Sex with an Underaged Boy in Canada

[woodlawn]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>I said "I seemed to recall," not "I just looked it up,"

>asshole. The actual jury award was $2.9 million according to

>a couple of sources I just looked up. Who's really being

>dishonest, here (what can one expect of a lawyer?)?

 

Who's being dishonest? You are, shit-for-brains. Add $160,000.00 in compensatories and $2.7 million in punies, the figures I posted above, and what do you get? About $2.9 million. You can add, right?

 

 

I still

>feel that it's a ridiculous sum. Of course, I think that any

>sum over 0 cents is a ridiculous sum. She was a demented 79

>year-old and she hurt herself. Sometimes old people hurt

>themselves. C'est la vie. Next time her grandson should be

>more careful when taking batty granny through the

>drivethrough. What are cupholders for?

 

To my way of thinking, cupholders are very useful for shoving up the tightly clenched asses of mean-spirited fuckwits like you who use expressions like "batty granny" and "demented 79-year-old." May you live a long, long life and be treated, at the end of it, with the same respect you accord elderly people today. You richly deserve it.

 

 

>The issue of lack of medical coverage is obviously completely

>irrelevant to the case. First of all, if she was 79, she had

>MediCare,

 

So what? Why should the plaintiff or other taxpayers, through Medicare, pay for the cost of an injury that was inflicted by the gross negligence of a large corporation like McDonalds? If the states can recover billions in medical costs paid through Medicaid from the tobacco companies for causing those costs through misconduct, why shouldn't others do the same? As the evidence at trial showed, the company was well aware of the problem and did absolutely nothing about it until the "batty granny" dragged them into court and made them pay.

 

 

>FWIW, even the judge felt the punitive award was off-base, and

>reduced the punitive portion from $2.7 M to 640,000.

 

And here was you telling the world that the case cost $100 million. Why the lies?

 

 

Of

>course, why punitive damages are awarded to plaintiffs and

>their lawyers in this country is another wierdism of our legal

>system. They are intended to punish plaintiffs, not

>compensate victims, so they should go to some appropriate

>charitable organization.

 

The plaintiff and her lawyer get the money because they were the ones willing to take the risk and make the effort to bring the case to court in the first place. I thought you right-wing Rush Limbaugh capitalist let-them-eat-cake types believed that people should be rewarded for risk-taking. I guess that only applies to people like you, though, huh?

[woodlawn]

Daddy sez: "Woodlawn my friend, tone it down. No personal attacks please!"

[Doug69]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>I said "I seemed to recall," not "I just looked it up,"

>asshole. The actual jury award was $2.9 million according to

>a couple of sources I just looked up. Who's really being

>dishonest, here (what can one expect of a lawyer?)? I still

>feel that it's a ridiculous sum. Of course, I think that any

>sum over 0 cents is a ridiculous sum.

 

In addition to the pile of misstatements of yours about this case already highlighted by Woodlawn, I must add to this the fact that you are extremely confused about the purpose of punitive damages.

 

Contrary to your suggestions earlier, the $2.9 million award was not given in order to compensate the plaintiff for injuries she suffered. Whether she had her legs amputated or `merely` had to spend 8 days in a burn unit is irrelevant.

 

Punitive damages, as the name should have suggested to you, are intended for punishment, not for compensation. The jury apparently found that in addition to being negligent in dispensing coffee far hotter than is safe or permitted by its own procedures, McDonald´s was so reckless about it that it bordered on being intentional, or at least so reckless that it reflected indifference to whether it would cause people injuries.

 

As a result, the jury concluded that McDonald´s should have to pay some amount of money significant enough (considering its worth and conduct) to punish it for this behavior and to deter it from engaging in such conduct in the future). The jury apparently thought that $2.9 million was an appropriate sum to achieve these goals - a rather restrained result, one could argue, given the danger posed by its conduct and the level of its corporate wealth.

 

Although the sum is designed to punish rather than to compensate, it is nonetheless paid to the plaintiff because it was only the plaintiff~s willingness to bring the litigation which resulted in this conduct being exposed, and it is thus only fair that the plaintiff receive the penalty monies.

