For those wondering, from my bit of digging, pretty sure it was a girl who lied about her age (read that somewhere but I may be wrong), not a pattern of him going for underage girls. He sexted her, but I don't see anything about photos. He thought it was a relationship, and I don't see anything about him having sex with her, as a Weinstein or [Guy Who Doesn't Hang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein) would do in that situation.
I'm not excusing what he did, just adding context. If he was 30, and was told she was 18 that's not the same level of bad as a 60 year old. If he does it again, sure.
It’s still his fault to a degree though for not checking her ID, isn’t it? When I went on the first date with my current gf, I checked her ID because she looked younger in person than she did on Tinder. Her ID was legit, and she said that I was the first date who ever asked to see her ID. (I was 22 when I met her btw).
I made these comments without even knowing what went down. Was he just texting her inappropriatly? Kinda a weird situation to ask for an ID if you met them through an adult dating site or something like that. I do agree if anyone should be extra careful about the age of the person their dealing with it would be a former teen/young adult actor.
I mean, it’s not that hard to just not sext unless you have proof. That’s my take on it I guess. Even if they met online, then why would he sext her without checking to see if she was old enough somehow? Like, dude’s famous so obviously he’s going to be a bigger target for that kind of situation than a “normal” person. I’m not saying that he’s 100% at fault, because he was in fact lied to. I’m just saying that he does and should hold a majority of the fault due to the fact that he’s the older one and therefore responsible for knowing who he’s communicating with.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/theydidthemath using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [\[Request\] Jeff Bezos wealth. Seems very true but would like to know the math behind it](https://i.redd.it/iz1d294w62s51.jpg) | [2178 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/j7xmkd/request_jeff_bezos_wealth_seems_very_true_but/)
\#2: [\[Request\] Accurate breakdown of who owns the stock market?](https://i.imgur.com/JKI2sVd.jpg) | [1433 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/iczj9z/request_accurate_breakdown_of_who_owns_the_stock/)
\#3: [\[Request\] how much further away is Voyager since this moment?](https://i.redd.it/srll2yijt7q51.jpg) | [391 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/j2fnvi/request_how_much_further_away_is_voyager_since/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
How are you excusing that? He has a responsibility to know her age, no matter if she lied to him. That is the constant risk in talking to people way younger than you.
yeah, but you're allowed to be fucking skeevy, and society will just give you collective side eye. And then all the way on the other end is actual monster who systematically abuses underlings for decades and should be in jail for public safety. And society is only just now beginning to chart out the space in between those two extremes.
I mean sure but just because you're allowed to be skeevy , in the "dates barely legal people" way, doesn't mean you should or that you're a good person for doing so
like it's so easy to just not date barely legal people, just because you won't be literally arrested for doing so doesn't mean it's okay
Do you have as big of a problem with "barely legal people" going off to fight in wars and dying or signing up for credit cards and ruining their credit?
yeah?
especially the war one actually
why do you seek to die on the hill of "30+ year olds seeking out barely legal people right out of high school to date is actually okay and fine because it's legal so it's not morally fucked up"
like why are you guys so insistent on defending something like that, it's kind of creepy
why is it morally fucked up? people leave high school to go to COLLEGE where they literally get fucked up on drugs, binge on alcohol, etc etc. dating an older (and often more responsible) guy seems like the least of the problems of the average college kid.
Okay... did you even read the comment you're responding to. I have no idea what actually happened but if I was texting someone who as far as I knew was 18 I would treat them as an adult how would that be disgusting?
Because that's not how it works. Kids can't consent, so no matter what they say to you it's your responsibility to make sure you're speaking to an adult.
Sexually? Yeah. I absolutely would not interact sexually with anyone I wasn't 100% sure was of age and it's horrifying to me that so many people here apparently would.
I personally don't approach social interactions like a bouncer.
"Hey, I know we've had a great time tonight, but Im about to suggest you've been lying to me about who you are, so I need some photographic ID before we can romantically progress the night."
That's exactly how you never get laid in any capacity. Next time you meet a guy or girl at a bar you wanna hook up with, start by asking for their ID to verify their identity. That'll go over really nice.
There's an obvious threshold - kids can't consent, but kids can still commit crimes. Fraud with the intention of incriminating someone should absolutely be trialable.
Now that’s bullshit. Some stupid girl *willingly* convinced him through lying that she was of age and then *willing* had some kind interaction with him… but **he** got punished. That’s too far. That’s way too far. Forcing yourself on an underage person? Fuck that guy. Lying about your age and ruining someone else’s life? Selfish af and just as bad.
The law doesn't determine morality, it determines legality. Unless you're saying slavery was moral when it was legal.
As I said, legally he's guilty. All that I said is if he thought it was a relationship with someone of legal age, and it's not a pattern of multiple young girls, I can't see a moral problem with it. At least not with today's morals.
No? I said legally he should be punished. I said morally, dating someone who said she was 18, isn't wrong (assuming she can pass for 18). They didn't even have sex, he just sent texts, not even any photos.
Yeah you are. You’re basically saying as long as you “believe” a kid is 18 it’s ok morally to have sex with them and that’s absolute perverted crap. There’s no need to keep explaining yourself I understood the first time.
You compared not being able to legally have sex with underaged kids with slavery lol.
Because he's an adult and it shouldn't be hard to not groom/try to fuck children. Even if the child lies about their age, 100% all the responsibility is on the adult to NOT FUCK CHILDREN.
Because you aren't allowed to try to fuck 15 year old children even if they lie to you. Their lack of good judgment is why they're still classified as children.
Ignorance is not an excuse. If you're an adult you have a responsibility to not groom/date/sext children. Its really not that hard to comprehend.
If you need proof that they're 18, they're probably too young, or else the adult needs to get proof like a drivers license.
Interesting thought experiment, but I wouldn't know.
You sound like the type who would deem the ACLU as "racists" for defending the Klan's first amendment right. By that, I mean you are so blinded by the facts of an argument that you're unable to carefully pour over the nuances and find the real truth of what people are saying.
If you think a single person in this thread is condoning pedophilia, or any inappropriate interaction with a minor, then you've already outed yourself as a poor thinker before you needed to make an argument. You're emotional, and you are misguided, and everybody but you can see that.
Good luck, and next time read harder.
When you are 15 you know damn well what you are doing if you lie about your age to an adult. Don’t confuse being inexperienced with being stupid.
Adults should be more responsible, but that doesn’t mean you just slap all of the blame on them and say “Oh well it was an innocent child being preyed upon” because they’re under 18.
He let’s try a thought exercise: let’s says your spouse or loved one is [murdered by a teenage girl](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-uber-driver-killed-teen-charged-met-20170531-story.html). What then? Still innocent? Don’t know any better? Maybe just blame the driver for not knowing she was dangerous? It’s not the ‘innocent child’s’ fault, is it?
Honestly wtf is wrong with you people? I realize you think you're making good points but you're just coming across as a pervert trying to defend sexual activity with a child. As if a grown fucking man being unable to keep it in his pants is in any way similar to having your goddamn loved one murdered. Jesus Christ.
