Matt Gaetz Is Said to Be Investigated Over Possible Sexual Relationship With a Girl,

[Draco-Onis]

Lord only knows with the pron too. He was showing pictures of girls to people on the floor of the House. How many were minors?

I didn't think about that he is probably also guilty of having child porn.

[Draco-Onis]

Absolutely, but I’m specifically talking about a 17 year old and people crying out that we’re dealing with a pedo here.

The law says he is a pedo everything else is semantics besides my point was he was into young girls how about a guy his age stay with people in the mid to late 20s. He is a congressman, this reminds me of Roy Moore saying 16 year old was old enough as an excuse for him to be stalking proms.

[solinari6]

While you are correct about the full definition, I disagree about the need to tone down outrage. The fact is that it doesn't matter what most people think of when they hear "sex trafficking", it matters that what he is accused of doing is legally considered such. Just because there are even worse ways in which a person can be trafficked doesn't mean that we should chill on this. To me there is no acceptable form of "child sex trafficking", period. That's a hill I'd be damn proud to die on.

Well the reason I said to tone it down, is because there is a HUGE moral difference between having sex with a 17 who WANTS to get f*ed, and as 12 year old who does not. And it seems like people here are treating those the same way. I'm not saying that EITHER is "acceptable" form of child trafficking. Just that one is a LOT worse than the other. And we don't really have enough details to know which actually applies to this case.

[Endus]

A pedo is someone that’s attracted to a prepubescent child.

Like I said, you're quibbling over the irrelevant distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia.

Ephebophilia is not normal, it's as deviant as pedophilia, even if it doesn't always violate statutory rape laws.

If Gaetz had sex with a 17 year old, he's fucking children. That's a fact. And you're not just okay with that fact, you're outright supporting it here.

That’s a child that’s not physically developed, meaning they haven’t gone through puberty. More happens to your body during puberty, particularly with girls, other than growing pubic hair.

The idiom I keep sniping at you is precisely about saying one is not a pedophile, but an ephebophile, and that such should be okay. You're also ignoring that these "physical developments" can, in many cases, be pretty much over with by like age 14.

A 17 year old absolutely has gone through puberty, and being attracted to a 17 year old does not make you a pedo.

But still a child.

You keep focusing in on this "he's technically not a pedophile" as if it's some lame-ass defense of the fact that he trafficked a child across state lines for the purpose of having sex with that child.

In deference to your insistence of pure Greek etymology, I won't call Gaetz a "pedo". I will call him a "child-fucker", though. Since that's just proper, technically correct English.

[Machismo]

Well, today we learned some people don't have a problem with 60-year-old dudes banging their 13-year-old kids.

[Lynarii]

A pedo is someone that’s attracted to a prepubescent child. That’s a child that’s not physically developed, meaning they haven’t gone through puberty. More happens to your body during puberty, particularly with girls, other than growing pubic hair.

A 17 year old absolutely has gone through puberty, and being attracted to a 17 year old does not make you a pedo.

As an adult, I can look at a 17 year old and say "That is an attractive person" and have that be the end of it. I wouldn't try and sleep with them, and if they tried to sleep with me I'd turn them down. Because even if they are physically fully developed, that's not a game I have any interest whatsoever in playing. I live in an area where the age of consent is 16, it'd be legal, and I /still/ don't care because I draw a line between a partner and a target.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

You also know you are pretty low in life when you no longer are debating it happened or not but then move into the semantics phase where its like.. well.. at 17 yo she be like a women...

[SirBeef]

A pedo is someone that’s attracted to a prepubescent child. That’s a child that’s not physically developed, meaning they haven’t gone through puberty. More happens to your body during puberty, particularly with girls, other than growing pubic hair.

A 17 year old absolutely has gone through puberty, and being attracted to a 17 year old does not make you a pedo.

Puberty is only on aspect. At 17, you still are not mentally done maturing and often lack critical thinking skills, not to mention it's a power disparity, and huge age disparity. Gaetz is in a position of power with his career status and his money. It doesn't matter if puberty has happened, or the minor is mentally mature. She was still a minor. And technically pedophilia is a different range of ages and this would be classified as something named differently, the common term used as a catchall that everyone understands is pedophile.

[solinari6]

We’re on to the she wanted it defense now? He gave her drugs, alcohol, and money... and she was under age and couldn’t consent. C’mon now. Hell, he even had her brought to him across state lines.

We don't know if he found her on that sugar daddy website or not. If she was on there, then absolutely, yes, she wanted sex for money. The drugs are a separate offense.

