Posted on 09/19/2018 9:00:42 AM PDT by Wayne07
Despite the whole “you have to believe women about sex” thing, every man should know that women lie about their age, and underage women lie about their age to get sex, and alcohol.
And if you are a man who believes a woman, and it turns out the woman lied about her age, you are going to be prosecuted, because the entire system knows you are stupid if you believe women don’t lie.
That’s the annoying thing about the charge. Is the claim that he had consensual sex and paid her, but she was under 17 so it was “sexual assault”, or is the claim that he actually assaulted her against her will?
If the former, he was stupid for believing she didn’t lie about her age, because we all know that some women lie, despite the whole “we have to believe women” thing.
On the other hand, if he can prove that there was no way for him to know her age, then he might get off easy on that charge, only to face a charge for illegal prostitution.
Because “sugar daddy” doesn’t mean hooking up with a girl and paying her for sex — that’s actual prostitution.
She was under 17, which is why the child sexual assault charge.
Ignorance is not a defense for sexual assault of the statutory type. He’s toast.
“Sugardaddy dot com” sounds like a cover for underage trafficking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.