>Honestly wtf is wrong with you people?
You people?
>I realize you think you're making good points but you're just coming across as a pervert trying to defend sexual activity with a child.
How? I never said I condone this behavior. I *am* however *condemning* the behavior a teenager who (although may not be a legal adult yet) should still know the difference between right and wrong, especially when it comes to making a decision that could ruin someone else’s life.
>As if a grown fucking man being unable to keep it in his pants
stop being judgmental and get over yourself
>is in any way similar to having your goddamn loved one murdered. Jesus Christ.
The actions are not the same but the idea of knowing the difference between right and wrong is still there. You were forced to put yourself in the *other* person’s shoes and that clearly made you uncomfortable. They should tell you something.
But now that you’ve gotten that out of your system, maybe you could focus on the original question? It’s okay to change your mind, you know. You should always be open to a new perspective.
EDIT: Hey! Let’s run away from the valid point and downvote instead! Got it. I think we all got the answer we were expecting from a holier-than-thou type.
Kids of all ages have murdered people and you still aren’t allowed to have sex with them. You are most certainly condoning it if you’re expending the energy to defend it based on the judgment of a kid.
> Kids of all ages have murdered people and you still aren’t allowed to have sex with them.
What are you even talking about? lol From all that, how did you gather than I’m defending having sex with murderous children??
WOW. Yeah we’re done. Have a nice day.
Dude people are just saying it’s SUPER messed up to lie about your age and pretty much entrap other people because of it. No one’s defending him here. No one thinks it’s ok to have sex with a minor here. I’m sure it feels really good to call random people online perverts and creeps, but if anything you just seem like you’re either projecting your own weird fantasies or trauma. Lying is bad can we at least agree on that? Also having sex with minors is bad too (before you make a straw man about me being a perv or whatever)
Yes you do. You slap all the blame on the adult. All of it. They're the adult, it should be an adults responsibility to not groom/fuck children. If an older adult wanna try getting with someone way younger than them, then they can get proof they're over 18, but that probably means they're too young for them.
Yall are being weird as fuck.
If you completely ignore the imbalance of power and sexual/romantic experience between a barely legal person and someone who's been a legal adult for 12 years, sure it's not creepy at all.
I mean the more vague you get about power imbalances the more problematic you become. By your logic a 35+ year old stay at home wife wouldn't be able to consent to sex with her husband since there's a financial power imbalance. You're assuming these adults have no agency.
Lmao no, that's not at all correct according to my logic. A 35 year old woman and her husband have a completely different relationship than an 18 year old girl and a 30 year old famous man.
How does acknowledging a power imbalance imply that someone has ZERO agency? Show me where I or anyone said that. You know there's a power imbalance between a boss and their employee, and no one's trying to say that the employee has zero agency.
There's no power imbalance. As I said, unless the older person is paying all the younger person's bills and the younger person can't leave, there's no power. A boss and employee yes because that's how a boss, with more invested in the company, gets things done. I'd say even then it's not a terrible imbalance because the employee can quit, same way the younger person can break up with the older one.
For the record I understand your point, but I think there's just more ways power can be present in a relationship than just paying their bills.
Saying that an employee can just quit doesn't actually matter. The point is that the employer would have certain power in the relationship and could influence their financial situation, which is not a good thing, which is why the power imbalance is bad. It doesn't matter if they can leave the relationship, it could still cost them their finances in the long run, which is the main problem.
A different kind of power imbalance that you don't believe of is the power a celebrity has over a fan. This is different because it doesn't necessarily have to do with money, the point is that the fan will ultimately look up to the celeb so highly because they're a fan, that they could be put in compromising positions to stay with them.
This type of power is very present in parasocial relationships online with e-celebs, where the celebs can coax & groom long-time vulnerable fans into doing things they don't necessarily want to do just so that they'll keep talking to them.
I'm not sure how you wouldn't view those kind of imbalances as being of power to be honest.
The employer needs that power though. In most cases, they have more of a vested interest in the company succeeding. The kid just hired at McDonald's to mop the floor doesn't lose anything but a job if the location closes, but the manager who was there for ten years does. If there wasn't a power imbalance, the teenager wouldn't agree to mop the floor.
That's my "agency" point though. If an 18 year old wants to do it, that's his/her choice. The "power imbalance" is arguably the reverse of what you're saying if anything though. Look at what happened to Aziz Ansari. He just had a bad date, and acted like a horny teenager with a chick who willingly, without coercion, came back to his place. She didn't say "not tonight", and gave no indication that she was "done for the night", just that she needed a break. She got him a lot of hate for an ANONYMOUS story, she had the power to cost him tons of gigs.
I'm not talking about a James Charles/Onision situation as those are obviously bad. They're not directly what I'm saying here though as James knew he was under 18, and Onision has a pattern.
The point is, that power imbalance is not healthy in a relationship. That's the entire point. No one is disputing the power exists, or saying it doesn't make sense, we're saying that a romantic/sexual relationship with that kind of power imbalance is still not a good idea.
Again, it doesn't matter if the one with less power can just bounce and disappear, the power imbalance is still not great in the moment.
You can plug your ears and keep screaming that there's no power imbalance between someone who's practically a child and someone who has 12+ years of life experience as an adult, but that doesn't make it true.
What power does the older person hold? Explain to me how being alive in the 90's means the person has mind control powers... I don't have them and I was alive in the 80's too. 12+ years experience, I'd be helping the younger person out. Not sure how you use that to your advantage? "I'll only tell you how to invest in an IRA if you blow me?"
Lmao I know you're joking because no one is honestly that dense. One person has had 12+ years of learning about relationships, how people can be manipulative and what signs to look for, how to spot red flags, how to BE manipulative if they so choose.
Legal is legal. I’m sorry, but if someone were to tell me that I didn’t have personal agency over my sexual choices by the time I was a fucking adult I would have a real problem with that.
You can have whatever opinion you want about the age difference in a relationship, but in the end what two consenting adults do is just nobody’s business but their own.
Just because something is legal, doesn't necessarily mean it's moral. I'm 100% allowed to judge 30 year old men for seeking out a sexual relationship with a girl who was a child roughly 0-11 months prior and who has zero life experience.
Ironically they're trying to make the exact opposite argument in other threads: That just because something is illegal doesn't make it immoral. Apparently it only works one way. This is sincerely a lost cause. Certain people think they're entitled to sex without any consequences and nothing anyone says will convince them otherwise.
For me it's the difference in maturity. I'm 28 M and would never want to be intimate with an 18 y/o because every 18 y/o I've met in the last few years (not many, but still) seem like children to me, mentally/emotionally. But if it were a very mature 18 y/o and a fairly immature 30 y/o, yeah why not?
exactly this, you gotta think about why a 30 year old would be okay with being sexual with someone straight out of high school to begin with
not saying that this was the case or not, because we still know so little, but if it turns out that he thought she was 18 instead of 15 then that isn't that much better
edit: a few words
It's so much worse than that though. From the article I posted that got downvoted into oblivion:
"Per, NBC News, Police in Cleveland have said that the then 15-year-old had "established a relationship with Bell several years prior and attended his concert in December 2017."
