Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist

[lionking]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Maybe, but supposedly she never mentioned it again despite suing him for child support and arguing with him about over issues of her care of the girl that lead to him suing her. She has a masters degree, she can't be stupid.... so she keeps quiet about the drug rape because she's scared of him, but she also sues him for child support? I don't know. Maybe, but the whole thing is contradictory as hell.

Mention what to whom? She said in the news report in the OP that Barnes knew and had influence over the police. And as he was a contractor to them, that is feasible.

And she’s scared of her (possibly violent) rapist? Are you in any way serious?

Some people in this thread are treating a victim of rape in a disgusting way.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by lionking

Mention what to whom? She said in the news report in the OP that Barnes knew and had influence over the police. And as he was a contractor to them, that is feasible.

And she’s scared of her (possibly violent) rapist? Are you in any way serious?

Some people in this thread are treating a victim of rape in a disgusting way.

And its the exact same people who do this exact same thing... victim blaming, in other threads on similar topics.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by lionking

Mention what to whom? She said in the news report in the OP that Barnes knew and had influence over the police. And as he was a contractor to them, that is feasible.

And she’s scared of her (possibly violent) rapist? Are you in any way serious?

Some people in this thread are treating a victim of rape in a disgusting way.

Mentioned what? The rape. She's had multiple interactions with the court and took years to bring it up while he had unsupervised custody with her daughter.

We don't know that she is scared of him. Maybe she is, and maybe she isn't. Why would we assume that she is?

This is a sceptics forum isn't it?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And its the exact same people who do this exact same thing... victim blaming, in other threads on similar topics.

It's not hard to do when you are dealing with some people who uncritically accept the claims of every "victim". Even questioning these claims in a rational manner becomes "victim blaming" in the eyes of a few.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And its the exact same people who do this exact same thing... victim blaming, in other threads on similar topics.

We are sceptics. Thought terminating clichés where we assume our conclusions do not become us.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

We are sceptics. Thought terminating clichés where we assume our conclusions do not become us.

And some “skeptics” here use Fox News as a source. I wonder why they would use a source so antithetical to skepticism? That is the definition of unbecoming.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It's not hard to do when you are dealing with some people who uncritically accept the claims of every "victim". Even questioning these claims in a rational manner becomes "victim blaming" in the eyes of a few.

Questioning claims in a rational manner is not clutching at Fox News and thinking it bolsters your case.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by lionking

Questioning claims in a rational manner is not clutching at Fox News and thinking it bolsters your case.

There is plenty to question about her claims, even if one disregards Fox News.

This has been clear from the start.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Warp12

There is plenty to question about her claims, even if one disregards Fox News.

This has been clear from the start.

I don’t think you even accept she was raped, so excuse me for not considering your opinions as “clear”.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by lionking

And some “skeptics” here use Fox News as a source. I wonder why they would use a source so antithetical to skepticism? That is the definition of unbecoming.

One can be wrong about a source, and still be a sceptic. One can't seek to mark out areas one has a political or religious commitment to as beyond scepticism, and be a sceptic.... certainly not while participating in a discussion on a sceptic forum on the topic one has excluded from scepticism. That's ridiculously hypocritical. Only being sceptical about things you aren't committed to is like supporting free speech except when you really disagree with the speech. You have your beliefs, terrific. They are no more powerful or convincing than if I used bible verses or passages from Dianetics to determine whose side we should be on.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by lionking

Questioning claims in a rational manner is not clutching at Fox News and thinking it bolsters your case.

Let's hope she is vindicated just like Jussie Smollett and Amber Heard. #IBelieveTheVictim #PeakScepticism

[lionking]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

One can be wrong about a source, and still be a sceptic. One can't seek to mark out areas one has a political or religious commitment to as beyond scepticism, and be a sceptic.... certainly not while participating in a discussion on a sceptic forum on the topic one has excluded from scepticism. That's ridiculously hypocritical. Only being sceptical about things you aren't committed to is like supporting free speech except when you really disagree with the speech. You have your beliefs, terrific. They are no more powerful or convincing than if I used bible verses or passages from Dianetics to determine whose side we should be on.

Oh a True Skeptic speech. I never get sick of them. One can’t have too many laughs.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by lionking

I don’t think you even accept she was raped, so excuse me for not considering your opinions as “clear”.

It is certainly questionable whether forcible rape occurred. By the definition of statutory rape in LA she was "raped", it would certainly seem. However, I do consider their law bogus in regards to AOC and especially in the the fact that even though she was utilizing a fake ID to misrepresent her age, it cannot be used in his defense.

