Matt Gaetz. He likes ‘em young.

[SteveGrabowski]

 

[Zorba]

To be more exact, it's 16 in 34 states, 17 in 6 states, 18 in 10 states, and 16 in DC.

Sexual Intercourse with Minors

States’ statutory rape offenses detail the age at which an individual can legally consent to sexual activity. This section focuses on laws addressing sexual intercourse.10Table 1 summarizes, where applicable, each state’s:

aspe.hhs.gov

I think almost all the states that are below 18 have numerous caveats to the age of content, as well. The biggest being having an authority over the child.

 

[Zorba]

This is a VERY Florida situation

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1377798303509843970

I guess he thought Filthy Rich was a tutorial.

 

[Zorba]

If you don't think a majority of 17 year olds (attractive or not) haven't done it more than once, well .... I hear there a magnificently complete big beautiful wall for sale .

Stereotypes are often very wrong, and in this case has much less to do with attractiveness as to home life.

The average age of first sexual intercourse in the United States is around 16.8 for males and around 17.2 for females,[15][16] and this has been rising in recent years.[17] For those teens who have had sex, 70% of girls and 56% of boys said that their first sexual experience was with a steady partner, while 16% of girls and 28% of boys report losing their virginity to someone they had just met or who was just a friend.[17]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States#cite_note-gutt-17

Adolescent sexuality in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Sunburn74]

I'm not outraged at all.
There are hundreds if not thousands of people plugged into that network. What you know is meaningless, who you know is everything. In Hunters case he's riding his dads coattails, and blew it by losing himself. He was connected, he had it made and still does. But he clearly can't handle it. That will be his downfall.

Yeah what about the entire trump family? I mean isn't lara trump now running for senator in NC? Talk about riding coat tails right? How did kushner end up negotiating us middle east policy? This is just a fact. Rich people get to take advantage of connections that come from being rich to make even more money. I mean malia obama is now a movie producer at 18 with no college experience and is working with Danny glover on a project. I'm sure she's definitely the best movie producer ever and head and shoulders better than people who trained for years and have extensive experience in the field. Or maybe it's just because she's an obama.

 

[mect]

You have it backwards. Not only did I not defend him, I stated that he should be prosecuted. Can't have it both ways!

If I were to defend anyone, it would be a 17 year old having sex with whomever they choose to, once (if) they've reached the age of consent.

The statement below by you would indicate otherwise. If you don't view this as a defense of Gaetz in the context of this thread, then you lack serious self awareness.

"There's nothing perverted about being in a consensual relationship with someone who has reached sexual maturity."

You proceeded in later posts to then state that he should be prosecuted, but only because it is illegal, not because you consider what he did to be ethically wrong, as indicated by my quote from you.

 

[MrSquished]

Matt Gaetz's ball resigned. That's his communication director, Luke Ball.

 

[mindless1]

The statement below by you would indicate otherwise. If you don't view this as a defense of Gaetz in the context of this thread, then you lack serious self awareness.

"There's nothing perverted about being in a consensual relationship with someone who has reached sexual maturity."

You proceeded in later posts to then state that he should be prosecuted, but only because it is illegal, not because you consider what he did to be ethically wrong, as indicated by my quote from you.

Yes. I don't consider it to be ethically wrong to have consensual sex with someone who has reached sexual maturity, without coercion, and above the legal limit. That's not defending Gaetz but rather defending the freedoms of everyone to do anything they want to which is within the law, but particularly come-of-age young adults who should not be subject to the opinions of others, who they do and don't sleep with.

There is far too much narrow minded sexual repression in society. What's next, declare grandma can't have sex because too old, would be perverted to find her desirable? How about homosexuality? Sodomy used to be a crime too, but society is slowly coming to its senses.

The majority votes on laws, and has established age of consent. Those who want the law changed should petition for it, including if you want an age difference to matter, though it would be more effective for parents to raise their children to make better choices. Even so, I support the right to make bad choices. I believe it is less ethical to impose upon others' freedoms than to let them make their own choices and suffer the consequences, good or bad.

 

[dank69]

I'm not outraged at all.
There are hundreds if not thousands of people plugged into that network. What you know is meaningless, who you know is everything. In Hunters case he's riding his dads coattails, and blew it by losing himself. He was connected, he had it made and still does. But he clearly can't handle it. That will be his downfall.

Evidence it had anything to do with his father? Because there are reports that Joe advised him NOT to take that job at the time.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Matt Gaetz's ball resigned. That's his communication director, Luke Ball.

Ooohhhh, sooo close ....


Matt lost his ball(s).

 

[mect]

Yes. I don't consider it to be ethically wrong to have consensual sex with someone who has reached sexual maturity, without coercion, and above the legal limit. That's not defending Gaetz but rather defending the freedoms of everyone to do anything they want to which is within the law, but particularly come-of-age young adults who should not be subject to the opinions of others, who they do and don't sleep with.

There is far too much narrow minded sexual repression in society. What's next, declare grandma can't have sex because too old, would be perverted to find her desirable?