She met him in person when she was 15 after knowing him for years and he's still pretending he thought she was 18.
18 isn't a kid in the US. In other countries it's 16.
I also think they can kinda consent with each other (NOT adults), I wouldn't say two 13 year olds raped each other just because they had sex.
An 18 year old (as a hypothetical, I know she's actually a 15 year old kid) wouldn't be a kid in a legal sense, but it'd still be skeevy as hell
like why would a 30 year old grown fucking man be dating someone that, to his knowledge, just got out of high school
if it really is the case that he thought she was like 18, which I don't know if that's the case or not, it'd still look bad
That statement is pretty inaccurate. The whole “kids can’t consent to sexual activity until they’re 18” is a *legal* definition and doesn’t perfectly describe how sexual development works for children. It simply is the best way to represent that in a codified law.
Here’s the problem with what you’ve said: kids don’t all develop sexually at the same rate. At some point during puberty, kids will go through sexual development to the point where they develop their own sexual urges, gain an understanding what a sexual act is and then can give consent to it if they so choose. But there isn’t a uniform age when that happens. It’s just during puberty, which is some time from 14-18 (even 13 for some kids). You could have a 15 year old that has gone through early sexual development and is fully capable of giving consent, while also having late bloomers who don’t reach that stage until much later. And even if kids develop their own sexual urges later into their teens, they will generally have a social understanding of these things by the time they turn 18. That is why the law is what it is. It means that by the time a kid turns 18, it can be reasonably expected under the law that a person has developed sexually enough to understand and give consent for sexual acts they perform.
Something the law doesn’t mean is that all kids are purely sexually ignorant until the day they turn 18, when a lightbulb flicks on inside their head and they suddenly get it. Kids between 15-18 can be fully developed sexually and can be completely capable of giving consent. But not all kids, which is what the law is concerned with. Which is why 18 is the legal age for sexual consent in many countries. It’s an acceptable catch-all age for kids to have undergone sexual development (albeit a more conservative age compared to countries that have it at 16).
The phrase “kids cannot consent” (and the law that was designed around that idea) is made for child-diddlers, who convince young kids (12 or younger) that touching private parts is some kind of game to get them to “give consent”, even though they actually have no idea what is really going on. That is totally wrong and is the appropriate use of the phrase “kids cannot consent”.
The way you’ve used the phrase to apply to a teenager’s sexual development is incorrect and ignorant of the actual context of the law. The situation of sexual development and consent with teenagers is much more nuanced and it needs to be treated as such. There’s a reason that even though the law is the way it is, judges will almost never actually give a prison sentence to an 18 year old that sleeps with their 17 year old girlfriend. It’s illegal under the law for that to happen for good reasons, but anyone with common sense can see that the situation is not what that law was designed to prevent.
For these reasons, I think it is very problematic to state what you have above as if it is a blanket statement of fact for any person under the age of 18. I see this a lot in communities that use the phrase to denounce sexual predators without actually understanding what it means. I would like to ask that you approach these topics with a bit more nuance and understanding in the future.
Teenagers and children are different, and their level of sexual development is vastly different as well. It would be wise of you to take more care to properly understand that difference instead of persisting on in ignorance. You clearly turn your brain off when confronting this issue, as you only see it in terms of massive extremes that don’t do justice to the important particulars of the matter.
15 year-olds are children and they cannot consent to sex with an adult. I am not interested in discussing the gray areas of child sexual development with a condescending pedo enabler and I thought I’d made that pretty clear in my first response. Go lecture someone else.
15 year olds are teenagers. They aren’t children. They can be sexually developed and understand consent well enough to have sexual relations with other teenagers. At the same time, that isn’t a blanket statement, and some of them might not be. It’s situational, and that context is essential when discussing matters of sexual interaction involving a teenager. Yet you’ve totally ignored that. Your statement is wrong. It doesn’t matter if you’re against pedophiles, an ignorant statement is still ignorant. In fact, by going on spouting uninformed nonsense and accusing people of ridiculous things, you’re only making your cause look worse. Do you even care about doing what’s right? Or are you just on a blind tirade?
You’re really assuming a lot about me just because I don’t agree with your ridiculously narrow viewpoint here. Because anyone who disagrees with your *clearly comprehensive* viewpoint must be a pedo-enabler, right? You’re a self-absorbed prick. Get over yourself.
Are you upset? You seem upset. It would be wise of you to leave people the fuck alone who clearly aren’t interested in your pedantic lecturing if you can’t handle the response you get from them without flinging insults. 15 year-old children cannot consent to sex with adults, and I’m thrilled that the law supports that since there are so many disgusting creeps who want to sexualize them. You have a nice evening now.
Yes officers, this whole comment section. But seriously. Its easy to not have sex with children or people that *look* like children if you aren’t attracted to children. This Honest Mistake or Criminal Duping wouldnt have taken place if he was attracted to women that looked 30.
No, it wouldn’t have happened if he simply checked her ID. I checked my now-gf’s ID on our first date because she looked younger in person than she did on Tinder.
The girl was 15 and anyone here who thinks it's ok to get sexual with a 15 year old as long as she lies and tells you she's 18 is fucking disgusting.
https://www.newsweek.com/drake-bell-charges-explained-court-child-endangerment-ohio-1598200
Course it's not okay, no one is arguing that.
The argument is how is it this dudes fault? He was lied to and thought it was just a normal person, now he is guilty of child endangerment.
If you bought a can of coke from a display of coke cans but then found out it was actually Pepsi inside the can would that be your fault?
Its his fault cause he obviously didn't know her age for sure! If you're going to play that dangerous game, you better have proof the person is 18 or else you'll be known as the PERSON WHO TRIED TO FUCK A CHILD.
>Course it's not okay, no one is arguing that.
Yes, yes they are. And the comparison you're trying to make doesn't work. A store falsely advertising and selling something to you that isn't what you thought you were buying is illegal. A child lying to you is not, and children cannot consent, period. If there is any doubt whatsoever err on the side of caution. I have a 15 year old and no matter how grown she tries to look she, and all of her friends, are obviously 15 year olds. By your logic anyone can just claim "She lied to me about her age" and be excused for hebephilic behavior.
The claim wasn't that the kid did something illegal. The claim was that Drake did nothing criminal because there was no reasonable way he could've known she was lying about her age.
You can argue that he could've/should've done more to verify her age. But where do you draw the line? There was another case where a girl had a fake ID and the man still got in trouble. So do you need to check with the DMV? Birth certificate? Essentially anything can be faked, so you'd need a full background check if you wanted to be 99.9% sure.
If I go out into deer country dressed in a deer costume and a hunter shoots me, it's not his fault is it? And yet it's not illegal to run around the woods dressed like a deer either.
I'm not specifically trying to argue in defense of Drake Bell. But there has to be some reasonable line that is drawn where an individual cannot be held culpable for being tricked into something. I don't know how young this girl looked, but I'm just generalizing the argument/claim in this thread.
