strict liability crimes can often be stupid for the obvious reasons, but if you guys are still arguing the HIV thing (no idea if you have moved to a diff topic as i grunched a bit), that's obv a huge strawman here and not really applicable to that situation

nah, lol_HIV. i'm talking about clark's bar whore example

Clark, using the term "sexing a child" in every post is pretty dumb.

I don't know the last time you hung out with 16 and 17 year olds (let alone lol 13), but that's exactly what they are.

I'm curious what you think of the Genarlow Wilson case. Do you think his punishment was fair?

17 years, 364 days, 23 hours old = child

1 hour later = woman?

Depends which state!

THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN

Wilson case obviously absurd. BUT SHE'S A CHILD SO WHAT A SCUMBAG - SHOULD STILL BE IN JAIL

i was familiar with the wilson case already, but had never seen this before:

Because the participants shown having sex in the video were under 18, the videotape constitutes child pornography under federal law. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act prohibits prosecutors from allowing defendants in criminal proceedings to possess a copy of any evidence that constitutes child pornography, even if the purpose is to mount a defense against the charge. Under this law, Wilson and his defense team are prohibited from having a copy of the videotape that prosecutor McDade has distributed to anyone else who has requested it.[18]

Except that case has zero to do with what we're talking about.

say u have sex with an underage girl at a frat party. yea, that's on you

if u have sex with an underaged girl you met at a bar who got in with a fake id, well, how do u defend against that? you keep ignoring that possibility and keep up with your hardline moralist stand

HAPPY MARDI GRASSSSSSS

I definitely agree the onus is on the adult; I just want to see how this conversation plays out.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see how this is not a very awkward and funny conversation. Where do you meet them? How do you bring this up? and what kind of reaction do you get?

edit: FTR: I'm happily married and have never experienced such situations (with potential minors when I was not one myself)

fyp

Well he did break the law and have sex with a child, right?

But really, obviously I wasn't trying to say that scenario is the exact same as what you guys are talking about, I just want to know at what point you do actually think the law is flawed, or if you think it is at all.

while, again, i dont agree with strict liability crimes in all situations, do you see why having an exemption for people presented with a fake at a bar from statutory rape claims is a a really big issue and not as clear cut as you make it?

Idk how the courts handle it, but its absurd a guy is held accountable for banging an underage girl he met in a bar. Clark saying you need to ask for id in that situation is crazy imo.

i don't really have a horse in the fight, but clark keeps talking about how he'd ask for id and there have been situations where he has and all that, and that's all well and good, but asking for id at a bar is utterly ****ing stupid since you're not gonna weed out anyone the door didn't already. that's all

The crazy part is let's say you check her ID, and she shows you a passable fake or a look a like friends ID. Clark's genius plan DOESN'T MATTER and you're still going to prison for multiple years.

Again, statutory rape laws are designed to protect adolescents from being taken advantage of by older men, not teenagers trolling for ass to get their dad mad.

Not only do I absolutely think asking for ID in the manner that you probably do is unreasonable, but if you ever did that in any of my social circles people would think you are insanely weird and have terrible social skills.

I've seen some girl's IDs before after meeting them at a bar, but it's always a fun thing like "you live in place x? wow no way! let me see your driver's license." I'm sure I've also said, "you're really age x? no way! let me see your driver's license." But it's always a playful thing with no ulterior motive. The girl in question would never think I'm "making sure she's legal," probably because I'm not, and if for some reason she didn't want to show me her ID in one of those situations I wouldn't even think twice about it.

Here's a better rule that me and my friends use. If you even have a doubt that the girl you're talking to may not be legal, WALK AWAY. If she's acting in a manner that makes you think she's younger than 18 or looks like she could be 16, then you shouldn't be talking to her anyway.

Potentially embarrassing a girl who turns out to be legal after you ask for ID (or even an underage girl for that matter) and then in the process making yourself look like a jerkoff is ridiculous.

ya cant believe i'd ever post this, but i agree with agame

altho i cant really fault people who do check an ID, but honestly if you are at a point where you need to check a girl's ID and you are 23+, you're prob doing it wrong

But then you miss out on all that 17+ year old tail.

Well if you're in your mid 20s or older, then good.

If you're at an age where dating a 17 year old is acceptable, then you probably didn't meet her in a bar anyway.

Btw, 17 is only the legal age of consent in some states.