Voluntary Sex With Minors

[Kreth]

and are those banjos dueling

You shore got a purty mouth there, boy...



:uhyeah:


Random trivia in honor of my 1991st post: 1991 - Jay Leno succeeds Johnny Carson as host of The Tonight Show.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Now, here is the question.
I'm legal in my state.
She is legal in her state.
We are married.
Why is it illegal for me to bring my wife home and have relations with her, but not illegal in her state?

 

[Kreth]

Now, here is the question.
I'm legal in my state.
She is legal in her state.
We are married.
Why is it illegal for me to bring my wife home and have relations with her, but not illegal in her state?

I believe that's covered under "Illegally Transporting Livestock Across State Borders For Nefarious Purposes."



pwn3d!



:uhyeah:

 

[Makalakumu]

Well at least we're out of the rainforest and back in the USA.

Yet it remains an interesting comparison...

And it is still not possible for a minor to give consent to sexual intercourse.

If a person is considered a minor at 17 in Massachusetts and a person is considered a minor at 14 in Nevada (these are examples, I do not know the ages of consent in these states) it is not ok to have sex with a 15 year old in Massachusetts. A minor by definition, by state, cannot consent to sexual intercourse.

It's ok in another state is not a defense.

Different states have different ages of consent. And in some states you could marry a minor with consent of her parent or guardian, once again not the (legal) consent of said minor.

This is still not an unmarried minor, as the article is referring to, having sex with an adult. Marriage changes the scenario to something it is not in the article. Adult male not married to a minor looking for sex with said minor is a very different situation.

Alright, I can accept your argument if you are doing nothing but following the letter of the law in different areas. The term "minor" is still relative and so is the age at which they can consent to sex. In order to illustrate this, I'm going to propose a hypothetical situation...

Suppose that a 30 year old man positions a bed right on Four Corners (a place in the US where four state borders intersect) and then proceeds to have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl. Under whose definition of right or wrong will you hold the man?

 

[Xue Sheng]

You shore got a purty mouth there, boy...



:uhyeah:


Random trivia in honor of my 1991st post: 1991 - Jay Leno succeeds Johnny Carson as host of The Tonight Show.

So when does Burt Reynolds show up.

I could have gone for the obvious pig reference, but I won't.

Congrats on the 1991 post

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I believe that's covered under "Illegally Transporting Livestock Across State Borders For Nefarious Purposes."



pwn3d!



:uhyeah:

Eeeewwwwwwww.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yet it remains an interesting comparison...



Alright, I can accept your argument if you are doing nothing but following the letter of the law in different areas. The term "minor" is still relative and so is the age at which they can consent to sex. In order to illustrate this, I'm going to propose a hypothetical situation...

Suppose that a 30 year old man positions a bed right on Four Corners (a place in the US where four state borders intersect) and then proceeds to have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl. Under whose definition of right or wrong will you hold the man?

Depends on which state their genitals were in?

I mean, other than aroused.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Yet it remains an interesting comparison...



Alright, I can accept your argument if you are doing nothing but following the letter of the law in different areas. The term "minor" is still relative and so is the age at which they can consent to sex. In order to illustrate this, I'm going to propose a hypothetical situation...

Suppose that a 30 year old man positions a bed right on Four Corners (a place in the US where four state borders intersect) and then proceeds to have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl. Under whose definition of right or wrong will you hold the man?

In the state(s) where it was legal there would be no problem. In a state(s) where it was illegal he would be charged. Also could add taking a minor across a state line, ..., .

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yet it remains an interesting comparison...



Alright, I can accept your argument if you are doing nothing but following the letter of the law in different areas. The term "minor" is still relative and so is the age at which they can consent to sex. In order to illustrate this, I'm going to propose a hypothetical situation...

Suppose that a 30 year old man positions a bed right on Four Corners (a place in the US where four state borders intersect) and then proceeds to have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl. Under whose definition of right or wrong will you hold the man?

You are not serious are you????

But I'll bite... It depends on which corner of the bed they are in at any given time.

However in reality they would both very likely get arrested for being naked in public and committing lewd acts. The best the guy could hope for is the arresting state did not consider her a minor. And he best hope she is not from one of those states and considered a minor and caught on the corner of the bed where she is not because he just took a minor across state lines for the purposes of having sex. Now did she have any alcohol, possibly she was not old enough on that corner of the bed so he would also get hit giving alcohol to a minor.

Now what if a car was traveling 60 miles an hour towards Huston from Michigan and a 30 year old and a 17 year old have sex in the back seat while going from state to state to state. And a Trooper is heading towards them at 75 miles per hour from another sate with New Mexico plate and illegal aliens in the back.... this is pointless... you are looking for justification where it does not exist and trying scenario after scenario until you get one that works... and they never will. The laws of the state are the laws of the state. Crossing state lines may bring in federal law, of that I am not sure.

 

[evenflow1121]

Yet it remains an interesting comparison...



Alright, I can accept your argument if you are doing nothing but following the letter of the law in different areas. The term "minor" is still relative and so is the age at which they can consent to sex. In order to illustrate this, I'm going to propose a hypothetical situation...