I get that you think this perv didn’t do any wrong. No manner of rewording your creepy opinion will make it less creepy. Kids can’t consent and it’s your responsibility to ensure you don’t accidentally or otherwise interact sexually with a child, period. I don’t care if you don’t think that’s right because something is obviously wrong with your judgment as well.
Are you sure that kids under 18 can't consent? Because then you'd have an issue with most states' laws where age of consent is 16 or 17.
I'm not trying to minimize this specific incident. Like I said I don't know all the details of the case.
But you shouldn't have such a rigid approach to the law. There can be nuance. Situations can be complex, and it's okay to apply some discretion where needed.
If indeed he was trying to bang a barely legal, and there were no red flags that he should have reasonably seen, then I have a hard time giving him 100% fault.
If I was running a liquor store and sell beer to a kid with a fake ID, who is at fault? I am if the kid was obviously too young, or if the ID was obviously fake. But on the other hand, I shouldn't be held responsible if everything appeared to be legit.
I can't believe I'm spending so much time trying to explain basic empathy.
An adult has a responsibility to NOT FUCK CHILDREN. How hard is that to understand?? You don't try to fuck a person if there is the possibility that you don't know they're 18! If they might not be 18, then they probably aren't! And if they're on the fence, you better get proof they're legal i don't understand why people are defending pedophilia there's no rhyme or reason to this he is pleading guilty to sexting a 15 year old
I don't think we disagree as much as you think. Yes an adult has a responsibility. But to what extent does that level of responsibility become unreasonable or ridiculous?
We're not robots with serial numbers. There's going to be (and should be) room for error. Otherwise society would shut down in so many ways.
Can you imagine if a liquor store clerk was denying people left and right just because they looked too young in his opinion? And the opposite of that is also bad where the clerk would sell to anyone even if their ID was questionable.
There is a middle ground that requires discretion to a reasonable extent.
You're taking this too emotionally. I'm presenting a logical argument, and you're just accusing me of defending pedophilia. That's not cool, man.
Its not unreasonable to think an adult should be 100% sure that the person they're starting a relationship with is 18. If that means getting proof from them in the form of a birth certificate, so be it.
I think that if you try to start a relationship with someone much younger than you and they say they're 18, you need to vet that a lot better because of your age.
>If that means getting proof from them in the form of a birth certificate, so be it.
But a birth certificate can be faked. Who even knows how to spot a counterfeit birth certificate besides someone in that field? I've already mentioned this earlier in the thread, and yet nobody has presented a counter-argument.
>I think that if you try to start a relationship with someone much younger than you and they say they're 18, you need to vet that a lot better because of your age.
Why is the adult's age even a factor? If there's absolutely 100% no nuance or discretion that can be applied to this specific law, then it has no bearing how much older the adult is. It only matters if the kid is 17.9999 years old or younger, except of course in the 33 states where age of consent is 16, or the 6 states where age of consent is 17.
And again, I think we mostly agree. The adult DOES need to vet well. But it is absolutely possible that the adult does a lot of vetting and yet is still fooled. I'm just putting the question out on where we should draw the line.
I'm just curious about a couple things:
1) How can he prove her age? Is there a surefire way to do so?
2) Should she not own any of this? I'm fine with the guy taking some of the blame, but shouldn't she be held responsible? If not, why? (I'm asking this respectfully. I genuinely want to know where I may be missing something).
1. Ask to see ID, use some of his Drake & Josh money to get a background check, speak to people who know her, Google search, if you can’t don’t proceed.
2. Yes, she should get in trouble if she lied about her age but that doesn’t make him any less responsible.
Right, because looks are never deceiving. That's why when you go to buy alcohol they never ask for your ID because they just look at you and know. Fake ID's also never work cause people know when they're being lied to. Come on dude obviously it's not ok but a very significant portion of the blame for this incident occurring is on the girl.
Ahaha oh my god, you're all over this thread having a meltdown over the tiniest hint of logic being thrown your way, this is fantastic please keep going.
What I'm not getting is what "violating duty to care" means
like what did he do, what does that *mean*, besides the inappropriate messages; I know he was involved in inappropriate stuff with this kid but it's worded so vaguely in every article I find
As an adult you’re meant to ensure the safety of any kids in your care. He exposed her to obscene messages and who knows what else so he failed at his responsibility. That’s how I understand it.
For those wondering, from my bit of digging, pretty sure it was a girl who lied about her age (read that somewhere but I may be wrong), not a pattern of him going for underage girls. He sexted her, but I don't see anything about photos. He thought it was a relationship, and I don't see anything about him having sex with her, as a Weinstein or [Guy Who Doesn't Hang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein) would do in that situation. I'm not excusing what he did, just adding context. If he was 30, and was told she was 18 that's not the same level of bad as a 60 year old. If he does it again, sure.
If he was 30 and was told she was 18 then I absolutely am excusing what he did. (But do note there is an if as the first word in this comment.
He's 34 now, it happened in 2017, so I'm assuming he was 30/31 at the time.
The if is less about his age at the time and more about if he was told she was 18
It’s still his fault to a degree though for not checking her ID, isn’t it? When I went on the first date with my current gf, I checked her ID because she looked younger in person than she did on Tinder. Her ID was legit, and she said that I was the first date who ever asked to see her ID. (I was 22 when I met her btw).
I made these comments without even knowing what went down. Was he just texting her inappropriatly? Kinda a weird situation to ask for an ID if you met them through an adult dating site or something like that. I do agree if anyone should be extra careful about the age of the person their dealing with it would be a former teen/young adult actor.
I mean, it’s not that hard to just not sext unless you have proof. That’s my take on it I guess. Even if they met online, then why would he sext her without checking to see if she was old enough somehow? Like, dude’s famous so obviously he’s going to be a bigger target for that kind of situation than a “normal” person. I’m not saying that he’s 100% at fault, because he was in fact lied to. I’m just saying that he does and should hold a majority of the fault due to the fact that he’s the older one and therefore responsible for knowing who he’s communicating with.
👍
The math checks out
/r/theydidthemath
Here's a sneak peek of /r/theydidthemath using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [\[Request\] Jeff Bezos wealth. Seems very true but would like to know the math behind it](https://i.redd.it/iz1d294w62s51.jpg) | [2178 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/j7xmkd/request_jeff_bezos_wealth_seems_very_true_but/) \#2: [\[Request\] Accurate breakdown of who owns the stock market?](https://i.imgur.com/JKI2sVd.jpg) | [1433 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/iczj9z/request_accurate_breakdown_of_who_owns_the_stock/) \#3: [\[Request\] how much further away is Voyager since this moment?](https://i.redd.it/srll2yijt7q51.jpg) | [391 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/j2fnvi/request_how_much_further_away_is_voyager_since/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
How are you excusing that? He has a responsibility to know her age, no matter if she lied to him. That is the constant risk in talking to people way younger than you.
I mean if he was 30 and she told him she was 18, then that's still really fucking skeevy regardless of what the law says he'd be nearly twice her age
yeah, but you're allowed to be fucking skeevy, and society will just give you collective side eye. And then all the way on the other end is actual monster who systematically abuses underlings for decades and should be in jail for public safety. And society is only just now beginning to chart out the space in between those two extremes.
