doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[Dr Exiled]

And of course, a 17 year old is old enough to consent according to the evidence I seen. A lot of people here are simply crazy.

NO. In Utah, the legal age of consent is 18. Gadianton's cousin was married at age 17 in Utah, so she had to have written consent from her parents in order for the marriage to happen. THE EVIDENCE YOU'VE SEEN MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE LAW, NOT THE EVIDENCE YOU'VE SEEN.

You missed the point, Dr. Shades. The point is that a 17 year old is old enough, that's why a lot of people attended the wedding.

No, YOU MISSED THE POINT. THE POINT IS NOT WHETHER AGE 17 IS "OLD ENOUGH." THE POINT IS WHETHER A 17 YEAR-OLD CAN BE LEGALLY MARRIED WHEN AGE 17 IS LESS THAN THE AGE OF CONSENT IN UTAH, WHERE SHE WAS MARRIED.

Normal people don't see anything wrong with that.

Normal people see a LOT wrong with 17 year-olds marrying without their parents' consent, when 18 is the age of consent in that jurisdiction. So much so that a legal marriage cannot legally occur (without their parents' consent).

Yes, this is why where Mr. Doubtingthomas was living at the time is important to the discussion. My understanding is that he lives in Utah where 18 is the age of consent.

[Dr Exiled]

My understanding is that the individual was 17 and the couple lived in a state where the age of consent is 17. So, no crime.

Perhaps Dr Exile needs a mental health evaluation. Did you read what Gadianton said?

Put it to rest and just say what State had the pleasure of your amazing rendezvous.

[Res Ipsa]

I think I'm seeing some confusion between laws governing the minimum age of consent for sex and the minimum age for marriage without parental consent. They are not necessarily the same.

[Dr Exiled]

I think I'm seeing some confusion between laws governing the minimum age of consent for sex and the minimum age for marriage without parental consent. They are not necessarily the same.

Here is the specific Utah statute that I am talking about:

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapt ... 0420220504

Effective 5/4/2022
76-5-401.2. Unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old -- Penalties -- Limitations.
(1)
(a) As used in this section:
(i) "Indecent liberties" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-5-401.1.
(ii) "Minor" means an individual who is 16 years old or older, but younger than 18 years old, at the time the sexual conduct described in Subsection (2) occurred.
(b) Terms defined in Section 76-1-101.5 apply to this section.
(2)
(a) Under circumstances not amounting to an offense listed in Subsection (4), an actor commits unlawful sexual conduct with a minor if the actor:
(i)
(A) is seven or more years older but less than 10 years older than the minor at the time of the sexual conduct;
(B) engages in any conduct listed in Subsection (2)(b); and
(C) knew or reasonably should have known the age of the minor; or
(ii)
(A) is 10 or more years older than the minor at the time of the sexual conduct; and
(B) engages in any conduct listed in Subsection (2)(b).
(b) As used in Subsection (2)(a), "sexual conduct" refers to when the actor:
(i) has sexual intercourse with the minor;
(ii) engages in any sexual act with the minor involving the genitals of one individual and the mouth or anus of another individual;
(iii)
(A) causes the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of the minor by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, including a part of the human body; and
(B) causes the penetration with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any individual or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any individual; or
(iv) with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any individual or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any individual:
(A) touches the anus, buttocks, pubic area, or any part of the genitals of the minor;
(B) touches the breast of a female minor; or
(C) otherwise takes indecent liberties with the minor.
(c)
(i) Any touching, even if accomplished through clothing, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of a violation of Subsection (2)(a).
(ii) Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element under Subsection (2)(b)(i).
(iii) Any touching, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element under Subsection (2)(b)(ii).
(3)
(a) A violation of Subsection (2)(b)(i), (ii), or (iii) is a third degree felony.
(b) A violation of Subsection (2)(b)(iv) is a class A misdemeanor.
(4) The offenses referred to in Subsection (2)(a) are:
(a) rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402;
(b) object rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402.2;
(c) forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 76-5-403;
(d) forcible sexual abuse, in violation of Section 76-5-404;
(e) aggravated sexual assault, in violation of Section 76-5-405; or
(f) an attempt to commit an offense listed in Subsections (4)(a) through (e).


