Don't want Ashcroft goon hunting me down

[Guest showme43]

Hey I'm sure someone in this "esteemed" crowd (as everyone looks over their shoulder, lol) can tell me this...what is the age of consent in Texas?

I met this HOT 18 year old last night on-line. We had an unbelievable conversation (and yes cyber-sex.) He is looking for a mature man (guess that's me) to teach and nurture him as he discovers his sexuality. And I would be more than willing to take up that cause but don't want to get my ass tossed in jail for statutory rape of a minor or some shit like that!!!

What do you think guys...am I fucking out of my mind here. I'll tell you this though...had one of the most powerful orgasms ever just CHATTING with this honey, can only imagine what the sex would do...probably give me a heart attack, lol.

 

}>

 

Have a great day,

Rick

[Guest DCeBOY]

>Hey I'm sure someone in this "esteemed" crowd (as everyone

>looks over their shoulder, lol) can tell me this...what is

>the age of consent in Texas?

 

anything other than male-female sex is still illegal in texas.

both male-male & female-female sex are unlawful.

the AOC for m-f sex is 17 in texas.

 

>don't want to get my ass

>tossed in jail for statutory rape of a minor or some shit

>like that!!!

 

if he's over 17, the issue isn't statutory rape, but rather sodomy.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>if he's over 17, the issue isn't statutory rape, but rather

>sodomy.

 

The dictionary defines sodomy as anal intercourse between two males. So if two guys only participated in oral sex and/or mutal jack-off - would this be illegal?

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest showme43]

>anything other than male-female sex is still illegal in

>texas.

>both male-male & female-female sex are unlawful.

>the AOC for m-f sex is 17 in texas.

>

>if he's over 17, the issue isn't statutory rape, but rather

>sodomy.

 

 

I suppose taking him across state lines is asking for trouble too !!

 

 

Rick

[Guest TopUNowD1]

Well the dictionary might define it that way, unfortunately most states that still carry the sodomy laws on their books define oral sex as sodomy too, i.e., oral sodomy. Sucks, eh? ;-)

[Will]

The famous Supreme Court decision regarding a sodomy trial in Georgia made it perfectly clear that the present legal status of the term "sodomy" is not restricted to pitching and catching, no matter what even the Oxford English Dictionary says. A highly respected escort actually knows quite a lot about that Supreme Court decision, and I'm going to e-mail him and ask him if he'd be willing to clarify.

 

At all events, it would be a cold day in hell before you'd get the Supreme Court to take another sodomy case, and especially with the former governor of Texas in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>I met this HOT 18 year old last night on-line.

 

Uh huh.

 

And everyone online is blond, has a 29" waist, an 8.5" cock and washboard abs.

 

Your "HOT 18 year old" was probably a 48 year old bald fat man living in Des Moines with his obese wife and their three obnoxious children.

 

Romantically yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>I met this HOT 18 year old last night on-line.

>

>Uh huh.

>

>And everyone online is blond, has a 29" waist, an 8.5" cock

>and washboard abs.

>

>Your "HOT 18 year old" was probably a 48 year old bald fat

>man living in Des Moines with his obese wife and their three

>obnoxious children.

>

>Romantically yours,

>

>FFF

 

FFF: This may be quite true. But if you always think the worst of situations, much joy will pass you by. Take a chance once in a while. You will be astounded at how life will improve :-)

 

Thunderbuns

[GinoMancuso]

Hey Will - I'm flattered that I came to mind when you thought of sodomy <G> I'll sodomize you anytime!

 

Here's the scoop as I know it:

 

There are still 12 states and Puerto Rico which have sodomy statutes "on the books." A few of them, like Texas and Oklahoma, apply only to male-male and female-female sex. The statutes typically prohibit adult, consensual oral and anal sex, but some go further. Michigan's law, for example, also prohibits "gross lewdness" and "gross indecency." It's left up to the arresting officer and ultimately the court as to what is or isn't "gross lewdness." (Personally, the image of John Ashcroft having sex with anyone (assuming he can or does) is lewd, disgusting and offensive enough to me to justify enforcing the law against HIM, but I digress and it undermines my argument anyway.) Further, some cities use sodomy laws to arrest gay people for even TALKING about gay sex, in conversations which parallel those heterosexuals have every day. (A straight guy can ask his spouse for head. Not so for his gay co-worker. So watch what you say in adult bookstores in certain states, boys.) Free speech? Right to privacy? Liberty and justice for all? Naw, the Supreme Court took care of that argument in 1986 with Bowers v. Hardwick, when the majority noted that a homosexual's right to sexual privacy was "at best, facetious."

 

In most states, such laws are misdemeanors, but in Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" statute, violation is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. In Idaho, conviction may actually get you LIFE in prison. (Now THERE'S a way to prevent sodomy...)

 

The laws are rarely enforced, so why should we care? Because...their mere existence remains a critical affront to the liberties of gay men and lesbians everywhere. Among other things, these statutes are routinely used to justify denial of child custody, adoption and employment to gays and lesbians on the grounds that the "sodomizer" is by nature a criminal - sometimes a felon - and thereby not worthy of these luxuries.

 

The temperature in hell may be dropping though, Will. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund announced last month that they may appeal a recent Texas sodomy case to the U.S. Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. In that case, cops had entered the home of two gay lovers after receiving a report about a possible burglary in progress. What they found instead was a blowjob in progress and the hummer and hummee were arrested for violating the local sodomy law. The lower court there upheld the statute, noting that "preserving public morality" justified the blatantly anti-gay law. (The Texas Court was clearly more obsessed about what two consensual adults with penises were doing in their own home than they were about what the fuck interest the STATE OF TEXAS had being in their home in the first place.) Given recent State Supreme Court rulings and legislative challenges to the laws, the current, albeit unpredictable, makeup of the Court (InJustice White, who wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick is retired -- and dead), we may have a chance of winning this one IF the Court agrees to hear it, despite the irrational precedent of Bowers, despite the policies and politics of Ashcroft and George W. Gump, and despite the inevitable rantings of Justice Scalia and his negro.) The facts are very similar to Bowers v. Hardwick though, so who knows if the challenge will make it past the Court's Law Clerks.

 

Hey - maybe we should file an amicus brief on behalf of this site! How bout it Hooboy?

 

Sodomy rocks!

 

http://www.ginomancuso.com

[Will]

WOW!!! That's more than I could have hoped for. Many thanks!

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>But if you always think the

>worst of situations, much joy will pass you by. Take a

>chance once in a while. You will be astounded at how life

>will improve :-)

 

 

Now if I could only get my right leg over and finish the lotus position..............

 

Transcendentally yours,

 

FFF

[Guest showme43]

>Your "HOT 18 year old" was probably a 48 year old bald fat

>man living in Des Moines with his obese wife and their three

>obnoxious children.

>

>Romantically yours,

>

>FFF

hahahaha...right

well if that's the case i still want to fuck the guy in the picture he has on his personals ad....yum

:9

Rick

 

and thanks all for the legal enlightenment...as they used to say on hill street blues..."let's be careful out there"