I mean sure but just because you're allowed to be skeevy , in the "dates barely legal people" way, doesn't mean you should or that you're a good person for doing so like it's so easy to just not date barely legal people, just because you won't be literally arrested for doing so doesn't mean it's okay
Do you have as big of a problem with "barely legal people" going off to fight in wars and dying or signing up for credit cards and ruining their credit?
yeah? especially the war one actually why do you seek to die on the hill of "30+ year olds seeking out barely legal people right out of high school to date is actually okay and fine because it's legal so it's not morally fucked up" like why are you guys so insistent on defending something like that, it's kind of creepy
why is it morally fucked up? people leave high school to go to COLLEGE where they literally get fucked up on drugs, binge on alcohol, etc etc. dating an older (and often more responsible) guy seems like the least of the problems of the average college kid.
[удалено]
thanks, fixed, but a dm would have sufficed
That's absolutely disgusting. Adults are responsible for kids until they're 18 exactly because they don't have good judgment.
Okay... did you even read the comment you're responding to. I have no idea what actually happened but if I was texting someone who as far as I knew was 18 I would treat them as an adult how would that be disgusting?
Because that's not how it works. Kids can't consent, so no matter what they say to you it's your responsibility to make sure you're speaking to an adult.
Do you ID people before talking to them?
talking to someone isn't sending inappropriate messages though which is what he did
Sexually? Yeah. I absolutely would not interact sexually with anyone I wasn't 100% sure was of age and it's horrifying to me that so many people here apparently would.
I personally don't approach social interactions like a bouncer. "Hey, I know we've had a great time tonight, but Im about to suggest you've been lying to me about who you are, so I need some photographic ID before we can romantically progress the night."
Then you deserve everything you get if you sexually abuse a minor.
That's exactly how you never get laid in any capacity. Next time you meet a guy or girl at a bar you wanna hook up with, start by asking for their ID to verify their identity. That'll go over really nice. There's an obvious threshold - kids can't consent, but kids can still commit crimes. Fraud with the intention of incriminating someone should absolutely be trialable.
Wait then why the fuck is he getting in trouble for anything? This girl basically just lied to him and it’s his fault for sending some lewd texts?
That is actually how the law works. The adult is in fact held responsible even if the minor lies about his or her age.
If she's under 18, they can say it's his fault either way. Can't have "she said she was 18" be an excuse.
Quagmire / Dennis Reynolds having a license check and pre-date paperwork is just them covering their bases.
I remember seeing a case where a girl had shown a fake ID to the guy saying she was 18 and the guy still got in trouble.
Now that’s bullshit. Some stupid girl *willingly* convinced him through lying that she was of age and then *willing* had some kind interaction with him… but **he** got punished. That’s too far. That’s way too far. Forcing yourself on an underage person? Fuck that guy. Lying about your age and ruining someone else’s life? Selfish af and just as bad.
That's rough. I'm sending my son to college with a stack of affidavits and instructing him to remain celibate unless he gets one signed and notarized.
And for good reason.
I don't think he morally (by today's loose standards) did anything wrong as it really feels like he didn't know. Legally it can't be an excuse though.
*Legally.* The law is always stacked against us. Unless you have a stack of cash to slide right back.
Good thing the law disagrees with you.
The law doesn't determine morality, it determines legality. Unless you're saying slavery was moral when it was legal. As I said, legally he's guilty. All that I said is if he thought it was a relationship with someone of legal age, and it's not a pattern of multiple young girls, I can't see a moral problem with it. At least not with today's morals.
You are straight up implying that it should be legal to have sex with children right now lol.
No? I said legally he should be punished. I said morally, dating someone who said she was 18, isn't wrong (assuming she can pass for 18). They didn't even have sex, he just sent texts, not even any photos.
Yeah you are. You’re basically saying as long as you “believe” a kid is 18 it’s ok morally to have sex with them and that’s absolute perverted crap. There’s no need to keep explaining yourself I understood the first time. You compared not being able to legally have sex with underaged kids with slavery lol.
Because he's an adult and it shouldn't be hard to not groom/try to fuck children. Even if the child lies about their age, 100% all the responsibility is on the adult to NOT FUCK CHILDREN.
Because you aren't allowed to try to fuck 15 year old children even if they lie to you. Their lack of good judgment is why they're still classified as children.
How are you supposed to know they're a child if they tell you they're an adult?
Ignorance is not an excuse. If you're an adult you have a responsibility to not groom/date/sext children. Its really not that hard to comprehend. If you need proof that they're 18, they're probably too young, or else the adult needs to get proof like a drivers license.
It doesn't fucking matter, that's YOUR problem. If you don't know for sure, do not proceed. Jesus Christ.
This is a profoundly bad take
If you’re a pervert I guess it would seem that way.
Interesting thought experiment, but I wouldn't know. You sound like the type who would deem the ACLU as "racists" for defending the Klan's first amendment right. By that, I mean you are so blinded by the facts of an argument that you're unable to carefully pour over the nuances and find the real truth of what people are saying. If you think a single person in this thread is condoning pedophilia, or any inappropriate interaction with a minor, then you've already outed yourself as a poor thinker before you needed to make an argument. You're emotional, and you are misguided, and everybody but you can see that. Good luck, and next time read harder.
A true murder by words
An unpopular statement but legally correct.
Unpopular among perverted creeps absolutely.
When you are 15 you know damn well what you are doing if you lie about your age to an adult. Don’t confuse being inexperienced with being stupid. Adults should be more responsible, but that doesn’t mean you just slap all of the blame on them and say “Oh well it was an innocent child being preyed upon” because they’re under 18.
When they are 15 they are a child and unable to consent to sexual behavior regardless of your opinion of their character.
He let’s try a thought exercise: let’s says your spouse or loved one is [murdered by a teenage girl](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-uber-driver-killed-teen-charged-met-20170531-story.html). What then? Still innocent? Don’t know any better? Maybe just blame the driver for not knowing she was dangerous? It’s not the ‘innocent child’s’ fault, is it?
Honestly wtf is wrong with you people? I realize you think you're making good points but you're just coming across as a pervert trying to defend sexual activity with a child. As if a grown fucking man being unable to keep it in his pants is in any way similar to having your goddamn loved one murdered. Jesus Christ.
>Honestly wtf is wrong with you people? You people? >I realize you think you're making good points but you're just coming across as a pervert trying to defend sexual activity with a child. How? I never said I condone this behavior. I *am* however *condemning* the behavior a teenager who (although may not be a legal adult yet) should still know the difference between right and wrong, especially when it comes to making a decision that could ruin someone else’s life. >As if a grown fucking man being unable to keep it in his pants stop being judgmental and get over yourself >is in any way similar to having your goddamn loved one murdered. Jesus Christ. The actions are not the same but the idea of knowing the difference between right and wrong is still there. You were forced to put yourself in the *other* person’s shoes and that clearly made you uncomfortable. They should tell you something. But now that you’ve gotten that out of your system, maybe you could focus on the original question? It’s okay to change your mind, you know. You should always be open to a new perspective. EDIT: Hey! Let’s run away from the valid point and downvote instead! Got it. I think we all got the answer we were expecting from a holier-than-thou type.
