Male teen Has Consensual Sex with Female Teen. He Gets 25 Years as Sex Offender, Banned from Interne

[JoeB131]

I have a 16 year old daughter. She does not look 16 and has looked older than her age for a few years now.

If she did this... the only one in trouble..would be her if I could help it.

That 19 year old now has a stigma on him for the rest of his life because she lied and caused all this. He most likely wont be able to get a decent job..wherever he lives, he has to register and all his neighbors will know...most wont care why he is registered. All because she lied. He is 19 and thought he was having sex with a 17 year old. How many of you check identification before jumping into bed with someone? And no, you cant tell someone age by looking at them. Walk by any high school and tell me how old some of these girls are. 9 out of 10 times you will be wrong.

He wasn't looking for a 14 year old.

At this point...I honestly wouldn't blame him if he hunted down the judge and vivisected the fucker. His life is already over...might as well have it be for something worthwhile.

So in addition to approving of sex with 14-year old females by adult males, you now advocate murder of a sitting judge - on the internet - where anybody can read it - for his legal decision of identifying a sexual predator. I would love to listen to you try to explain that in anybody's courtroom in the U.S., as well as your defense of the criminal instead of the victim, who is a child. He was looking for a female to have sex with, through the internet (apparently he has sexual and social problems also), and he ended up finding one who he wasn't permitted to have sex with under any circumstances. You know, you are just an idiot, try to come up with something intelligent, or stay off of the thread..........

Ditchy is pretty crazy.

 

[JoeB131]

AShe committed a fraud. She misrepresented herself and duped the guy.
Are we now subject to imprisonment or harsh sentences for an innocent consensual tryst?
Be careful what you wish for , Mr Moral Policeman..
If I were the guy, I would file suit against the girl's parents. They are responsible for the actions of their minor child. The girl created the situation. The parents allowed it to continue.

except he didn't get imprisonment or a particularly harsh sentence. He got a warning to stay out of trouble and told to keep off the internet.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I only exist because of a non-traditional union and birth to 13yo mother and 27 yo father (was then put up for adoption and raised by my "true parents who raised me.") But everything I've heard and read the law was never involved (beyond the adoption-related ones.) Both families knew and were friends with each other, and stuff happened.

We need to quit infantilizing teens. God or biology makes us adults when we can reproduce our species. A 14 or 13 yo is not a "child" except in the legal sense. But the legal sense isn't reality, it's arbitrary. What's legal/illegal one day can change tomorrow and suddenly what pissed you off yesterday shouldn't any more because now your only objection is gone. It isn't illegal any more.

If your only objection here is 14yo was illegal, then what countries and states right here where this would have been legal? Because of Romeo and Juliet laws, some states have a 5 year spread and 14 and 19 would be perfectly legal. Would you be up in arms then? Why?

I disagree completely on that.
The ability to procreate does not mean one is "adult". Physical and brain development lag far behind reproductive development and the laws are designed to protect a person who is not yet mature enough to be considered an adult.

Doesn't mean 'adult,' but it is called "sexual maturity" in humans and every other animal. If we use the standard of when our brains finished developing then the AoCs would have to be around age 25. That's problematic enough without considering what do you then do with mentally handicapped people? May their whole lives have the mentality of someone way below age 25, can they have sex?

The laws came about as the result of "moralists" who raised the first AoCs from 10 to 16 way back. Yet this increase had nothing to do with protecting anyone as it didn't apply to boys, nor non-virginal girls. It was solely intended to help ensure hereditary.

It's since become obstensibly about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults, but that's not why the ages are what they are. If the ages had anything to do with protecting children from adults they'd be universally 18. The very fact there are Romeo and Juliet exceptions in many states show they're saying "well ya ok, teens CAN consent to sex but only wiht other teens." That's fairly screamingly hypocritical if they're then making an arguement about mental maturity.