Suppose that a 30 year old man positions a bed right on Four Corners (a place in the US where four state borders intersect) and then proceeds to have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl. Under whose definition of right or wrong will you hold the man?

You know the law has a lot of grey areas. All 4 States could prob charge depending on their definition law. Not to deviate too much from the topic, but you made me think about a lot of 22-24 yr old girls that I know that even at this age still dont know their head from their ***. And a 30 yr old man with tell ya what an 18 yr old girl, is prob legal in most states due to the age of consent but let's be realistic the I am pretty sure that 30 yr old guy can give her a run for her money at that age. Just a thought that came to mind didnt mean to troll. BTW Happy 4th guys wont be able to post tomorrow.

 

[matt.m]

There is no such thing as consent with a minor. See I believe laws are set via legislation to protect others and themselves against the inappropriate. Now I am not a prude of any kind. However, a young girl doesn't have the mindset to decide if having sex is the ok thing to do.

On the flip side a grown man should not, sorry, in his right mind want to have sex with a young minor. Myself, I have never dated a girl younger than 2 yrs. younger than myself.

 

[Makalakumu]

Depends on which state their genitals were in?

I mean, other than aroused.

Okay, for further clarification, the couple in question makes sure that phallus in question is driving right into the intersecting imaginary lines.

artyon:

 

[Makalakumu]

You are not serious are you????

Kinda...

But I'll bite... It depends on which corner of the bed they are in at any given time.

What if the offending genitals were directly over the intersecting state boundaries?

However in reality they would both very likely get arrested for being naked in public and committing lewd acts. The best the guy could hope for is the arresting state did not consider her a minor. And he best hope she is not from one of those states and considered a minor and caught on the corner of the bed where she is not because he just took a minor across state lines for the purposes of having sex. Now did she have any alcohol, possibly she was not old enough on that corner of the bed so he would also get hit giving alcohol to a minor.

This is just a hypothetical situation, however, if you are going to use the letter of the law as your guide to the absolute statement "no minors may consent to have sex" this example surely illustrates the impossibility of that statement.

Now what if a car was traveling 60 miles an hour towards Huston from Michigan and a 30 year old and a 17 year old have sex in the back seat while going from state to state to state. And a Trooper is heading towards them at 75 miles per hour from another sate with New Mexico plate and illegal aliens in the back.... this is pointless... you are looking for justification where it does not exist and trying scenario after scenario until you get one that works... and they never will. The laws of the state are the laws of the state. Crossing state lines may bring in federal law, of that I am not sure.

This isn't pointless because what I am pointing out with my hypothetical scenarios is that even the letter of the law cannot justify the absolute statement that "no minors may consent to have sex." If the laws are different from place to place and you commit an act that is technically in two places at once, then you can theoretically say that a minor gave legal and illegal consent for sex at the very same time.

 

[Kreth]

Suppose that a 30 year old man positions a bed right on Four Corners (a place in the US where four state borders intersect) and then proceeds to have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl. Under whose definition of right or wrong will you hold the man?

Easy. Her father's... :uhyeah:

 

[Brother John]

Okay, for further clarification, the couple in question makes sure that phallus in question is driving right into the intersecting imaginary lines.

artyon:

don't know about morality, but...
at the very least........

that's not sanitary!!!
:ladysman:
:hammer:

:uhohh:

Your Brother
John

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Easy. Her father's... :uhyeah:

Point

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Point

Seriously though, maybe the definition of "Minor" is vague?

 

[Makalakumu]

Easy. Her father's... :uhyeah:

Exactly. This falls under the "I Choke You" jurisdiction...

 

[Xue Sheng]

This is just a hypothetical situation, however, if you are going to use the letter of the law as your guide to the absolute statement "no minors may consent to have sex" this example surely illustrates the impossibility of that statement. .

No actually it doesn't, as stated minor is a legal term if a minor in one state is considered to be less than 14 then no person less that fourteen can give consent since they are in fact a minor. And if a state says a minor is anyone under 18 then no on in that state can grant consent if they are under 18.

This isn't pointless because what I am pointing out with my hypothetical scenarios is that even the letter of the law cannot justify the absolute statement that "no minors may consent to have sex." If the laws are different from place to place and you commit an act that is technically in two places at once, then you can theoretically say that a minor gave legal and illegal consent for sex at the very same time.

Nope, see previous comment, it is still pointless.

Once again

"Your honor it is perfectly legal in Texas so it must be legal in New York too and since were from Texas it must be ok in New York"

Is not a good defense, and I am betting the judge goes with the letter of the law on this one.

It still stands and Minor cannot give consent. It doesn't matter what state you are in a minor cannot give consent. What does change from state to state is what is considered a minor. But still a minor in any given state cannot grant consent.

And here's one for you, in some states there are variations on the definition. Doing something with a 17 year old will get you in less trouble that a 14 year old. Different levels of a felony to be exact. Either way a minor cannot give consent for sex.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Easy. Her father's... :uhyeah:

point and match