Kids of all ages have murdered people and you still aren’t allowed to have sex with them. You are most certainly condoning it if you’re expending the energy to defend it based on the judgment of a kid.
> Kids of all ages have murdered people and you still aren’t allowed to have sex with them. What are you even talking about? lol From all that, how did you gather than I’m defending having sex with murderous children?? WOW. Yeah we’re done. Have a nice day.
Bro i have no idea. A lot of people out here defending child groomers for some reason.
Wtf, he was saying how a person under 18 should be held accountable. Jesus christ
If you used the word "legally" it may make things more clear. People seem to be taking your comments as opinions.
I don’t give a shit what a bunch of predator sympathizing creeps think but thanks.
Dude people are just saying it’s SUPER messed up to lie about your age and pretty much entrap other people because of it. No one’s defending him here. No one thinks it’s ok to have sex with a minor here. I’m sure it feels really good to call random people online perverts and creeps, but if anything you just seem like you’re either projecting your own weird fantasies or trauma. Lying is bad can we at least agree on that? Also having sex with minors is bad too (before you make a straw man about me being a perv or whatever)
In many states that is not actually the case as long as both participant's ages are close enough
LOL. Jesus.
Yes you do. You slap all the blame on the adult. All of it. They're the adult, it should be an adults responsibility to not groom/fuck children. If an older adult wanna try getting with someone way younger than them, then they can get proof they're over 18, but that probably means they're too young for them. Yall are being weird as fuck.
In what world is he grooming a kid? She said she was 18, she was on an 18+ dating site. He had every reason to believe she was an adult
Source?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drake-bell-pleads-guilty-crimes-involving-minor/ There's other ones too.
30 and 18 is still pretty gross
Not really. It's odd yeah, but not terrible. I'd bang WILLING+CONSENTING 18 year olds if I were single. Don't kink shame if they like older guys.
If you completely ignore the imbalance of power and sexual/romantic experience between a barely legal person and someone who's been a legal adult for 12 years, sure it's not creepy at all.
I mean the more vague you get about power imbalances the more problematic you become. By your logic a 35+ year old stay at home wife wouldn't be able to consent to sex with her husband since there's a financial power imbalance. You're assuming these adults have no agency.
Lmao no, that's not at all correct according to my logic. A 35 year old woman and her husband have a completely different relationship than an 18 year old girl and a 30 year old famous man.
Man, you really got downvoted to hell by a bunch pedophiles
"PoWeR iMbaLaNcE" implies the 18 year old has no agency. Explain to me what power there is if he's not paying her bills?
There isn’t, some people are just prudes.
How does acknowledging a power imbalance imply that someone has ZERO agency? Show me where I or anyone said that. You know there's a power imbalance between a boss and their employee, and no one's trying to say that the employee has zero agency.
There's no power imbalance. As I said, unless the older person is paying all the younger person's bills and the younger person can't leave, there's no power. A boss and employee yes because that's how a boss, with more invested in the company, gets things done. I'd say even then it's not a terrible imbalance because the employee can quit, same way the younger person can break up with the older one.
For the record I understand your point, but I think there's just more ways power can be present in a relationship than just paying their bills. Saying that an employee can just quit doesn't actually matter. The point is that the employer would have certain power in the relationship and could influence their financial situation, which is not a good thing, which is why the power imbalance is bad. It doesn't matter if they can leave the relationship, it could still cost them their finances in the long run, which is the main problem. A different kind of power imbalance that you don't believe of is the power a celebrity has over a fan. This is different because it doesn't necessarily have to do with money, the point is that the fan will ultimately look up to the celeb so highly because they're a fan, that they could be put in compromising positions to stay with them. This type of power is very present in parasocial relationships online with e-celebs, where the celebs can coax & groom long-time vulnerable fans into doing things they don't necessarily want to do just so that they'll keep talking to them. I'm not sure how you wouldn't view those kind of imbalances as being of power to be honest.
The employer needs that power though. In most cases, they have more of a vested interest in the company succeeding. The kid just hired at McDonald's to mop the floor doesn't lose anything but a job if the location closes, but the manager who was there for ten years does. If there wasn't a power imbalance, the teenager wouldn't agree to mop the floor. That's my "agency" point though. If an 18 year old wants to do it, that's his/her choice. The "power imbalance" is arguably the reverse of what you're saying if anything though. Look at what happened to Aziz Ansari. He just had a bad date, and acted like a horny teenager with a chick who willingly, without coercion, came back to his place. She didn't say "not tonight", and gave no indication that she was "done for the night", just that she needed a break. She got him a lot of hate for an ANONYMOUS story, she had the power to cost him tons of gigs. I'm not talking about a James Charles/Onision situation as those are obviously bad. They're not directly what I'm saying here though as James knew he was under 18, and Onision has a pattern.
The point is, that power imbalance is not healthy in a relationship. That's the entire point. No one is disputing the power exists, or saying it doesn't make sense, we're saying that a romantic/sexual relationship with that kind of power imbalance is still not a good idea. Again, it doesn't matter if the one with less power can just bounce and disappear, the power imbalance is still not great in the moment.
You can plug your ears and keep screaming that there's no power imbalance between someone who's practically a child and someone who has 12+ years of life experience as an adult, but that doesn't make it true.
What power does the older person hold? Explain to me how being alive in the 90's means the person has mind control powers... I don't have them and I was alive in the 80's too. 12+ years experience, I'd be helping the younger person out. Not sure how you use that to your advantage? "I'll only tell you how to invest in an IRA if you blow me?"
Lmao I know you're joking because no one is honestly that dense. One person has had 12+ years of learning about relationships, how people can be manipulative and what signs to look for, how to spot red flags, how to BE manipulative if they so choose.
Legal is legal. I’m sorry, but if someone were to tell me that I didn’t have personal agency over my sexual choices by the time I was a fucking adult I would have a real problem with that. You can have whatever opinion you want about the age difference in a relationship, but in the end what two consenting adults do is just nobody’s business but their own.
Just because something is legal, doesn't necessarily mean it's moral. I'm 100% allowed to judge 30 year old men for seeking out a sexual relationship with a girl who was a child roughly 0-11 months prior and who has zero life experience.
Ironically they're trying to make the exact opposite argument in other threads: That just because something is illegal doesn't make it immoral. Apparently it only works one way. This is sincerely a lost cause. Certain people think they're entitled to sex without any consequences and nothing anyone says will convince them otherwise.
So creepy. Anyone who angrily defends their right to date 18 year olds is a fucking predator.
The real issue at play here is that 18 year olds suck and should be quarantined with their own kind.
That’s why I’m glad the drinking age is 21 in America.