[Warp12]

..

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by lionking

Oh a True Skeptic speech. I never get sick of them. One can’t have too many laughs.

Is there such a thing as a "No True Skeptic" fallacy? Its sure beginning to look that way.

Yes, having dealt personally with a few rape victims (one of which is very close to me), I have learned a few things that have stood me in good stead.

Firstly, I stand firmly by the principle of "trust but verify"... believe the victim as your default position... why? Because nothing, and I mean nothing will shut a rape victim down quicker than them feeling they are not being believed or their story is being doubted. It is always possible to overturn the truth with facts if the victim is lying, but if you doubt them in the first instance, the path back to the truth is a long, difficult, and sometimes impossible one.

Secondly, rape victims have been traumatised by their experience, well beyond you or I or anyone else's ability to understand - there is a large element of truth in the saying "you have to have been raped yourself to understand what it is like to be raped". Even long after the rape has happened ("long after" can be years or more) they can still be re-traumatised by what happened to them. The tiniest trigger can have them reliving the rape... a smell, a sound, a taste, an object, the recognition of a similar face, or place.

Thirdly, always keep in mind that a victim may have been raped weeks, or months, or years, or even decades earlier, but for most of them, it happened yesterday, and it will always have happened yesterday.... for the rest of their lives! Look up some of the rape victims of the Golden State Killer... 45+ years later, many of them cannot bring themselves to talk about it.

So yes, trust first and foremost - accept the victim's rape claim as the truth on its face AND THEN verify independently. Unfortunately, some of our, shall we say, less sympathetic members have failed the "trust" part, and are not even serious about the "verify".

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Is there such a thing as a "No True Skeptic" fallacy? Its sure beginning to look that way.

Yes, having dealt personally with a few rape victims (one of which is very close to me), I have learned a few things that have stood me in good stead.

Firstly, I stand firmly by the principle of "trust but verify"... believe the victim as your default position... why? Because nothing, and I mean nothing will shut a rape victim down quicker than them feeling they are not being believed or their story is being doubted. It is always possible to overturn the truth with facts if the victim is lying, but if you doubt them in the first instance, the path back to the truth is a long, difficult, and sometimes impossible one.

Secondly, rape victims have been traumatised by their experience, well beyond you or I or anyone else's ability to understand - there is a large element of truth in the saying "you have to have been raped yourself to understand what it is like to be raped". Even long after the rape has happened ("long after" can be years or more) they can still be re-traumatised by what happened to them. The tiniest trigger can have them reliving the rape... a smell, a sound, a taste, an object, the recognition of a similar face, or place.

Thirdly, always keep in mind that a victim may have been raped weeks, or months, or years, or even decades earlier, but for most of them, it happened yesterday, and it will always have happened yesterday.... for the rest of their lives! Look up some of the rape victims of the Golden State Killer... 45+ years later, many of them cannot bring themselves to talk about it.

So yes, trust first and foremost - accept the victim's rape claim as the truth on its face AND THEN verify independently. Unfortunately, some of our, shall we say, less sympathetic members have failed the "trust" part, and are not even serious about the "verify".

Good introductory guide for rape crisis hotline workers. But this is a skeptics forum, chum.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Good introductory guide for rape crisis hotline workers. But this is a skeptics forum, chum.

Heaven forbid, we don't want any expertise of knowledge imposing on a thread for skeptics. Far better to apply razor sharp logic to simply making stuff up, as you do, and referencing rubbish sources.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

...snip...That is all I was commenting on, that single sentence. Nothing else.

It seemed to me to be a castigation of Fox News.... in the main.

Why assume that shuttlt that used that source then use that assumption to go on a rant about specific programmes and presenters and throw race into the mix?

All this in a thread about rape.

If I misread your intentions, I'm sorry.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

So yes, trust first and foremost - accept the victim's rape claim as the truth on its face AND THEN verify independently. Unfortunately, some of our, shall we say, less sympathetic members have failed the "trust" part, and are not even serious about the "verify".

I don't know who you are referring to, but I think your accusations are way off base. This is a skeptics forum, so the default position on any claim is to be skeptical of it - not to automatically trust that it is true.

Nevertheless, given the sensitivity of this case we have all(?) followed your advice to the letter. You ask that we start by accepting the 'victim's case on its face, which we did do for at least the time it took to read the thread title. Then, drawing on our extensive knowledge and understanding of human behavior, we carefully verified the independent evidence before grudgingly coming to the conclusion that the lying bitch deliberately accused an innocent man of rape because she is a horrible person who refuses to take responsibility for her own actions (IOW, your typical female).