That's why I keep saying "We don't have enough information". But honestly, jumping to the worse conclusion is usually a smart bet when it comes to republicans, so I guess have at it

[Draco-Onis]

Well the reason I said to tone it down, is because there is a HUGE moral difference between having sex with a 17 who WANTS to get f*ed, and as 12 year old who does not. And it seems like people here are treating those the same way. I'm not saying that EITHER is "acceptable" form of child trafficking. Just that one is a LOT worse than the other. And we don't really have enough details to know which actually applies to this case.

So your line is as long as they don't look like kids? really? the point is the law doesn't care. As I said previously there are people as old as 14 that look like full grown adults. The more important question is why is a 38 year old guy drugging and sleeping with teenagers.

[Lynarii]

Well the reason I said to tone it down, is because there is a HUGE moral difference between having sex with a 17 who WANTS to get f*ed, and as 12 year old who does not. And it seems like people here are treating those the same way. I'm not saying that EITHER is "acceptable" form of child trafficking. Just that one is a LOT worse than the other. And we don't really have enough details to know which actually applies to this case.

The thing is, even if it is a 17 year old who wants it, if they can't legally consent then it is the responsibility of the adult to say no. The fact that it could be even worse does not in any way lessen how bad it is. It could (almost) always be 'even worse', I simply feel that any degree of child sex trafficking is worthy of being pretty damn incensed over, I see no need to try and draw a line about how bad the trafficking needs to be before it's bad enough to be worth anger.

[solinari6]

So your line is as long as they don't look like kids? really?

No, my argument was about age, and proximity to legal status.

[Draco-Onis]

No, my argument was about age, and proximity to legal status.

The law has to draw the line somewhere proximity is irrelevant because that's the set age.

[solinari6]

The law has to draw the line somewhere proximity is irrelevant because that's the set age.

Yes, I know what the law is, but we all have brains and can think in shades of grey, not just black and white. We are not the law here, and thank god, because no judge would make such judgments when so many facts are unknown.

[gondrin]

I wonder if this will be the song Gaetz plays for this campaign(if there is even one)?

[Endus]

The law has to draw the line somewhere proximity is irrelevant because that's the set age.

Also, as much as people quibble about how arbitrary ages of consent seem to be, they need to be arbitrary and explicitly clear. Otherwise, nearly every statutory rape case would boil down to some defense of "well, I thought she met the complex definition for this misguided reason", and convictions would be near-impossible.

The arbitrary-but-clear nature of the law makes such equivocations basically impossible, outside the VERY specific circumstances of a girl who A> looks mature and​ B> has a faked ID that says she's of age.

[Draco-Onis]

Yes, I know what the law is, but we all have brains and can think in shades of grey, not just black and white. We are not the law here, and thank god, because no judge would make such judgments when so many facts are unknown.

And if you go down shades of grey the rabbit hole is whoever doesn't look like a kid because a 16 year is not that different from a 17 year old looks wise.

[solinari6]

And if you go down shades of grey the rabbit hole is whoever doesn't look like a kid because a 16 year is not that different from a 17 year old looks wise.

My shade of gray isn't about looks, it's about "did this 17 year old actively sign up for the I WANNA BE A HOOKER WEBSITE?" That is one hell of an extenuating circumstance, that would absolutely change the sentencing vs a 17 year old who was forced into something she didn't want to do. Not saying it makes it OK, LEGAL, or anything of the sort.

[Lynarii]

Yes, I know what the law is, but we all have brains and can think in shades of grey, not just black and white. We are not the law here, and thank god, because no judge would make such judgments when so many facts are unknown.

Only if the unknown facts are relevant. The reality is, she could have approached him and offered sex, and if she's under the age of consent, he has a legal obligation to turn her down. There is no circumstances of the two of them meeting that would make the actions that he subsequently took okay, 'just fine', or legal. The only acceptable defense for his actions is that he didn't actually do what he's accused of, which is something that does indeed need to be tested in a court of law. "She wanted it" is not a way around age of consent laws.

[Draco-Onis]

My shade of gray isn't about looks, it's about "did this 17 year old actively sign up for the I WANNA BE A HOOKER WEBSITE?" That is one hell of an extenuating circumstance, that would absolutely change the sentencing vs a 17 year old who was forced into something she didn't want to do. Not saying it makes it OK, LEGAL, or anything of the sort.

How about a 38 year old man not look for people who are just 18 years old so he won't get into trouble? you do realize he was looking for barely legal hookers right? We are arguing semantics he is a Pedo he just doesn't want to go to jail so he stayed on the edge.