 

[Diana1180]

I have a strong feeling that if you or your son were in that situation you might be singing a whole different tune.

You go out for a night to a bar and tie a few on with the guys after a game. Bars are 21+ right? Meet a smoking hot girl who is all into you (it can happen guys don't worry ;-) ). Youre single, youre feeling a bit buzzed, she likes you, she must be 21 because she is being served in a bar. Take her home, have sex... the next day you find out she is only 15. You, or your son....screwed.

Someone said it earlier...we live in a culture right now where casual sex is pretty much the norm. Sadly. But in cases like this, there has to be a safety net. His life, at 19, is done.

And once again, yes, girls look older in this generation. My daughter was sending me tons of pictures yesterday of her last day of school with her friends....tall, pretty, "blessed" girls. This is different than a guy trolling for an underage child to fulfill some sick fantasy.

 

[Stan Fan]

I have a strong feeling that if you or your son were in that situation you might be singing a whole different tune.

You go out for a night to a bar and tie a few on with the guys after a game. Bars are 21+ right? Meet a smoking hot girl who is all into you (it can happen guys don't worry ;-) ). Youre single, youre feeling a bit buzzed, she likes you, she must be 21 because she is being served in a bar. Take her home, have sex... the next day you find out she is only 15. You, or your son....screwed.

Someone said it earlier...we live in a culture right now where casual sex is pretty much the norm. Sadly. But in cases like this, there has to be a safety net. His life, at 19, is done.

And once again, yes, girls look older in this generation. My daughter was sending me tons of pictures yesterday of her last day of school with her friends....tall, pretty, "blessed" girls. This is different than a guy trolling for an underage child to fulfill some sick fantasy.

Thank you Diana - finally - a female input to this episode. Yes, High School girls can make themselves up to look older than they happen to be - but, I maintain, and deal with it everyday, that they can not make themselves "smarter" and be taken for 20-25 year old's routinely. 14-year old High School Freshman and Sophomores girls walk, talk, dress, giggle, text, eat and have mostly the same interest's. High School boys don't notice it, because they are in that environment all the time. A 19-year old male, would, by normal standards have just graduated from High School - usually kids turn 18 years old in their Senior year. Unless he is blind and stupid, he would know a 14-year old simply by talking to her and observing her mannerism's after spending four years in the HS environment. That is something teacher's, and law enforcement personnel are trained to do, observe and react and draw conclusions on mannerism's (some can call it profiling if they want to). She set a trap, her parents were not paying attention (and should be prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor), the internet invitation the 19-year old responded to is illegal and a totally separate sexual charge in Michigan, one the male wasn't charged with. A conscientious judge read the Michigan laws and decided it was his duty to send a message that sex by adults with 14-year old's, who can not legally give consent, is prohibited and illegal and carries a harsh penalty. Mistake isn't a defense. Intent isn't a defense. Responsibility for insuring the female partner in a sexual encounter is at or above the legal age of consent, is on the male in this case. It can be on a female also, as there are cases where female teacher's, and or babysitter's or mentor's have sex with minor boys also, and they also are protected by the consent law. The guy could have gone on the internet; hit Craig's List or Match, or any listed escort service, and purchased himself a sex partner (those services don't hire minors and Match makes sure of ages), but he didn't. He used electronic social media enticement, a crime in Michigan, to attract and engage in sex with a child, and got caught. I have so sympathy for him, for being listed as a Sexual Predator, also required under Michigan law, and no truck with all these Alpha-male types in here who think the guy got a raw deal. He did the act, the act was illegal, he was solely responsible, and ends up having to suffer the consequences...............

 

[thereisnospoon]

AShe committed a fraud. She misrepresented herself and duped the guy.
Are we now subject to imprisonment or harsh sentences for an innocent consensual tryst?
Be careful what you wish for , Mr Moral Policeman..
If I were the guy, I would file suit against the girl's parents. They are responsible for the actions of their minor child. The girl created the situation. The parents allowed it to continue.

except he didn't get imprisonment or a particularly harsh sentence. He got a warning to stay out of trouble and told to keep off the internet.

