God Bless RI!!!!

[Hot Mega]

Several years ago there was a stip club owner in Illinois, in a town near me, that got in a little bit of trouble for having a legally emancipated 17-year-old dancing at the club. He said that he was advised by attorneys and a judge that it was legal. He didn't get in any real trouble for that. He did agree to close the club.

I'm kind of surprised that 1.) the law hasn't been changed, and 2.) that the strip clubs would just simply not do it, since it could pose a liability for them.

Wow. It seems like there was no real effort to get him into "trouble" then but the case was used as an extortion tool to get him to close his doors.

I know ignorance of the law isn't a defense to breaking the law. But it just seems un-American to punish someone who has not only failed to violate the letter of the law but exercised due diligence in trying to ensure they stayed on the correct side of the law.

 

[Rey C.]

Whether it's AOC, the minimum age to buy alcohol, vote, be drafted or drive a car, these laws have always perplexed me.

When I was a teen, you could get your learner's permit at 15 and 8 months, and you could get your full driver's license at 16. Why 15 and 8 months? :dunno: You could buy cigarettes or other tobacco products at any age. You could buy wine and beer at 18, but hard liquor at 21. Then they changed beer and wine to 19 (I believe), and finally all alcohol went to 21. I think you have to be 18 to buy tobacco products now? One of my grandmothers was married at 14 or 15.

I don't know what the "correct" age of consent should be. And I don't believe that very much rational thought goes into setting minimum ages for various things in society. But I do find it rather hilarious when I see count downs on when various girls will turn 18. It's like you were a perv if you were scoping the Olsen twins when they were 17 years, 11 months and 29 days. But the split second they turned 18... the photogs started hunting them down like wild animals for nipple slips and upskirt shots. Morality disguised as legality is a curious looking beast.

Anyway, I don't think it was some great voice in the sky that decreed that 18 was the magical, appropriate age for girls (or guys) to be "legal" for sex or anything else. It strikes me that 16 is too young to be dancing topless in a club. But I may feel that way only because I've been socialized to believe that. Maybe they should get their learner's dancing permits at 17 and 8 months and then become full dancers at 18?

 

[Hot Mega]

Whether it's AOC, the minimum age to buy alcohol, vote, be drafted or drive a car, these laws have always perplexed me.

When I was a teen, you could get your learner's permit at 15 and 8 months, and you could get your full driver's license at 16. Why 15 and 8 months? :dunno: You could buy cigarettes or other tobacco products at any age. You could buy wine and beer at 18, but hard liquor at 21. Then they changed beer and wine to 19 (I believe), and finally all alcohol went to 21. I think you have to be 18 to buy tobacco products now? One of my grandmothers was married at 14 or 15.

I don't know what the "correct" age of consent should be. And I don't believe that very much rational thought goes into setting minimum ages for various things in society. But I do find it rather hilarious when I see count downs on when various girls will turn 18. It's like you were a perv if you were scoping the Olsen twins when they were 17 years, 11 months and 29 days. But the split second they turned 18... the photogs started hunting them down like wild animals for nipple slips and upskirt shots. Morality disguised as legality is a curious looking beast.

Anyway, I don't think it was some great voice in the sky that decreed that 18 was the magical, appropriate age for girls (or guys) to be "legal" for sex or anything else. It strikes me that 16 is too young to be dancing topless in a club. But I may feel that way only because I've been socialized to believe that. Maybe they should get their learner's dancing permits at 17 and 8 months and then become full dancers at 18?

Why is the speed limit 65 in some cases and not 66 or 70 everywhere? Why establish the age for starting school at around 5? Why do you need to be a certain age to run for congress or POTUS? All of these are the result of some consensus for a necessary baseline. Is it fair in all cases? Probably not. But they would appear to be generally acceptable, reasonable baselines.

 

[Legzman]

sounds hot to me. Yea, I'm a sick fuck, get over it! :thefinger

 

[Rey C.]

Why is the speed limit 65 in some cases and not 66 or 70 everywhere? Why establish the age for starting school at around 5? Why do you need to be a certain age to run for congress or POTUS? All of these are the result of some consensus for a necessary baseline. Is it fair in all cases? Probably not. But they would appear to be generally acceptable, reasonable baselines.

That the speed limit on mountain interstates in West Virginia is 70mph and the speed limit on many flat, open, midwestern interstates is also 70mph indicates that not a lot of deep, extensive thought went into that one.

I'm not really addressing the issue of fairness. As for what's reasonable, that's totally subjective. But I'm speaking more to the logic behind some of these age limitations. Almost all of the laws we live by are a result of a consensus on the part of lawmakers. But that doesn't speak to the question I have about what logic or data went into the passage of various laws.

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be age limitations in certain cirumstances. But especially when there seems to be a paradox, I get curious as to how the lawmakers got from point A to point C. Do you see what I mean?

 

[Hot Mega]

That the speed limit on mountain interstates in West Virginia is 70mph and the speed limit on many flat, open, midwestern interstates is also 70mph indicates that not a lot of deep, extensive thought went into that one.

I'm not really addressing the issue of fairness. As for what's reasonable, that's totally subjective. But I'm speaking more to the logic behind some of these age limitations. Almost all of the laws we live by are a result of a consensus on the part of lawmakers. But that doesn't speak to the question I have about what logic or data went into the passage of various laws.

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be age limitations in certain cirumstances. But especially when there seems to be a paradox, I get curious as to how the lawmakers got from point A to point C. Do you see what I mean?

Some judgment went establishing a number, then consensus, then custom or law I guess.

 

[Rey C.]

Some judgment went establishing a number, then consensus, then custom or law I guess.

Yes, I agree with that. Customs, public sentiment and social morays play a big part in the making of laws. I'm just really not sure how much of the law making process is data driven.

My own feelings aside, I often find it interesting what people find to be taboo at the margin, and how they react to those topics. In my state, as I understand it, until the wording was revised, it wasn't illegal for an adult female (say 35) to have relations with an underage male (say 15). But it was illegal for an adult male (let's also say 35) to have relations with an underage female (let's say she's 15 too). Men (still) tend to be the primary lawmakers in the U.S., and there continues to be a feeling that an adult female can't really molest an underage male; the male "likes" being molested. If the kid is gay, it doesn't seem like that would make sense, but that's how male lawmakers and judges saw it (from their own boyhood fantasies ). And so these laws were crafted around that belief. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the sodomy laws are still on the books in my state. So I think males with males is (technically) illegal here, no matter the age - as is male/female anal and I guess any type of oral sex. Those things were all taboo, there was a consensus and now we have laws that will exist until there is another consensus (at the state or Supreme Court level) to change them.

Like I said, laws that create or support a paradox in logic just trip me out. :2 cents:

 

[STDiva]

Apparently, not long enough. Fire this guy and give him life in prison.

Uhm...Why should the cop get life in prison? There are no laws that say this is illegal. As wrong as it is, he cop shouldn't be fired. And he certainly shouldn't be thrown in prison for life. That's just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.