 

It´s become a pretty safe assumption that anyone who uses the McDonald´s case to make some ´point´ about the legal system is someone whom one can safely assume - without knowing anything else - is someone who has no clue what they are talking about. This case is now nothing more than an urban myth (as illustrated by your completely false ´´recollections´´ about it) used -- like so many similar myths -- to propagandize the misinformed, stupid and/or lazy.

 

How good of you to provide such a living, breathing example of this syndrome.

[Eric]

I KNOW THAT THIS IS AN ESCORT SITE WHERE BEING AN ESCORT IS OKAY AND HONORABLE BY ALL HERE.

 

THAT IS SUBJECT TO DEBATE BY THE MAJORITY.

 

BUT I CAN ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT JUST AS YOU SAY, ATHAN, SOME MINORS ARE "MATURE" ENOUGH TO HANDLE SEX WITH AN ADULT, SO ARE SOME--THOUGH I'M SURE WE WILL ALL AGREE, NOT ALL-- ESCORTS.

 

BUT IF YOU'RE AN OUTSIDER TO THIS, YOU'D PROBABLY SAY, ATHAN, THAT YOU DID NOT COME OUT OF THIS "UNSCATHED." THAT AS AN ESCORT, SELLING YOUR BODY ILLEGALLY, YOU DID STRAY OFF THE PATH. SOME MIGHT SAY THAT HAD YOU BEEN ALLOWED TO KEEP YOUR "INNOCENCE" AS A MINOR, YOU MIGHT HAVE COME TO SEEN SEX FROM A DIFFERENT LIGHT AS AN ADULT, AND NEVER HAVE BECOME AN ESCORT.

 

I'M SURE YOU'RE A GREAT GUY AND ALL, SO THIS IS JUST A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE (THOUGH PROBABLY THE PERPSECTIVE OF MORE PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF HERE THAN NOT).

[Luv2play]

The only one making up definitions here is you. I have noticed your nasty slurs against other posters here. Why don't you just take your sorry self to another site that attracts no-class trash such as yourself.

[woodlawn]

>The only one making up definitions here is you. I have

>noticed your nasty slurs against other posters here. Why don't

>you just take your sorry self to another site that attracts

>no-class trash such as yourself.

 

 

I don't take myself to another site because that would be giving a victory to those like you, who repeatedly come here to defend or make excuses for men caught trying to exploit children for sex. If the gay community ever manages to get out of the shadow of pedophilia and other universally reviled practices it will be because we have refused to let characters like you define us in the public mind.

[woodlawn]

> Daddy sez: "Woodlawn my friend, tone it

>down. No personal attacks please!"

 

 

If you want us to be friends, you'll have to start applying these "rules" of yours equally to everyone, and not in the arbitrary and capricious manner you've used until now. These days I only want to make friends with people who are fair-minded. I already know enough people of the other sort -- many of them from this site.

[joel304]

>> Daddy sez: "Woodlawn my friend, tone it

>>down. No personal attacks please!"

>

>

>If you want us to be friends, you'll have to start applying

>these "rules" of yours equally to everyone, and not in the

>arbitrary and capricious manner you've used until now. These

>days I only want to make friends with people who are

>fair-minded. I already know enough people of the other sort

>-- many of them from this site.

 

 

I agree. I assume that these edits came as a result of "alerts" from delicate members. If so, that makes me laugh. It's hard to be offended by an anonymous figure through an anonymous name.

 

If not, the moderators are acting in an inconsistent fashion.

[joel304]

>I KNOW THAT THIS IS AN ESCORT SITE WHERE BEING AN ESCORT IS

>OKAY AND HONORABLE BY ALL HERE.

>

>THAT IS SUBJECT TO DEBATE BY THE MAJORITY.

>

>BUT I CAN ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT JUST AS YOU SAY, ATHAN, SOME

>MINORS ARE "MATURE" ENOUGH TO HANDLE SEX WITH AN ADULT, SO ARE

>SOME--THOUGH I'M SURE WE WILL ALL AGREE, NOT ALL-- ESCORTS.