Wrong....He has to register as a sex offender. That IS harsh

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

I would send in an appeal, then send one more appeal if I was him. IMO he catched too much, and the only way to lighten the punishment for him is to struggle.

 

[Coyote]

I only exist because of a non-traditional union and birth to 13yo mother and 27 yo father (was then put up for adoption and raised by my "true parents who raised me.") But everything I've heard and read the law was never involved (beyond the adoption-related ones.) Both families knew and were friends with each other, and stuff happened.

We need to quit infantilizing teens. God or biology makes us adults when we can reproduce our species. A 14 or 13 yo is not a "child" except in the legal sense. But the legal sense isn't reality, it's arbitrary. What's legal/illegal one day can change tomorrow and suddenly what pissed you off yesterday shouldn't any more because now your only objection is gone. It isn't illegal any more.

If your only objection here is 14yo was illegal, then what countries and states right here where this would have been legal? Because of Romeo and Juliet laws, some states have a 5 year spread and 14 and 19 would be perfectly legal. Would you be up in arms then? Why?

I disagree completely on that.
The ability to procreate does not mean one is "adult". Physical and brain development lag far behind reproductive development and the laws are designed to protect a person who is not yet mature enough to be considered an adult.

Doesn't mean 'adult,' but it is called "sexual maturity" in humans and every other animal. If we use the standard of when our brains finished developing then the AoCs would have to be around age 25. That's problematic enough without considering what do you then do with mentally handicapped people? May their whole lives have the mentality of someone way below age 25, can they have sex?

The laws came about as the result of "moralists" who raised the first AoCs from 10 to 16 way back. Yet this increase had nothing to do with protecting anyone as it didn't apply to boys, nor non-virginal girls. It was solely intended to help ensure hereditary.

It's since become obstensibly about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults, but that's not why the ages are what they are. If the ages had anything to do with protecting children from adults they'd be universally 18. The very fact there are Romeo and Juliet exceptions in many states show they're saying "well ya ok, teens CAN consent to sex but only wiht other teens." That's fairly screamingly hypocritical if they're then making an arguement about mental maturity.

"sexual" maturity doesn't mean that they should engage in sex. Sexual maturity occurs earlier now due to better nutrition and higher fat levels but it's not just the brain's maturity - the body may be capable of sex but it is often not mature enough to safely carry and birth a baby much less raise it. There's a world of responsibility that goes far beyond the act of "consentual" sex and the lower you make the age the less mental maturity you will have and the greater the degree of exploitation.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for? I agree that the laws concerning statuatory rape are unrealistic at best but it sounds as if you are calling for a lower age of consent with no consideration given to the age differences?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I only exist because of a non-traditional union and birth to 13yo mother and 27 yo father (was then put up for adoption and raised by my "true parents who raised me.") But everything I've heard and read the law was never involved (beyond the adoption-related ones.) Both families knew and were friends with each other, and stuff happened.

We need to quit infantilizing teens. God or biology makes us adults when we can reproduce our species. A 14 or 13 yo is not a "child" except in the legal sense. But the legal sense isn't reality, it's arbitrary. What's legal/illegal one day can change tomorrow and suddenly what pissed you off yesterday shouldn't any more because now your only objection is gone. It isn't illegal any more.

If your only objection here is 14yo was illegal, then what countries and states right here where this would have been legal? Because of Romeo and Juliet laws, some states have a 5 year spread and 14 and 19 would be perfectly legal. Would you be up in arms then? Why?

I disagree completely on that.
The ability to procreate does not mean one is "adult". Physical and brain development lag far behind reproductive development and the laws are designed to protect a person who is not yet mature enough to be considered an adult.