Nobody has more sympathy for her plight than us. However as skeptics we have a duty to analyze the evidence unemotionally so that personal bias doesn't affect our judgement. This typically includes such rigorous logical techniques as avoiding primary sources in favor of sensationalist hit pieces in tabloid newspapers or conservative blogs, cherry-picking information and quoting it out of context, reading between the lines and asserting dubious speculation as fact, repeating debunked lies and drawing unreasonable conclusions tainted by incorrectly remembered facts, misunderstandings and faulty reasoning.

In doing so we may explore a variety of positions that go against current norms - not to mislead or push an agenda, but simply because as skeptics we must not shy away from considering unpalatable possibilities. Some us may (perhaps even without announcing our intentions) take the role of 'devil's advocate' - purely to ensure a robust debate which strengthens the veracity of those facts and conclusions that successfully rebut it. So just because a poster may seem to be a misogynistic ******** who thinks any attractive young woman is asking for it, doesn't mean they aren't actually a caring empathic person who is just illustrating how hateful and illogical such a position would be.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

He claimed the mother was allowing them to "make out" at her house. Now, I agree that that may not have been full intercourse.

...snip...

And if anyone should know how easy it is to get an underage girl pregnant it's her father!

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Darat

And if anyone should know how easy it is to get an underage girl pregnant it's her father!

And he's possibly judging his daughters boyfriend based on his own set of standards in this regard.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

I don't know who you are referring to, but I think your accusations are way off base. This is a skeptics forum, so the default position on any claim is to be skeptical of it - not to automatically trust that it is true.

Then maybe we should not even be discussing rape cases here

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Then maybe we should not even be discussing rape cases here

You do know you're quoting a sarcastic post? Once past the opening line it's crystal clear what RR thinks of all this "scepticism".

Well, to me at least.

[TofuFighter]

Originally Posted by xjx388

But many have argued that someone around 30 shouldn’t even be “sniffing around” someone who has a chance of being underage. In the OP case a 30 year old was in in a bar where he was “sniffing around” a girl who should have been at least 21 (but was actually 16). I have no idea what she looked like at the time, but I don’t think it’s crazy to assume she is at least over the age of consent if she’s in a bar drinking.

<snip>

There are a few cultural aspects of small-town Louisianna life that maybe some of us cannot appreciate which come into play when we look at it this way.

I'm thinking:
a) I live in a state where lack of exact knowledge of a person's age is no defense in stat rape case.
b) under-age drinking probably isn't uncommon, maybe even more so in a small town, perhaps I'm aware of that, perhaps not.
c) I'm 30, this young girl is maybe somewhere around 18-22 (if the claims of her stating she was in college is true). Age of consent is 17. How old does she look? We don't know. That's all still pretty close to the line.
d) she's drunk.

Having sex with her at that stage, presumably without a condom, seems to me to be, at best, very poor judgment.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Is there such a thing as a "No True Skeptic" fallacy? Its sure beginning to look that way.

Yes, having dealt personally with a few rape victims (one of which is very close to me), I have learned a few things that have stood me in good stead.

Firstly, I stand firmly by the principle of "trust but verify"... believe the victim as your default position... why? Because nothing, and I mean nothing will shut a rape victim down quicker than them feeling they are not being believed or their story is being doubted. It is always possible to overturn the truth with facts if the victim is lying, but if you doubt them in the first instance, the path back to the truth is a long, difficult, and sometimes impossible one.

Secondly, rape victims have been traumatised by their experience, well beyond you or I or anyone else's ability to understand - there is a large element of truth in the saying "you have to have been raped yourself to understand what it is like to be raped". Even long after the rape has happened ("long after" can be years or more) they can still be re-traumatised by what happened to them. The tiniest trigger can have them reliving the rape... a smell, a sound, a taste, an object, the recognition of a similar face, or place.

Thirdly, always keep in mind that a victim may have been raped weeks, or months, or years, or even decades earlier, but for most of them, it happened yesterday, and it will always have happened yesterday.... for the rest of their lives! Look up some of the rape victims of the Golden State Killer... 45+ years later, many of them cannot bring themselves to talk about it.

So yes, trust first and foremost - accept the victim's rape claim as the truth on its face AND THEN verify independently. Unfortunately, some of our, shall we say, less sympathetic members have failed the "trust" part, and are not even serious about the "verify".

