

I have two kids thankfully too young for this stuff yet, but I'll have to tell them both to be very careful with regards to sex and everything that could lead up to it. If this girl had disappeared and been found 3 months later in a ditch, this would be common news, and a cautionary tale to young women not to hook up with strangers. Well, welcome to the party, guys. Don't sleep with strangers.

"Why do your feeling(s)on the morality of (a) hookup trump someone else's?"

I did not say they did. I basically said he spun the dice and came up with snake eyes. It's part of playing the game. (I want a do-over! doesn't cut it in the real game of life.)

The very reason that he looked for what he did and the way he did was that it was risky, not moral, gave a rush, and so on. These come w/risks. He took a shot and lost. It happens. End of story.

"I see, so you are a "moral" law and order kind of guy?

Knowing yourself and who you are playing with is exceptionally important.

I learned early that some girls want a husband and get "pregnant" (damn, I thought it was my personality they liked).

I also learned early that some guys like pain (if not yours then theirs is enjoyable as well) and that some guys don't stop.

Morals (like history) are determined by those left standing.

@Lenona, I have heard guys change their tune about a lot when they have daughters. Lots of guys seem to have a real entitlement problem with regards to sex and women. Seeing that attitude aimed at your kid who still plays with Barbie has got to be a paradigm shifter.

Before any person faces a judge-- ANY judge-- that judge's performance needs to be examined by the defendant.
It is perfectly within our rights to refuse to have our cases heard by a particular judge.

Major props to you Bob. You killed it.

Having a hard time feeling sorry for the boy. Chick didn't even say 18 and he still went in and did the deed.

Can't believe HotOrNot is still around. That shocked the hell outta me. That was from back in my day...not in app version of course. And yeah it's a given ppl lie on there. It's like old-school tinder.

Guys do dumb things to get pussy. Roll the dice but as lenona said google first. There is this thing called Facebook ya know?

@Bob/PPen: Sure, the guy was dumb as a rock. Teenage guys are, when it comes to sex. The thing is: a justice system should not destroy the rest of the guy's life, just because he did something dumb.

Once upon a time "mens rea" was an essential part of our justice system. This means: intent counts. If you didn't mean to commit a crime, you would not be prosecuted.

Just as an example: It is a crime to break into someone's house, even if the door is unlocked. However, if do this by accident (example: invited to a party, write the address down wrong, walk into the wrong house), then you have not committed a crime.

Exactly the situation here: This guy was not seeking sex with an underage girl; he thought he knew how old she was. Was he dumb? Sure. But not criminal.

Read the judge's words: He's convicting the guy based on the judge's personal morality. That has nothing to do with law or justice.

Having a hard time feeling sorry for the boy. Chick didn't even say 18 and he still went in and did the deed.

Why 18? Did you know than in nearly half of all US jurisdictions 16 is the age of consent?

Depending where you are in america a 90 yr old guy can legally fuck a 16 year old girl, but ten feet to the left and its illegal.

Some areas the age of consent is 15.

In some regions while AOC for sex is 16 getting a blow job is a 5yr prison sentence

In other regions you can have sex at 17, get married at 18, but if your husband takes naked pics of you before you are 20 its child porn

In one state if you are an 8 yr old boy and your molested by your 14 yr old female babysitter you as the boy will be charged with the sex crime.

So yes it is about the person with the penis, and "society's" moral consensus that sex is something done to a woman by scheming men, and not an act any woman would ever initiate.

Having a hard time feeling sorry for the boy. Chick didn't even say 18 and he still went in and did the deed.

Even if she has said 18 people like Bob in Texas still wouldnt care because evil hookup sex perverts deserve to be punished

And people like Allison think the law is the law and as most people like it 'who cares?'

Which put her in the company of those who though abolitionists should go to jail, the mentally disabled should be sterilized, and babies should be stolen from unwed sluts and sold to good respectable families looking to adopt.

Wow, slavery, eugenics, human trafficking and persecution of folks who use underaged children for sex. Its a party at my place on the wrong side of history.

Given your attitude at destroying the life of a man because the girl lied to him to get what she wanted . . . yes

Had he killed someone his life would have been far less disrupted

Had he been purposuly sought out a 14 year old that would be one thing, be he sought out a woman above the age of consent.