Doesn't mean 'adult,' but it is called "sexual maturity" in humans and every other animal. If we use the standard of when our brains finished developing then the AoCs would have to be around age 25. That's problematic enough without considering what do you then do with mentally handicapped people? May their whole lives have the mentality of someone way below age 25, can they have sex?

The laws came about as the result of "moralists" who raised the first AoCs from 10 to 16 way back. Yet this increase had nothing to do with protecting anyone as it didn't apply to boys, nor non-virginal girls. It was solely intended to help ensure hereditary.

It's since become obstensibly about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults, but that's not why the ages are what they are. If the ages had anything to do with protecting children from adults they'd be universally 18. The very fact there are Romeo and Juliet exceptions in many states show they're saying "well ya ok, teens CAN consent to sex but only wiht other teens." That's fairly screamingly hypocritical if they're then making an arguement about mental maturity.

"sexual" maturity doesn't mean that they should engage in sex. Sexual maturity occurs earlier now due to better nutrition and higher fat levels but it's not just the brain's maturity - the body may be capable of sex but it is often not mature enough to safely carry and birth a baby much less raise it. There's a world of responsibility that goes far beyond the act of "consentual" sex and the lower you make the age the less mental maturity you will have and the greater the degree of exploitation.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for? I agree that the laws concerning statuatory rape are unrealistic at best but it sounds as if you are calling for a lower age of consent with no consideration given to the age differences?

Your perspective seems to come from the 'humans are special things and not animals.' Mine is 'we are animals, not special things.' So sexual maturity to me is whenever a biological organism becomes capable of reproducing itself. Mental maturity, reasoning, etc. doesn't enter into it. When a human, like every other animal, hits 'sexual maturity' its' body begins producing sex hormones making it desire sex and reproduction.

Whether a human having sex is a good idea or not isn't relevant to the biological aspect of the discussion. And because of the various problems with designating an arbitraily decided upon age to make a 'bad decision' suddenly a 'good decision' (in the eyes of the moral aspects at any rate) isn't helped by the obvious inconsistencies as with allowing those ages to engage in sexual behaviours with others of the same age range.

There's no biological or scientificly valid reason to forbid "children" having sex if you're then going to allow those very same children to have sex with other children. Makes sense legally to do that, but not scientificly.

Morals on the other hand is a WHOLE other kettle of fish. Morally, of course children shouldn't be havnig sex. If they do, then they aren't really most people's idea of "children" any longer.

Think people have difficulty seperating and classifying the relevant aspects to an issue and arguement over it. I put em into their respective categories, others seem to use a one-category for all approach where because morally it's bad, it's bad in every respect. But things aren't often like that. Just because soemthing's immoral, doesn't mean it's always then illegal, or scientificly 'bad to do.'

Morally then, adults and "children" having sex is a bad idea.

Scientificly (psychologically et al.), it's mixed, much depending on whether the culture in question villifies it or not. In cultures that don't, or didn't in the past, it wasn't a problem. In our's today it's a big big problem.

Biologically it's possible, it works, "adult" and a sexually-mature "child" can in fact reproduce the spiecies. 'Should' or 'shouldn't,' and 'good' or 'bad' don't enter into it. It's biology, not morality or ethics.

 

[longknife]

Okay - so I skipped all 28 replies to this!

As far as I'm concerned, society has no business telling two (or more) people what to do sexually! Over and over again, trying to legislate morality has never, ever worked.

If she was old enough to know what it was all about and wanted it, who in the hell has the right to tell her it's bad?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Something I didn't see in this incident's coverage was, did the 19yo have sex with the 14yo AFTER learning her true age or before? Matters.

How many people use those sorts of sites? Are they all then going to be publicly condemned every time some minor gets on and arranges a hookup? Are they all deserving of being punished as a typical 'sex offender?' Or is the 'mistake as to age' defense/non-defense worth taking another look at in the computer age?