We aren't on a rape crisis line talking to somebody who claims to have been raped. We aren't talking to a friend who claims to be raped. The bread and butter of atheism and scepticism was to tread on highly sensitive issues and apply scepticism to them. Were we only happy to do that because they weren't issues we were emotionally invested in and felt sensitive about? It was all "the truth shall set you free" back then. Now that it is something that people here are sensitive about, we need to be delicate about them, and not point out obvious contradictions, inconsistencies, and evidence that goes against the claim? We didn't treat discussions of religion as if the thread might be being read by the mother of a dying child whose only consolation was their religion. None of the debates on issues that sceptics weren't emotionally invested in were handled in this way.

It would be the end of scepticism if your rules were applied consistently. If they are applied inconsistently, then it just makes us look like hypocrites.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

We aren't on a rape crisis line talking to somebody who claims to have been raped. We aren't talking to a friend who claims to be raped. The bread and butter of atheism and scepticism was to tread on highly sensitive issues and apply scepticism to them. Were we only happy to do that because they weren't issues we were emotionally invested in and felt sensitive about? It was all "the truth shall set you free" back then. Now that it is something that people here are sensitive about, we need to be delicate about them, and not point out obvious contradictions, inconsistencies, and evidence that goes against the claim? We didn't treat discussions of religion as if the thread might be being read by the mother of a dying child whose only consolation was their religion. None of the debates on issues that sceptics weren't emotionally invested in were handled in this way.

It would be the end of scepticism if your rules were applied consistently. If they are applied inconsistently, then it just makes us look like hypocrites.

The problem is that you are not applying skepticism to this thread at all. You have convinced yourself that the truth is that no “real” rape occurred and that even if it was statutory rape, it was of low order. You have come to this conclusion with no evidence at all. In fact the rape case has never even been investigated because of the (at least) incompetent Hicksville PD has been largely ignored by you. The probability that Barnes has influenced said PD as also been largely ignored.

Your conjectures about the mother are only that and lack evidence. Your conjectures about the sex life of the daughter the same.

But of course you are the Great Skeptic and all have to bow to you.

Your posts here are full of ****. You quote rubbish sources. You make pronouncements with no evidence. Do not lecture others on emotional investment.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Then maybe we should not even be discussing rape cases here

I think it is fine for most to discuss rape here. However, as with any topic, the more emotionally-driven the argument, the more likely the analysis is to be distorted. This also creates a very ripe environment for confirmation bias, as we see in this thread.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by lionking

The problem is that you are not applying skepticism to this thread at all. You have convinced yourself that the truth is that no “real” rape occurred and that even if it was statutory rape, it was of low order.

That is not the case. As I have said repeatedly, there isn't enough information to be sure. It could be that the father is a terrible criminal, it could be that the mother is some kind of deranged liar, it could be some complicated combination.

Originally Posted by lionking

You have come to this conclusion with no evidence at all.

There isn't "no evidence" for the conclusion you are falsely attributing to me. The evidence just isn't conclusive one way or the other.

Originally Posted by lionking

In fact the rape case has never even been investigated because of the (at least) incompetent Hicksville PD has been largely ignored by you. The probability that Barnes has influenced said PD as also been largely ignored.

There isn't much that can be said about that possibility until there is an investigation and/or more information comes out. If a bunch of info comes out, then I would think it would get the prominence in the conversation it deserves. We can't give it that prominence in the absence of anything to discuss. Otherwise this will just be another thread where people who agree throw out comments about how awful somebody is, and fantasise about them getting their comeuppance. If we are going to have a discussion, it is going to be dominated by the areas where information has come out.

Originally Posted by lionking

Your conjectures about the mother are only that and lack evidence. Your conjectures about the sex life of the daughter the same.

I introduced the father's claims and the more recent summary of the statements by the judge and so on. It clearly contradicts what the mother said. If we are going to talk about the father drugging and raping people, then I think talking about what the father has claimed is appropriate.

Originally Posted by lionking

But of course you are the Great Skeptic and all have to bow to you.

Great sceptic, no. But I am a sceptic. We are being asked not to be sceptics. No thanks.

Originally Posted by lionking

Your posts here are full of ****. You quote rubbish sources. You make pronouncements with no evidence. Do not lecture others on emotional investment.

Calm down. You are getting emotional.