The majority votes on laws, and has established age of consent. Those who want the law changed should petition for it, including if you want an age difference to matter, though it would be more effective for parents to raise their children to make better choices. Even so, I support the right to make bad choices. I believe it is less ethical to impose upon others' freedoms than to let them make their own choices and suffer the consequences, good or bad.

Yes, that is defending Gaetz, particularly since the legality of it is arbitrary, legal one place, not in another. The morality is independent of legality. So what I said was perfectly accurate.

Your libertarian tropes are so naïve and simplistic. There are many, many cases where it is unethical for a person to have sex with another even if both are old enough to consent, where consensual lines get blurred. Look no further than Weinstein for your examples. There are power dynamics that make it difficult to evaluate if free and willing consent was given, or if consent was given as a result of a power differential. This is why many locations have Romeo and Juliet laws. Most people wouldn't consider there to be anything wrong with a 19 year old and a 17 year old having sex. On the other hand, the vast majority of people view someone in their mid 30s having sex with a 17 year old as wrong. This is particularly true if the older individual is in a position of power. This is the same reason why Universities don't allow professors to have sex with students, even though the students are old enough to consent. This is why a boss shouldn't have sex with his employees. You can disagree with this all you want, that's on you, but don't complain when people think you're disgusting.

People don't have freedom to use differences in power to force consensual relationships on people. And yes, I realize the paradox of that statement, but I use it out of a recognition that there are many cases free consent is not possible. Will there be a few legitimate cases where free consent will be prohibited by not permitting such relationships? Yes. But not near as many cases as will be prevented where consent is forced by the person in power.

 

[pauldun170]

A little recap of how some have responded to the news of Gaetz

"Well, school girls are whores anyway so something something some things"
"Age of consent so as long as it doesn't happen on school grounds or her parents bed..."
"So if there is grass on the field....
"I heard a story on FoxNews about some politicians son so maybe I should drop that name in this thread"
"I had sex with a girl once"

 

[mindless1]

Yes, that is defending Gaetz, particularly since the legality of it is arbitrary, legal one place, not in another. The morality is independent of legality. So what I said was perfectly accurate.

Nope, it is defending legal activity. If she was below the age of consent, or mentally compromised, or coerced by drugs or money, then he is guilt of a crime. Again it is impossible to be defending someone who you want prosecuted to see if laws were broken.

Your libertarian tropes are so naïve and simplistic.

Apparently not, if I have to go on and on posting till you even realize my position.

There are many, many cases where it is unethical for a person to have sex with another even if both are old enough to consent, where consensual lines get blurred. Look no further than Weinstein for your examples. There are power dynamics that make it difficult to evaluate if free and willing consent was given, or if consent was given as a result of a power differential.

You mean that you can't find a line. I can, as can a jury. Laws are what we have, and continue to refine. It beats the heck out of each individual pretending their version of morality is better than that of another individual.

This is why many locations have Romeo and Juliet laws. Most people wouldn't consider there to be anything wrong with a 19 year old and a 17 year old having sex. On the other hand, the vast majority of people view someone in their mid 30s having sex with a 17 year old as wrong.

Then petition to change the law, but first define "wrong"? Is it the ideal thing that parents would want for their children? Usually not, unless it is a rich male and the family or at least the daughter stands to greatly improve her life. On the other hand, can't the individual, being of legal age, make choices or do you still think you are fit to make other peoples' life choices? Recognize that these women were likely already partying, doing drugs, having sex with who knows who.

Contributing to delinquency, trafficking from crossing state lines, and other criminal charges might be appropriate, because it's back to freedom to do whatever one wants, except break the law.

This is particularly true if the older individual is in a position of power. This is the same reason why Universities don't allow professors to have sex with students, even though the students are old enough to consent. This is why a boss shouldn't have sex with his employees. You can disagree with this all you want, that's on you, but don't complain when people think you're disgusting.

You're failing to show any way that he had power over them. Did he threaten in messages? Did he contact their employer? Send police to their door to intimidate? How exactly did he have power over them to persuade? Perhaps it was drugs, but then what power did he have to make them start taking drugs?

People don't have freedom to use differences in power to force consensual relationships on people. And yes, I realize the paradox of that statement, but I use it out of a recognition that there are many cases free consent is not possible. Will there be a few legitimate cases where free consent will be prohibited by not permitting such relationships? Yes. But not near as many cases as will be prevented where consent is forced by the person in power.

I never disagreed with that. Now show what penalty there was for not having a pseudo-consensual sexual relationship? Perhaps it was money, but did he really compel them to become prostitutes? That's what a trial is for, not speculation and opinion based on lack of evidence.

It is not at all the same thing as a person in authority that you regularly have contact with as a mentor, or has the power to fail you in school or get you fired at work, etc. unless you have evidence of some act similar to this? It's a serious concern and worth looking into, but is there evidence of this?