>

>BUT IF YOU'RE AN OUTSIDER TO THIS, YOU'D PROBABLY SAY, ATHAN,

>THAT YOU DID NOT COME OUT OF THIS "UNSCATHED." THAT AS AN

>ESCORT, SELLING YOUR BODY ILLEGALLY, YOU DID STRAY OFF THE

>PATH. SOME MIGHT SAY THAT HAD YOU BEEN ALLOWED TO KEEP YOUR

>"INNOCENCE" AS A MINOR, YOU MIGHT HAVE COME TO SEEN SEX FROM A

>DIFFERENT LIGHT AS AN ADULT, AND NEVER HAVE BECOME AN ESCORT.

>

>

>I'M SURE YOU'RE A GREAT GUY AND ALL, SO THIS IS JUST A

>DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE (THOUGH PROBABLY THE PERPSECTIVE OF MORE

>PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF HERE THAN NOT).

 

 

 

Posting in CAPS is rude. Geez.

>

>

>

>

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>I don't know all the history behind the evolution of our laws

>on age of consent but I suppose the reason for the relatively

>low age of 14 for females originally was that in our distant

>past it was not unusual for girls to get married at that age,

>particularly in Quebec.

 

Quebec was not all that special i think. If memory serves, not too many decades ago the legal age in Maryland for marriage was 13. I don't recall if this was limited only to females or if parental consent was requried. There was a small town, Elkton, just south of the Delaware border that was infamous for fast marriages. I suspect that a number of states (mostly in the bible belt I suspect) permitted marriage at 13 or 14 under certain circumstances. Then there was the cousin issue in one or two states. Seems that among the fundamentalists of yesteryear, the issue was sex only in marriage not sex at what age. Times change... I hope.

[Guest]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>In addition to the pile of misstatements of yours about this

>case already highlighted by Woodlawn, I must add to this the

>fact that you are extremely confused about the purpose of

>punitive damages.

>

>Contrary to your suggestions earlier, the $2.9 million award

>was not given in order to compensate the plaintiff for

>injuries she suffered.

 

You obviously didn't read my post, or were drunk or high on drugs when you did. Quite opposite to what you said, I stated:

 

>course, why punitive damages are awarded to plaintiffs and

>their lawyers in this country is another wierdism of our legal

>system. They are intended to punish plaintiffs, not

>compensate victims, so they should go to some appropriate

>charitable organization.

 

Why don't you read the posting to which you're responding? You will seem like less of a fool afterwards if you do.

[Guest]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>

>>I said "I seemed to recall," not "I just looked it up,"

>>asshole. The actual jury award was $2.9 million according

>to

>>a couple of sources I just looked up. Who's really being

>>dishonest, here (what can one expect of a lawyer?)?

>

>Who's being dishonest? You are, shit-for-brains. Add

>$160,000.00 in compensatories and $2.7 million in punies, the

>figures I posted above, and what do you get? About $2.9

>million. You can add, right?

 

The sources I looked up stated that the jury award was $2.7 M punitive plus $160 K compensatory, plus $20 K lost wages, or $2.88 M, which is nearly exactly the figure I quoted (within 1%). The figure I quoted is much closer to the figure you quoted. So you're the one with adding problems, "shit for brains." (Actually, you're mainly just a prissy asshole who just can't stand it when someone disagrees with him--I hate to imagine how you behave in real life).

 

"But now - days after a jury here awarded $2.9 million to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee - some observers say the defense was naïve...."

>

 

>To my way of thinking, cupholders are very useful for shoving

>up the tightly clenched asses of mean-spirited fuckwits like

>you who use expressions like "batty granny" and "demented

>79-year-old." May you live a long, long life and be treated,

>at the end of it, with the same respect you accord elderly

>people today. You richly deserve it.