Amended by Chapter 181, 2022 General Session

Doubtingthomas admits to having engaged in sexual intercouse with a 17 year old. So, if Doubtingthomas was in Utah at the time (and he has said he lives in Utah on several occasions) and if he was more than 7 years older than his conquest during their trist, then his conduct is punishable as a third degree felony.

ETA: I know what you said earlier, but, I'd like to hear it from him as to where he was when the act occurred. He has skipped around the simple question, vaguely alluding to other states that have different statutes. He needs to directly answer the simple question.

[doubtingthomas]

Doubtingthomas admits to having engaged in sexual intercouse with a 17 year old.

I have never admitted that and it's none of your business.

So, if Doubtingthomas was in Utah at the time (and he has said he lives in Utah on several occasions) .

That's not true. One time I did say that I was in UT, but that was in 2017, almost ten years ago. You are very dishonest to suggest that I said that on several occasions. I did say on several occasions in the past that I don't live in UT.

vaguely alluding to other states that have different statutes

That's not true, I have been very clear that I live in a state where the age of consent is at least 17.

if he was more than 7 years older than his conquest during their trist

That's a lot of ifs dumbass, why don't you start by quoting what I actually said?

ETA: I know what you said earlier, but, I'd like to hear it from him as to where he was when the act occurred. He has skipped around the simple question

That's because it's simply none of your business. I would give the same answer to law enforcement if I am ever asked. All you need to know is that the age of consent is above 16 (even to this day) in the state where I am living. She was of legal age.

then his conduct is punishable as a third degree felony.

Same if you do drugs or have an abortion in some states, but you wouldn't care about that. It's clear you want me to do 20 because you have the religious belief that 17 is too young. You are clearly an awful human being.

Let's have a meeting in person to discuss this.

[doubtingthomas]

I think I'm seeing some confusion between laws governing the minimum age of consent for sex and the minimum age for marriage without parental consent. They are not necessarily the same.

Right, I agree. The point is that an 18-year-old is not too young to think for themselves.

Dr. Exile doesn't seem to understand that I am living in a state where the legal age of consent is at least 17, if not younger.

[Gadianton]

I think I'm seeing some confusion between laws governing the minimum age of consent for sex and the minimum age for marriage without parental consent. They are not necessarily the same.

Great point. I'm one of those confused, but it makes more sense now. The one other story I have from Utah is that I was acquainted with some rougher guys back in the day for a while, and I recall them speaking about a very good friend of theirs "hey -- have you heard from ????" who was serving a jail sentence for his relations with a 16 year old -- he was 18, and they'd been dating for quite a while. As I gathered, it was the parents who found out and went ape, and so he got the book thrown at him.

Well, I suppose there are far more stories than that if you count Jr. High and high school, good Lord; I guess I'm counting situations the circumstances of which potentially shed light on on DT's situation.

So DT, it looks like it's all about how the parents feel about the matter.

[doubtingthomas]

So DT, it looks like it's all about how the parents feel about the matter.

About marriage, yes. I believe that a 17 year old is too young to get officially married.

But I am living in the state where the legal age of sexual consent is at least 17. It's legal almost everywhere.

I recall them speaking about a very good friend of theirs "hey -- have you heard from ????" who was serving a jail sentence for his relations with a 16 year old -- he was 18, and they'd been dating for quite a while.

That's all because of people like Doc and Dr. Exile. Doc believes 19-year olds are not adults.

[Gadianton]

That's all because of people like Doc and Dr. Exile. Doc believes 19-year olds are not adults.

Can you provide quotes where Doc and E and said 19-year-olds aren't adults?

[doubtingthomas]

That's all because of people like Doc and Dr. Exile. Doc believes 19-year olds are not adults.

Can you provide quotes where Doc and E and said 19-year-olds aren't adults?

Yes, absolutely.

It was Doc who suggested that 19-year olds aren't adults. I am not making stuff up like Doc and Dr. Exile are doing.

.... If anyone truly believes a 19-year-old is an adult I have a bridge over the river Kwai to sell you.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=158575&start=10