He broke the law unknowingly due to the fraud of another.

That would be like throwing you in prison because your husband embezzled from his job and you bought groceries with the money.

In one state if you are an 8 yr old boy and your molested by your 14 yr old female babysitter you as the boy will be charged with the sex crime.

lujlp
_______________________________

Um...cite, please? Jeez. Why the reluctance to say WHICH state, at least?

BTW, if conservatives really care so much about lowering the divorce rate, maybe we should never have lowered the voting age (we could have raised the draft age instead), since that made it permanently harder to raise the right-to-marry age to 21? Everyone knows that teenage marriages rarely work - and even being 20 or 21 doesn't necessarily make a big difference. Not to mention the need to prevent all those marriages that legally can take place before 18 with the parents' permission; chances are a lot of those marriages were actually forced/arranged marriages; take certain Mormon unions, for starters. (Besides, for those who don't know, teen pregnancy is downright dangerous for both mother and baby, as any doctor will tell you - getting married first obviously doesn't help, medically.)

One thing that puzzles me a lot about the 19th century is that legally, 10-year-old boys could be made to take on all sorts of adult responsibilities on the family farm that, even if legal today, would likely be considered "robbing kids of their childhood," given how dangerous and time consuming they were, but the boys STILL couldn't vote until 21, and parents had the right to keep them at home until the same age. How hypocritical is that?

Um...cite, please? Jeez. Why the reluctance to say WHICH state, at least?

Not reluctance, cheap psychological manipulation.

Had I posted it most would have ignored it, by not posting it and waiting til someone WANTED to see it I ensured you'd be more likely to read it

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/CBS_8_year_old_boy_sexual_conduct_sitter.aspx

& denverpost.com/ci_4783650

The state is Utah where 14 is apparently the age of consent

It's more like possession of stolen goods.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods

If you knew the $50 Rolex you bought was stolen, you could be prosecuted. If you didn't know, the watch would be returned to its owner and you would lose your money, but you would theoretically not be punished.

In practice though, everyone will say they didn't know, so that becomes pretty useless as a defense. We'll understandably want to know- why'd you think it was so cheap? Were you born yesterday, or did you know perfectly well, but want the cheap watch, or easy lay as it were.

Your argument in essence is that we don't need to protect kids from adults with regards to sex. Either you think young kids aren't harmed by it, or you feel that the harm they suffer is less important than the right of the adult to enjoy sex, regardless. That's why you keep emphasizing the penis when in application the law is gender neutral.

Ffs, luljip I just read your link. I concede you're not just a total lunatic. Naw, you are, but charging that kid was inexcusable, and I hope someone loses their head.

Again, if he had sought out a 14yr old I would not have a problem.

He didnt, he sought out a legal partner.

Absent any photo of the girl we cant really tell how old she looked especially in an day when actors in their late 20s play teenagers realistically and some 15 year olds look like theyve been doing porn for 8 years

crap - last half of my statment was erased.

Also the girl went to meet him, so its not like he picked her up at her house

It isn't about the moral aspect of the sex. You want to put your dick in random (usually crazy if it's from an app) pussy you gotta pay the pied piper.

Boy didn't look up the price. Simple google check, a parental visit, or waiting to pound the pussy until he got to know it would have told him just how legal the goods where.

Is it fair? Nope. But that's sex ain't it? Cuz you're silly to think a 17 year old won't have someone looking after them like a hawk ready to pick off any stray dog enticed by it's teenage scent.

He rolled the dice and he lost to the house. At 19 kid should know not to fuck any girl that isn't a legal adult. Pussy is pussy but you're dumb to go after it indiscriminately. Maybe he could have gotten the girl pregnant (anti-convulsants destroy the effectiveness of birth control), and he would have been stuck with an 18 year monthly bill. Too bad, so sad, thems the breaks for fucking strangers.

I like Allison.

thems the breaks for fucking strangers.

if your a guy that is

Thank other men for it lujlp.

Women would rather keep teenage girls transgressions hush hush. Men? They can't beat the shit out of you so they'll do the next best thing.

Bob really did sum it up perfectly

"I also learned early that some guys like pain (if not yours then theirs is enjoyable as well) and that some guys don't stop."

Evolutionary psychology at it's best.