[sarge]

It should be clear to any regular participant in this thread that I assume that not only did rape occur, but that the father has no defense to the inevitable charge for that rape. That being said, I find simply ridiculous the notion that it is improper to question the rest of the allegations in this story. It is not uncommon in the slightest for one party in a custody battle to concoct accusations about the other party, and except for the (statutory) rape, there is little actual evidence for the other accusations flowing from either party.

I also find ridiculous the notion that any stance we take on this forum could somehow cause actual harm to the victim(s). There is no wrong in expressing doubt when the doubt is reasonable.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by sarge

...snip...I also find ridiculous the notion that any stance we take on this forum could somehow cause actual harm to the victim(s)...snip...

Yet, when given the very real opportunity to potentially (sans due diligence) help.

I hear crickets.

100 CAD when I posted the link and guess what..........

https://www.gofundme.com/f/crysta-ab...hter-to-rapist

[sarge]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Yet, when given the very real opportunity to potentially (sans due diligence) help.

I hear crickets.

100 CAD when I posted the link and guess what..........

https://www.gofundme.com/f/crysta-ab...hter-to-rapist

To be fair, pressing the ‘disable new donations’ button does have a suppressive effect on new donations

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by sarge

To be fair, pressing the ‘disable new donations’ button does have a suppressive effect on new donations

Whoops, that's changed since yesterday.

OK, you lot are off the hook.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Whoops, that's changed since yesterday.

OK, you lot are off the hook.

The OP article still has a fundraising site dedicated to Abelseths legal fees, unlike random Canadian persons site.

But in fairness, we are discussing the ideas and principles here, aren't we? More so than being grassroots crowdsourcers, anyway.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The OP article still has a fundraising site dedicated to Abelseths legal fees, unlike random Canadian persons site.

But in fairness, we are discussing the ideas and principles here, aren't we? More so than being grassroots crowdsourcers, anyway.

For sure.

It was a slight foray into an opportunity that came about while looking for something else related to Barnes/Abelseth.

We can move past it now.

[plague311]

I wonder what this means in the grand scheme of things:

Quote:

Cashe also decided Tuesday to appoint the teen daughter her own attorney.

It makes me feel even more sorry for the daughter. It truly seems like she's in the middle of this and I can't imagine that can be fun. Now she's living with neither parent and she has to understand the legal things that will be coming at her. I guess we'll find out if the rape\abuse allegations are true or not, since she won't be getting guidance from either parent.

Good for her.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by plague311

I wonder what this means in the grand scheme of things:



It makes me feel even more sorry for the daughter. It truly seems like she's in the middle of this and I can't imagine that can be fun. Now she's living with neither parent and she has to understand the legal things that will be coming at her. I guess we'll find out if the rape\abuse allegations are true or not, since she won't be getting guidance from either parent.

Good for her.

I hate it when kids get caught up in these things. A teen needs a stable home while they work on the whole growing up thing. The parents are pretty clearly putting their personal pissing match ahead of her interests.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by TofuFighter

There are a few cultural aspects of small-town Louisianna life that maybe some of us cannot appreciate which come into play when we look at it this way.

I'm thinking:
a) I live in a state where lack of exact knowledge of a person's age is no defense in stat rape case.
b) under-age drinking probably isn't uncommon, maybe even more so in a small town, perhaps I'm aware of that, perhaps not.
c) I'm 30, this young girl is maybe somewhere around 18-22 (if the claims of her stating she was in college is true). Age of consent is 17. How old does she look? We don't know. That's all still pretty close to the line.
d) she's drunk.

Having sex with her at that stage, presumably without a condom, seems to me to be, at best, very poor judgment.

Agreed on the poor judgement, but poor judgement doesn't equal scumbag serial rapist. We simply don't know how he would have reacted if he had known her actual age. Much has been made of this guy's connections to the police*, would he have turned her in for underage drinking after giving her a lecture on what could have happened if she had hooked up with someone that wouldn't mind sleeping with a sixteen year old? Or he is the evil incarnate beast in human form that he's been portrayed as in this thread who would have said "Hey, great, I get to sleep with a sixteen year old! Nice!"? We just don't have enough information to answer that question.

This leads me to wonder about the hookup culture in general. Even when I was single, I never picked up a woman in a bar or had any one night stands, so I wonder is it standard practice to card your hookups? Especially with apps like Tinder and Grindr where people aren't even meeting in real life, just hooking up over the internet. Do these apps have some sort of age verification when you sign up? Or is it considered the responsibility of the people hooking up to verify each other's ages? The whole culture reeks of "poor judgement" to me, but that might just be because I'm old.