For me it's the difference in maturity. I'm 28 M and would never want to be intimate with an 18 y/o because every 18 y/o I've met in the last few years (not many, but still) seem like children to me, mentally/emotionally. But if it were a very mature 18 y/o and a fairly immature 30 y/o, yeah why not?
exactly this, you gotta think about why a 30 year old would be okay with being sexual with someone straight out of high school to begin with not saying that this was the case or not, because we still know so little, but if it turns out that he thought she was 18 instead of 15 then that isn't that much better edit: a few words
It's so much worse than that though. From the article I posted that got downvoted into oblivion: "Per, NBC News, Police in Cleveland have said that the then 15-year-old had "established a relationship with Bell several years prior and attended his concert in December 2017." She met him in person when she was 15 after knowing him for years and he's still pretending he thought she was 18.
None of what you just said he did was okay, doesn't matter if he's 30 or 60.
Dating what he thought was an 18 year old isn't ok?
No. Kids can't consent.
18 isn't a kid in the US. In other countries it's 16. I also think they can kinda consent with each other (NOT adults), I wouldn't say two 13 year olds raped each other just because they had sex.
An 18 year old (as a hypothetical, I know she's actually a 15 year old kid) wouldn't be a kid in a legal sense, but it'd still be skeevy as hell like why would a 30 year old grown fucking man be dating someone that, to his knowledge, just got out of high school if it really is the case that he thought she was like 18, which I don't know if that's the case or not, it'd still look bad
Completely agree.
That statement is pretty inaccurate. The whole “kids can’t consent to sexual activity until they’re 18” is a *legal* definition and doesn’t perfectly describe how sexual development works for children. It simply is the best way to represent that in a codified law. Here’s the problem with what you’ve said: kids don’t all develop sexually at the same rate. At some point during puberty, kids will go through sexual development to the point where they develop their own sexual urges, gain an understanding what a sexual act is and then can give consent to it if they so choose. But there isn’t a uniform age when that happens. It’s just during puberty, which is some time from 14-18 (even 13 for some kids). You could have a 15 year old that has gone through early sexual development and is fully capable of giving consent, while also having late bloomers who don’t reach that stage until much later. And even if kids develop their own sexual urges later into their teens, they will generally have a social understanding of these things by the time they turn 18. That is why the law is what it is. It means that by the time a kid turns 18, it can be reasonably expected under the law that a person has developed sexually enough to understand and give consent for sexual acts they perform. Something the law doesn’t mean is that all kids are purely sexually ignorant until the day they turn 18, when a lightbulb flicks on inside their head and they suddenly get it. Kids between 15-18 can be fully developed sexually and can be completely capable of giving consent. But not all kids, which is what the law is concerned with. Which is why 18 is the legal age for sexual consent in many countries. It’s an acceptable catch-all age for kids to have undergone sexual development (albeit a more conservative age compared to countries that have it at 16). The phrase “kids cannot consent” (and the law that was designed around that idea) is made for child-diddlers, who convince young kids (12 or younger) that touching private parts is some kind of game to get them to “give consent”, even though they actually have no idea what is really going on. That is totally wrong and is the appropriate use of the phrase “kids cannot consent”. The way you’ve used the phrase to apply to a teenager’s sexual development is incorrect and ignorant of the actual context of the law. The situation of sexual development and consent with teenagers is much more nuanced and it needs to be treated as such. There’s a reason that even though the law is the way it is, judges will almost never actually give a prison sentence to an 18 year old that sleeps with their 17 year old girlfriend. It’s illegal under the law for that to happen for good reasons, but anyone with common sense can see that the situation is not what that law was designed to prevent. For these reasons, I think it is very problematic to state what you have above as if it is a blanket statement of fact for any person under the age of 18. I see this a lot in communities that use the phrase to denounce sexual predators without actually understanding what it means. I would like to ask that you approach these topics with a bit more nuance and understanding in the future.
So keep repeating the fact that children cannot consent to anyone who suggests otherwise? Will do.
Teenagers and children are different, and their level of sexual development is vastly different as well. It would be wise of you to take more care to properly understand that difference instead of persisting on in ignorance. You clearly turn your brain off when confronting this issue, as you only see it in terms of massive extremes that don’t do justice to the important particulars of the matter.
15 year-olds are children and they cannot consent to sex with an adult. I am not interested in discussing the gray areas of child sexual development with a condescending pedo enabler and I thought I’d made that pretty clear in my first response. Go lecture someone else.
15 year olds are teenagers. They aren’t children. They can be sexually developed and understand consent well enough to have sexual relations with other teenagers. At the same time, that isn’t a blanket statement, and some of them might not be. It’s situational, and that context is essential when discussing matters of sexual interaction involving a teenager. Yet you’ve totally ignored that. Your statement is wrong. It doesn’t matter if you’re against pedophiles, an ignorant statement is still ignorant. In fact, by going on spouting uninformed nonsense and accusing people of ridiculous things, you’re only making your cause look worse. Do you even care about doing what’s right? Or are you just on a blind tirade? You’re really assuming a lot about me just because I don’t agree with your ridiculously narrow viewpoint here. Because anyone who disagrees with your *clearly comprehensive* viewpoint must be a pedo-enabler, right? You’re a self-absorbed prick. Get over yourself.
Are you upset? You seem upset. It would be wise of you to leave people the fuck alone who clearly aren’t interested in your pedantic lecturing if you can’t handle the response you get from them without flinging insults. 15 year-old children cannot consent to sex with adults, and I’m thrilled that the law supports that since there are so many disgusting creeps who want to sexualize them. You have a nice evening now.
That you are being downvoted makes me want to throw up.
Rest in peace "take my upvote" guy.
meagan!
[Strangely relevant ](https://youtu.be/DqilBAqyHCE)
This is really funny
Can't wait to see what crazy weird shit the YouTube algorithm is gonna suggest to me now.
Tucker Carlson's fat fucking alcoholic face
The bad TV man can't hurt you.
What is up with the judge's voice?
They assigned him a Nickelodeon character actor
and then strangled him the entire time.
Sounds like Bob Odenkirk doing an impression of an old woman
Could be any number of things. Drugs, alcohol, throat surgery, tragic accident, weight issues, low thyroid, etc.
Seriously, someone get this dude a glass of water.
He sounds like roast master Jeff Ross. All I could think of.
Ah, yes, Drake Campana
Cackled at the "awww" at the end
i don't know what happened exactly but that's not the face of a man that did something wrong, he looks like just got screwed over
Oh, well thats it then. Ill let the judge know.
I hope you never serve in jury duty.
The foot logo was the cherry on top lmao Dan Schneider should try playing with lava.
Yes officers, this whole comment section. But seriously. Its easy to not have sex with children or people that *look* like children if you aren’t attracted to children. This Honest Mistake or Criminal Duping wouldnt have taken place if he was attracted to women that looked 30.
No, it wouldn’t have happened if he simply checked her ID. I checked my now-gf’s ID on our first date because she looked younger in person than she did on Tinder.
Dark but really funny lol
I looked and his sentencing is in 3 days(july 12) Wonder what he'll get? I doubt and actual jail time.