How many on THIS SITE are under 18? Not supposed to be here are they? Does the site due its due dilligence to ensure minors aren't here? I didn't have to do any sort of age verfication to join. So presumedly there either are, or could very well be minors here. Is anything bad that happens to such a hypothetical minor on the site, an adult user (who hypothetically write's a pm to the minor flirting with thm etc etc and it turns out you said something illegal to someone too young to hear it,) or the minor for misrepresenting their age?

This 19yo didn't go to a 'minors only' type site and misrepresent himself to befriend a minor. He went to an 'adults-only' site to look for sex. So'd the girl lest we forget. The girl was only there having misrepresented herself to get on the site. The 19yo didn't know her real age nor was he looking for a 14yo (by virtue of being on a site presumedly for 18+ only.)

Unless upon meeting her said like "Hey you really over 18?" If he did, and she admitted her true age, then they had sex, he's guilty and should have the book thrown at him then beaten about the head with it. But if he didn't, he isn't morally guilty of anything. Legally he is, but shouldn't be.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

How about across the border in Mexico, where the age of consent is 12?

In just the one state, 18 everywhere else. And I assume that one state is the 3rd world hellhole all the illegals come from.

 

[longknife]

Let me give you something to think about.

In very early tribes around the world, the custom was that when I girl had her first menstrual period, she was presented to the chief so that he could take her virginity - and hopefully impregnate her. In that way, the most powerful and genetically accepted member would have his traits carried on.

Just about everywhere in the world.

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay - so I skipped all 28 replies to this!

As far as I'm concerned, society has no business telling two (or more) people what to do sexually! Over and over again, trying to legislate morality has never, ever worked.

If she was old enough to know what it was all about and wanted it, who in the hell has the right to tell her it's bad?

Her parents?

 

[longknife]

Okay - so I skipped all 28 replies to this!

As far as I'm concerned, society has no business telling two (or more) people what to do sexually! Over and over again, trying to legislate morality has never, ever worked.

If she was old enough to know what it was all about and wanted it, who in the hell has the right to tell her it's bad?

Her parents?

They were expected to care for her baby if she had one, They also made arrangements for her to marry one of the "acceptable" young men. In many cases, the chief (or later noble) would acknowledge the child.

 

[Diana1180]

From the Hot or Not app Privacy Policy:

"If you are between the ages of 13- 17 years of age, we are afraid you cannot chat or share photos with anyone outside of that age bracket. If you are 18 years old or over, we do not permit you to start new conversations or share photos with anyone younger than 18"

Hot or Not - Privacy Policy

So not only did she lie about her age to him, she lied about it in the site so she could be able to talk to older men.

 

[Stan Fan]

So what's your solution? Give a 19 year old a pass for having sex with a 14 year old because she looks old for her age?

How about taking some time to get to know a girl before you have sex with her. You know, meet her parents and shit? That would have solved a lot of problems here.

How about holding the girl responsible for her deception? How about the judge not going nuts when the family of the girl agreed that the boy shouldn't be prosecuted? And how many dates should your gov't require before two consenting adults (as the girl portrayed herself) are allowed to decide to have sex?

The government should require only one date before two consenting adults are allowed to decide to have sex, nothing wrong with it. However, that isn't the case here - we only have one consenting adult having sex with a child who can't give consent. Try to keep up with the thread............

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong....He has to register as a sex offender. That IS harsh

He is a sex offender. No, it isn't.

 

[Steinlight]

Wrong....He has to register as a sex offender. That IS harsh

He is a sex offender. No, it isn't.

He may be a registered sex offender but at least he isn't a virgin like you.

 

[Steinlight]

Okay - so I skipped all 28 replies to this!

As far as I'm concerned, society has no business telling two (or more) people what to do sexually! Over and over again, trying to legislate morality has never, ever worked.

If she was old enough to know what it was all about and wanted it, who in the hell has the right to tell her it's bad?

Her parents?

Her parents asked the state to drop the charges