Thanks for the link to the Utah case.

One quibble, though: You said "will be charged" not "can be charged."

Yes, it's outrageous that ANY younger, underage party, in any state, can be charged with a sex crime instead of the older party when it's "consensual," but "will be charged" makes it sound as though such a charge would be automatic in Utah just because he was a boy. There was nothing in the article to suggest that that always happens there, in such cases - or even that both parties couldn't have been charged, though clearly, that would have been very unfair too. (I'd also like to know whether this was all the fault of the district attorney or whether the girl's parents went on the attack.)

BTW, I found an extra paragraph elsewhere, at the end (likely not by the same journalist):

"The smart thing for parents who discover such a situation is to to talk to the children involved. Inform the other parents and deal with it privately. Unless the act is coercive or violent or involving an adult the intrusion of the police and local prosecutors is likely to harm the children far more than some fleeting experimentation. The reality is that the children will be victimized by the state for the rest of their lives once it has its nose into things."

Just to be clear: I hadn't read the second Utah case when I wrote my last post. But, regarding the case of the 13- and 12-year-old...why in the world does a case like this have to go to court when, again, it's not "coercive or violent or involving an adult"? Or, at least, when the two are so close in age? Again, a four-year-difference or more would be one thing, but...

The girl committed fraud by falsely representing herself to someone to receive something in return. In nearly any other situation in the real world that is a punishable crime. It's not the victims that get punished instead for accepting the lie at face value. I don't believe it was fair or just for him to receive such a punishment for this situation. If we want to be fair and want him charged for it, the girl should be charged for fraud and whatever else as well. Or, as I think should have been done, no charges at all. He didn't set out to commit a crime or do so with the knowlege it was a crme. The only reason he did was because of someone else's willful deception.

There was a case out of Florida where a girl of around 14 would go to bars and clubs with a fake ID, pick up men and have sex with them, and then have charges filed on those men for statuatory rape. It happened 2-3 times at least. Her father failed to see that his daughter was doing anything wrong or immoral and said those guys shouldn't be having sex with his daughter. The girl said she was going to keep doing it because she liked to. I'd heard about it because one of the men filed an appeal stating that there was no way to have known she was not a legal adult as he met her in a 21 and over club that screens IDs for admission and she was buying and drinking alcohol while there. All activities prohibited to those under 21. I don't know what the outcome was.

If she'd told the clerk at the convenience store she was 21 and they sold her beer and cigs, we'd recognize that the clerk was the at-fault party. They occasionally raid bars and smoke out underaged drinkers and even if they all have fake ID's, it's the bar that gets in trouble. I agree that this case punishment seems harsh, but it isn't inconsistent with our society's legal framework. The folks who want to charge the 14 year old for "defrauding" this guy are a real piece of work. You likely don't have kids, don't remember being one and possibly have never met any.

>but it isn't inconsistent with our society's legal framework

Ah yes, where if . . .

you are 12 and kill someone you are an adult, but if . . .

you are 3 seconds from 18 the guy fucking you is a child molester, and if . . .

you are an underage male women claim child support is reasonable, but if you were an underage female its a travesty that your rapist gets visitation, and if . . .

you are married but under 19 private pics are child porn, and if . . .

you are under 21 its illegal to smoke and drink even though you are a legal adult, but still if . . .

you are under 26 and still in college the government considers you a child for insurance purposes.

Quite the system we have set up where whether or not you are an adult depends on the whim of government bureaucrats and law makers.

And punishment for certain crimes increases if you ave a dick

I recall being 14, surrounded by a bunch of illogical emotion people who care more about how they felt about a subject that the objective facts of the matter.

I couldnt wait to be an adult and finally be able to have rational conversations with people where reason, logic, and objectively verifiable facts would hold sway.

I dont think you can fathom how disappointed I was to discover that past childhood age has jack shit to do with how most people comport themselves or think about things.

I'm having trouble posting.

From Dan Savage's 2005 column "15 Going on 16" (there's a follow-up: "More Advice to 15-Year-Old Girls")

"I wish I'd known when I was 15 that dating older men does not mean you are hot shit; it means you're dating a dude who can't get women his own age, and that those women are avoiding him for good reasons." Karen L.

(Of course, she wasn't talking about girls lying about their ages.)