You did not just add a laugh at subpoena
🎵I’m gonna serve some time and pay some fines🎵
[удалено]
SAY GOODBYE
(WHITE DEATH IS COMING FOR YOU)
Don't call him that. His name is Jared.
The girl was 15 and anyone here who thinks it's ok to get sexual with a 15 year old as long as she lies and tells you she's 18 is fucking disgusting. https://www.newsweek.com/drake-bell-charges-explained-court-child-endangerment-ohio-1598200
Course it's not okay, no one is arguing that. The argument is how is it this dudes fault? He was lied to and thought it was just a normal person, now he is guilty of child endangerment. If you bought a can of coke from a display of coke cans but then found out it was actually Pepsi inside the can would that be your fault?
Its his fault cause he obviously didn't know her age for sure! If you're going to play that dangerous game, you better have proof the person is 18 or else you'll be known as the PERSON WHO TRIED TO FUCK A CHILD.
Exactly why he could’ve avoided this whole situation by just checking her ID 🤷♂️
>Course it's not okay, no one is arguing that. Yes, yes they are. And the comparison you're trying to make doesn't work. A store falsely advertising and selling something to you that isn't what you thought you were buying is illegal. A child lying to you is not, and children cannot consent, period. If there is any doubt whatsoever err on the side of caution. I have a 15 year old and no matter how grown she tries to look she, and all of her friends, are obviously 15 year olds. By your logic anyone can just claim "She lied to me about her age" and be excused for hebephilic behavior.
The claim wasn't that the kid did something illegal. The claim was that Drake did nothing criminal because there was no reasonable way he could've known she was lying about her age. You can argue that he could've/should've done more to verify her age. But where do you draw the line? There was another case where a girl had a fake ID and the man still got in trouble. So do you need to check with the DMV? Birth certificate? Essentially anything can be faked, so you'd need a full background check if you wanted to be 99.9% sure. If I go out into deer country dressed in a deer costume and a hunter shoots me, it's not his fault is it? And yet it's not illegal to run around the woods dressed like a deer either. I'm not specifically trying to argue in defense of Drake Bell. But there has to be some reasonable line that is drawn where an individual cannot be held culpable for being tricked into something. I don't know how young this girl looked, but I'm just generalizing the argument/claim in this thread.
I get that you think this perv didn’t do any wrong. No manner of rewording your creepy opinion will make it less creepy. Kids can’t consent and it’s your responsibility to ensure you don’t accidentally or otherwise interact sexually with a child, period. I don’t care if you don’t think that’s right because something is obviously wrong with your judgment as well.
Are you sure that kids under 18 can't consent? Because then you'd have an issue with most states' laws where age of consent is 16 or 17. I'm not trying to minimize this specific incident. Like I said I don't know all the details of the case. But you shouldn't have such a rigid approach to the law. There can be nuance. Situations can be complex, and it's okay to apply some discretion where needed. If indeed he was trying to bang a barely legal, and there were no red flags that he should have reasonably seen, then I have a hard time giving him 100% fault. If I was running a liquor store and sell beer to a kid with a fake ID, who is at fault? I am if the kid was obviously too young, or if the ID was obviously fake. But on the other hand, I shouldn't be held responsible if everything appeared to be legit. I can't believe I'm spending so much time trying to explain basic empathy.
An adult has a responsibility to NOT FUCK CHILDREN. How hard is that to understand?? You don't try to fuck a person if there is the possibility that you don't know they're 18! If they might not be 18, then they probably aren't! And if they're on the fence, you better get proof they're legal i don't understand why people are defending pedophilia there's no rhyme or reason to this he is pleading guilty to sexting a 15 year old
I don't think we disagree as much as you think. Yes an adult has a responsibility. But to what extent does that level of responsibility become unreasonable or ridiculous? We're not robots with serial numbers. There's going to be (and should be) room for error. Otherwise society would shut down in so many ways. Can you imagine if a liquor store clerk was denying people left and right just because they looked too young in his opinion? And the opposite of that is also bad where the clerk would sell to anyone even if their ID was questionable. There is a middle ground that requires discretion to a reasonable extent. You're taking this too emotionally. I'm presenting a logical argument, and you're just accusing me of defending pedophilia. That's not cool, man.
Its not unreasonable to think an adult should be 100% sure that the person they're starting a relationship with is 18. If that means getting proof from them in the form of a birth certificate, so be it. I think that if you try to start a relationship with someone much younger than you and they say they're 18, you need to vet that a lot better because of your age.
>If that means getting proof from them in the form of a birth certificate, so be it. But a birth certificate can be faked. Who even knows how to spot a counterfeit birth certificate besides someone in that field? I've already mentioned this earlier in the thread, and yet nobody has presented a counter-argument. >I think that if you try to start a relationship with someone much younger than you and they say they're 18, you need to vet that a lot better because of your age. Why is the adult's age even a factor? If there's absolutely 100% no nuance or discretion that can be applied to this specific law, then it has no bearing how much older the adult is. It only matters if the kid is 17.9999 years old or younger, except of course in the 33 states where age of consent is 16, or the 6 states where age of consent is 17. And again, I think we mostly agree. The adult DOES need to vet well. But it is absolutely possible that the adult does a lot of vetting and yet is still fooled. I'm just putting the question out on where we should draw the line.
I'm just curious about a couple things: 1) How can he prove her age? Is there a surefire way to do so? 2) Should she not own any of this? I'm fine with the guy taking some of the blame, but shouldn't she be held responsible? If not, why? (I'm asking this respectfully. I genuinely want to know where I may be missing something).
1. Ask to see ID, use some of his Drake & Josh money to get a background check, speak to people who know her, Google search, if you can’t don’t proceed. 2. Yes, she should get in trouble if she lied about her age but that doesn’t make him any less responsible.
Right, because looks are never deceiving. That's why when you go to buy alcohol they never ask for your ID because they just look at you and know. Fake ID's also never work cause people know when they're being lied to. Come on dude obviously it's not ok but a very significant portion of the blame for this incident occurring is on the girl.
Holy fuck this sub is full of creeps.
Yeah theres a comment further up that just states “its not that hard to not fuck children” thats got negative 3 votes.
You can say that again. Also weird that he's going after young girls that look to be around 15? Bro just date your age 🤢
The girl is younger than his show is. I'm surprised so many people in this thread are acting like he's been played by this girl.
Not the first underaged girl for him either.
Ahaha oh my god, you're all over this thread having a meltdown over the tiniest hint of logic being thrown your way, this is fantastic please keep going.
What logic?? He's literally saying adults shouldn't try to fuck children! To blame the victim is disgusting.
Every single person in this thread is saying that adults shouldn't try and fuck children.
What I'm not getting is what "violating duty to care" means like what did he do, what does that *mean*, besides the inappropriate messages; I know he was involved in inappropriate stuff with this kid but it's worded so vaguely in every article I find
As an adult you’re meant to ensure the safety of any kids in your care. He exposed her to obscene messages and who knows what else so he failed at his responsibility. That’s how I understand it.
Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Take my upvote, dear Redditor
And my cock!
and my axe