*The whole "well this guy's connected to the police" seems a bit overblown to me. The business I work for has all kinds of contractors working for them, and I could maybe pick a few of them out of a line-up. Barnes printing up some posters for the police leading to him having some kind of hypnotic, Svengali-like control over the police department and court system seems like an excuse. I think it's more likely that the judge is skeptical of the mother's claims because exaggerated or made up claims are quite common in custody disputes on both sides.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by cmikes

Agreed on the poor judgement, but poor judgement doesn't equal scumbag serial rapist. We simply don't know how he would have reacted if he had known her actual age. Much has been made of this guy's connections to the police*, would he have turned her in for underage drinking after giving her a lecture on what could have happened if she had hooked up with someone that wouldn't mind sleeping with a sixteen year old? Or he is the evil incarnate beast in human form that he's been portrayed as in this thread who would have said "Hey, great, I get to sleep with a sixteen year old! Nice!"? We just don't have enough information to answer that question.

This leads me to wonder about the hookup culture in general. Even when I was single, I never picked up a woman in a bar or had any one night stands, so I wonder is it standard practice to card your hookups? Especially with apps like Tinder and Grindr where people aren't even meeting in real life, just hooking up over the internet. Do these apps have some sort of age verification when you sign up? Or is it considered the responsibility of the people hooking up to verify each other's ages? The whole culture reeks of "poor judgement" to me, but that might just be because I'm old.

*The whole "well this guy's connected to the police" seems a bit overblown to me. The business I work for has all kinds of contractors working for them, and I could maybe pick a few of them out of a line-up. Barnes printing up some posters for the police leading to him having some kind of hypnotic, Svengali-like control over the police department and court system seems like an excuse. I think it's more likely that the judge is skeptical of the mother's claims because exaggerated or made up claims are quite common in custody disputes on both sides.

I have engaged in many, many casual sexual encounters. Really, a lot of them. Never once was I in a situation where it was conceivable that the girls was sufficiently young enough to approach the AOC, nor did I ever need to check an ID.

I consider it possible, but not remotely likely that the guy in this case did not know the girl was at least possibly under age. And in that circumstance, you don’t proceed unless you just want to hook up with inappropriately young girls. If it occurs to you that you need to see an ID, you are just looking for plausible deniability.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by cmikes

This leads me to wonder about the hookup culture in general. Even when I was single, I never picked up a woman in a bar or had any one night stands, so I wonder is it standard practice to card your hookups? Especially with apps like Tinder and Grindr where people aren't even meeting in real life, just hooking up over the internet. Do these apps have some sort of age verification when you sign up? Or is it considered the responsibility of the people hooking up to verify each other's ages? The whole culture reeks of "poor judgement" to me, but that might just be because I'm old.

This is the modern world. We want to be able to live like libertines, undermine any social taboos or censure, but also be free from consequences, regret, people doing bad things and act like outraged puritans when consequences occur. A culture that is outraged about a 16 year old having sex shouldn't simultaneously be doing sex-positive sex ed to pre-teens. We want to have our cake, and eat it, and not get fat or feel bad or have anybody judge us.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by cmikes

*The whole "well this guy's connected to the police" seems a bit overblown to me. The business I work for has all kinds of contractors working for them, and I could maybe pick a few of them out of a line-up. Barnes printing up some posters for the police leading to him having some kind of hypnotic, Svengali-like control over the police department and court system seems like an excuse. I think it's more likely that the judge is skeptical of the mother's claims because exaggerated or made up claims are quite common in custody disputes on both sides.

This statement made me laugh so ******* hard. You're all like, "This is overblown to me" and then blow every single statement possibly said in relation to his "control" over the police, out of proportion. By a couple fold.

No one has even implied anything close to what you're claiming in this long, out of proportion hyperbole. Seriously though, I haven't laughed that hard in so long. Oh man. Just classic.

Anyway, what some have claimed here is that since he's worked hand-in-hand (building a website, not sure what the **** you're bring up flyers for, but whatever) then friendships easily could have been formed. It's not some complicated, ******* Scarlet Witch level sorcery. It's normal, basic human interaction. The more time you spend with someone, the more time you chat it up, you get to know them, and sometimes those people are in positions of power. I mean, how the **** is this confusing people? Do I think there was a massive cover-up? No. There doesn't have to be.

For all the screaming of "wE hAVe 2 B teH sKepTICS" I seriously thought something as simple as forming a friendship wouldn't have to be explained so thoroughly.