Forum - View topic

NEWS: Metrocon Posts Statement After Founder's Arrest

however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not singing the man's praises but I'm not condemning him either. From a strictly personal standpoint, I disagree heavily with the current state of the law when it comes to age of consent laws and statutory crimes. (Especially since they tend to punish men disproportionately to women who break the same laws.)

This kind of law must swell the dockets in Florida. Doesn't the state have anything else better to do than prosecute consensual sex with 16 and 17-year-olds?

And I suppose we won't know the gender of the minor? One shouldn't assume that the minor is female until it is verified.

Lothar wrote:

This kind of law must swell the dockets in Florida. Doesn't the state have anything else better to do than prosecute consensual sex with 16 and 17-year-olds?

Jeezz, in Spain consensual sex is 13.

hikaru004 wrote:

And I suppose we won't know the gender of the minor? One shouldn't assume that the minor is female until it is verified.

I don't see why that's even relevant unless you are homophobic or something.

J-Syxx wrote:

hikaru004 wrote: And I suppose we won't know the gender of the minor? One shouldn't assume that the minor is female until it is verified. I don't see why that's even relevant unless you are homophobic or something.

It tends to be made more of an issue if the minor was male along with the adult. (see same sex statutory rape section)

Also, if the minor was female, we prob would have been told so and it wouldn't have been that big of a deal which is making me a little suspicious.

hikaru004 wrote:

J-Syxx wrote: hikaru004 wrote: And I suppose we won't know the gender of the minor? One shouldn't assume that the minor is female until it is verified. I don't see why that's even relevant unless you are homophobic or something. It tends to be made more of an issue if the minor was male along with the adult. (see same sex statutory rape section) Also, if the minor was female, we prob would have been told so and it wouldn't have been that big of a deal which is making me a little suspicious.

Again who gives a crap?

Second point, the link you provided doesn't mention a Florida law like that and just mentions a Kansas law that was ruled unconstitutional.

J-Syxx wrote:

hikaru004 wrote: J-Syxx wrote: hikaru004 wrote: And I suppose we won't know the gender of the minor? One shouldn't assume that the minor is female until it is verified. I don't see why that's even relevant unless you are homophobic or something. It tends to be made more of an issue if the minor was male along with the adult. (see same sex statutory rape section) Also, if the minor was female, we prob would have been told so and it wouldn't have been that big of a deal which is making me a little suspicious. Again who gives a crap? Second point, the link you provided doesn't mention a Florida law like that and just mentions a Kansas law that was ruled unconstitutional.

Loads of people including the media which is why he had to step down. I couldn't find Florida's version of a same sex statutory rape law so I referred to that section instead and not the Kansas law in particular.

No need to get so sensitive about it. It's a fact of life in the US.

Why are people assuming he even knew the girl's age? Not that it would justify or invalidate any of the legal matters involved but it's entirely possible he thought the girl in question was of legal age.

Are people really supposed to look at IDs and run background checks before having sex?

794.021 Ignorance or belief as to victim's age no defense.--When, in this chapter, the criminality of conduct depends upon the victim's being below a certain specified age, ignorance of the age is no defense. Neither shall misrepresentation of age by such person nor a bona fide belief that such person is over the specified age be a defense.
History.--s. 2, ch. 74-121.

794.022 Rules of evidence.--

(1) The testimony of the victim need not be corroborated in a prosecution under s. 794.011.

(2) Specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity between the victim and any person other than the offender shall not be admitted into evidence in a prosecution under s. 794.011. However, such evidence may be admitted if it is first established to the court in a proceeding in camera that such evidence may prove that the defendant was not the source of the semen, pregnancy, injury, or disease; or, when consent by the victim is at issue, such evidence may be admitted if it is first established to the court in a proceeding in camera that such evidence tends to establish a pattern of conduct or behavior on the part of the victim which is so similar to the conduct or behavior in the case that it is relevant to the issue of consent.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reputation evidence relating to a victim's prior sexual conduct or evidence presented for the purpose of showing that manner of dress of the victim at the time of the offense incited the sexual battery shall not be admitted into evidence in a prosecution under s. 794.011.

(4) When consent of the victim is a defense to prosecution under s. 794.011, evidence of the victim's mental incapacity or defect is admissible to prove that the consent was not intelligent, knowing, or voluntary; and the court shall instruct the jury accordingly.

Are people really supposed to look at IDs and run background checks before having sex?

Richard J. wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not singing the man's praises but I'm not condemning him either. From a strictly personal standpoint, I disagree heavily with the current state of the law when it comes to age of consent laws and statutory crimes. (Especially since they tend to punish men disproportionately to women who break the same laws.)

This kind of law must swell the dockets in Florida. Doesn't the state have anything else better to do than prosecute consensual sex with 16 and 17-year-olds? Most states set a legal age of consent at 16 for a reason, because at that end it becomes less about protecting children and more about enforcing some narrow constituency's version of sexual morality. Plus precious resources are better spent on other offenses, including actual child rape.

If this kind of law has to exist, can't it be a misdemeanor rather than a felony? It seems odd that what is perfectly legal just across the border in Georgia is a felony in Florida, to say the least.

The fact that this came up FOUR YEARS AFTER is suspect. Isn't there a law somewhere that says that 'if something isn't reported after a certain amount of time, then the argument is moot'?