Do you truly believe the women did not go into this of free will and didn't have opportunity to return to their prior lives? Even if it was drugs used as coercion, I'm pretty sure there are other places to get drugs, same as any other drug addict does, yet, that IS illegal. Enforcing laws, not the subjective morality of individuals, is the way to proceed in a civil society.

 

[mect]

Nope, it is defending legal activity. If she was below the age of consent, or mentally compromised, or coerced by drugs or money, then he is guilt of a crime. Again it is impossible to be defending someone who you want prosecuted to see if laws were broken.



Apparently not, if I have to go on and on posting till you even realize my position.



You mean that you can't find a line. I can, as can a jury. Laws are what we have, and continue to refine. It beats the heck out of each individual pretending their version of morality is better than that of another individual.



Then petition to change the law, but first define "wrong"? Is it the ideal thing that parents would want for their children? Usually not, unless it is a rich male and the family or at least the daughter stands to greatly improve her life. On the other hand, can't the individual, being of legal age, make choices or do you still think you are fit to make other peoples' life choices? Recognize that these women were likely already partying, doing drugs, having sex with who knows who. Contributing to delinquency and other criminal charges might be appropriate, because it's back to freedom to do whatever one wants, except break the law.



You're failing to show any way that he had power over them. Did he threaten in messages? Did he contact their employer? Send police to their door to intimidate? How exactly did he have power over them to persuade? Perhaps it was drugs, but then what power did he have to make them start taking drugs?



I never disagreed with that. Now show what penalty there was for not having a pseudo-consensual sexual relationship? Perhaps it was money, but did he really compel them to become prostitutes? That's what a trial is for, not speculation and opinion based on lack of evidence.

Do you truly believe the women did not go into this of free will and had every opportunity to return to their prior lives? Even if it was drugs used as coercion, I'm pretty sure there are other places to get drugs, same as any other drug addict does.

You don't even appear to know what your opinion is. You continually contradict yourself. You say you aren't defending Gaetz, and then go on to defend him, over and over again. You are defending him again in this post. Yes, you can defend someone, and say they should be prosecuted. I mean really, you are reminding me of the Trump defenders saying Trump couldn't have incited the insurrectionists because he said peacefully once. You don't seem to be capable of considering your statements in the broader context of what you write, or even to remember what you have written.

 

[Wreckem]

You know it’s gonna get real bad when the Comm. Director resigns.

 

[mindless1]

You don't even appear to know what your opinion is. You continually contradict yourself.

Does that argument really work for you? Really?

You say you aren't defending Gaetz, and then go on to defend him, over and over again. You are defending him again in this post.

You don't seem to understand that a person doesn't need defense against something that isn't against the law (except from self-appointed morality police, lol) , and whatever he has done that is against the law, I am in favor of prosecuting for. Is this really too complex for you to follow?

Yes, you can defend someone, and say they should be prosecuted. I mean really, you are reminding me of the Trump defenders saying Trump couldn't have incited the insurrectionists because he said peacefully once. You don't seem to be capable of considering your statements in the broader context of what you write, or even to remember what you have written.

On the contrary, I'm running circles around your argument. Trump supporters don't want Trump charged with crimes and prosecuted. You're all over the place with no coherence, and can't see even the most basic things society holds important such as laws and freedom, and the right to trial, both for the accused, and for society to maintain laws.

Nice try with the vague nonsense though, I'm sure it worked for you once in the past or something.

 

[dank69]

A legend in his own mind head.

 

[pmv]

Matt Gaetz's ball resigned. That's his communication director, Luke Ball.

Sounds like he's only half the man that the Labour Party's Ed Balls is.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Ok!! So is Matt Gaetz finished or will he weather the storm???

 

[senseamp]

When GOP sends its people to government, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Ok!! So is Matt Gaetz finished or will he weather the storm???

Donny's stripper?

Oh, that one had a 'y'.

 

[hal2kilo]

Not that I really care. Well, yes I do, when it comes to hypocrisy.

Matt Gaetz advocated drug-testing recipients of public assistance, but a new report alleges the lawmaker used ecstasy (yahoo.com)

 

[compcons]

Does that argument really work for you? Really?



You don't seem to understand that a person doesn't need defense against something that isn't against the law (except from self-appointed morality police, lol) , and whatever he has done that is against the law, I am in favor of prosecuting for. Is this really too complex for you to follow?



On the contrary, I'm running circles around your argument. Trump supporters don't want Trump charged with crimes and prosecuted. You're all over the place with no coherence, and can't see even the most basic things society holds important such as laws and freedom, and the right to trial, both for the accused, and for society to maintain laws.

Nice try with the vague nonsense though, I'm sure it worked for you once in the past or something.

A I can think of with these replies is this:

 

[zinfamous]

When GOP sends its people to government, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

OMFG.

This is the actual summary of our current "era."

lol

I can't think of one better. I mean, the way that it is also delivered via projection. That's just, just....so on point.

Bravo, sir!

 

[HomerJS]

Right wing media is ignoring this story