CL sex sting

[redmachine 1916]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1205474.html

 

This is interesting as there have been a few ladies locally removed from cerb because they either could not or would not verify there age. This is a good reminder if you ever have any question you should always ask for age verification unless you want your name in the local paper.Hard to feel sorry for these guys though as they were clearly seeking the services of a underage girl..

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

This is a tough one. As much as I hate the exploitation of children and young people, I don't think there is really much difference between a 17-year-old an 18-year-old.

[Guest G***f******]

This is a tough one. As much as I hate the exploitation of children and young people' date=' I don't think there is really much difference between a 17-year-old an 18-year-old.[/quote']

 

Gotta draw a line somewhere. It's far too difficult to try and do things on a case by case basis. "This person aged 17 is emotionally and intellectually capable of making these decisions, this 18 year old is not.".

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

Gotta draw a line somewhere. It's far too difficult to try and do things on a case by case basis. "This person aged 17 is emotionally and intellectually capable of making these decisions, this 18 year old is not.".

Yes, but I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about my own personal morals and judgment. What he did was illegal, for sure. Am I going to brand him a monster? Probably not.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Yes got to draw the line somewhere and most say 18 is the line. Otherwise one can hold the same argument that there is not much difference between 16 and 17 or 15 and 16 ... So, where do we stop?.

 

It is my understanding that the men went to see the girl knowingly. That is it was advertised that the girl was 17 (underage) and the men were fully aware of that fact (it wasn't a case of men not being able to distinguish between 17 and 18 Megan) and the one in question even asked for full service, again being fully aware of her (under) age!!!. This is inexusable.

 

On a side note I hope police sting is limited to underage. If they start doing that with every girl on CL (a consenting adult), I don't think they will have my support (which would be likely become the outcome if the Swedish model is imposed).

[roamingguy 300292]

This is a tough one. As much as I hate the exploitation of children and young people' date=' I don't think there is really much difference between a 17-year-old an 18-year-old.[/quote']

 

Megan

I do agree, chronologically no difference. But under 18 is illegal. And "knowing" that the girl in the cl ad was 17 and he wanted full service, sorry absolutely no sympathy. I'm wondering what this guy's age boundries are...what if the ad posted 14 years old

And for drawing a line, if we bend and say 17 is close to 18, so ok, what's next, 16 close to 17, that's ok too, and then well 15 close to 16, etc etc etc.

Just adding to the discussion

RG

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

To be perfectly honest, I'm slightly uncomfortable with women engaging in sex work under about age 22. I believe a lot of maturing happens during your post-secondary years, roughly 18-22.

 

I'm only slightly less comfortable with a 17-year-old than an 18-year-old. And I'm slightly more comfortable with a 19-year-old than an 18-year-old.

 

I'm not saying that I'm perfectly okay with a 17-year-old, I'm not. But it didn't make sense to say that 18 is perfectly okay, and 17 makes you a monster.

[roamingguy 300292]

Megan

I agree with you, 17 doesn't make him a monster (and in 25 years of work I have seen more than my fair share of sickos and monsters, this guy does pale in comparision), but that being said, I'm sure you'd agree it doesn't make him a saint either

RG

[redmachine 1916]

I may be a little naive but I am shocked that seven men were caught in this sting knowing full well that the girl was under aged?

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

Megan

I agree with you, 17 doesn't make him a monster (and in 25 years of work I have seen more than my fair share of sickos and monsters, this guy does pale in comparision), but that being said, I'm sure you'd agree it doesn't make him a saint either

RG

Absolutely. And to tell you the truth, I'm not entirely comfortable with 18 and 19 either.

[roamingguy 300292]

Absolutely. And to tell you the truth' date=' I'm not entirely comfortable with 18 and 19 either.[/quote']

 

Me either, actually 25 is my cut off, but that's me

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

It would be interesting to know what the "sting" ad actually stated.

 

At any rate, rightly or wrongly, this man was not treated as a monster. The justice system has exercised its discretion here. He was only given a conditional discharge and six months probation for communicating -- he was not convicted for attempting to purchase sex with a person under the age of 18. Two of the men were offered a withdrawal of their charges if they attend John School.

 

In practical terms, they can indeed thank their lucky stars, since conviction for attempting to purchase sex with a person under the age of 18 carries a mandatory prison sentence of between 6 months and five years.