>

Hopefully, whoever's taking care of me when I'm demented won't let me put scalding liquids in my crotch. At a certain stage, one's caretaker has to take responsibility. There are plenty of very stupid, very crazy, and very demented people. If left to their own devices, they will hurt themselves. And there's nothing an army of personal injury lawyers can do about it.

 

>

>>The issue of lack of medical coverage is obviously

>completely

>>irrelevant to the case. First of all, if she was 79, she

>had

>>MediCare,

>

>So what? Why should the plaintiff or other taxpayers, through

>Medicare, pay for the cost of an injury that was inflicted by

>the gross negligence of a large corporation like McDonalds?

>If the states can recover billions in medical costs paid

>through Medicaid from the tobacco companies for causing those

>costs through misconduct, why shouldn't others do the same?

 

This is a specious argument. You could just as well ask why McDonalds customers should have to suffer for the actions of a demented (or stupid or both) woman. As for tobacco companies, the appropriate way for states to recover costs related to tobacco is through taxation of the product, not through litigation. Incidentally, most of the extra costs related to smoking are through second-hand effects. On the user, the medical costs are for the most part just shifted to an earlier part of their lives, and the government saves more in Social Security payments than it spends in extra health care (although the money comes from different sources).

 

> Of

>>course, why punitive damages are awarded to plaintiffs and

>>their lawyers in this country is another wierdism of our

>legal

>>system. They are intended to punish plaintiffs, not

>>compensate victims, so they should go to some appropriate

>>charitable organization.

>

>The plaintiff and her lawyer get the money because they were

>the ones willing to take the risk and make the effort to bring

>the case to court in the first place. I thought you

>right-wing Rush Limbaugh capitalist let-them-eat-cake types

>believed that people should be rewarded for risk-taking. I

>guess that only applies to people like you, though, huh?

>

This has nothing to do with anything I was arguing about, but it does bring up a point. You seem to liken PI litigation with a trip to a Vegas casino. Lawsuits should be undertaken for legitimate reasons, not because one enjoys taking risks and has a "lottery" mentality. (Of course, if you go take some risks in Vegas and you lose, will you sue the casino for leading you to temptation?)

[HotdadENYC]

I do agree that the posting in ALL CAPS is rude, to say the least.

 

However, the guy makes a good point and asks some good questions.

 

Athan, you are obviously our test case here. Read what this poster has to say and please let us know if your early experiences, and then venture into escorting, has f**ked up your life in any way.

 

Not to insinuate that sex with young guys is cool; only to find out how a real life case dealt with it.

 

Regards,

 

hd NYC

[Guy Fawkes]

If you want to get an idea of the wide variation in age of consent across the world check out http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

 

Most interesting for me was some of the strange exceptions that exist. If your from the United States, be sure to read the "USA Traveling Citizens” link near the bottom of the chart.

 

It does behoove you to be aware of the laws in your locality and to follow them.

[Luv2play]

I have NEVER defended men who have sex or exploit children and do NOT condone men having sex with underage persons of either sex. PERIOD. Expressing sympathy for a public figure in Florida who tried to meet a 15 year old on the Internet and hoping he got the support of his family and friends was consistent with my Christian upbringing and the teachings of Jesus. While I am no longer a practicing Christian, some habits die hard.

[woodlawn]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>The sources I looked up stated that the jury award was $2.7 M

>punitive plus $160 K compensatory, plus $20 K lost wages, or

>$2.88 M, which is nearly exactly the figure I quoted (within

>1%). The figure I quoted is much closer to the figure you

>quoted. So you're the one with adding problems, "shit for

>brains."

 

Please stop lying. You're the one who originally said the award was $100 million. Are we supposed to pretend you never said that? I don't think I will.

 

>(Actually, you're mainly just a prissy asshole who

>just can't stand it when someone disagrees with him--I hate to

>imagine how you behave in real life).

 

This IS real life, garbage man. The case we are discussing is real. The problems it represents are real. And the let-them-eat-cake right-wing types like you who want to render consumers helpless when they're ripped off by big business are VERY real. I wish you weren't. But you are.

 

>Hopefully, whoever's taking care of me when I'm demented won't

>let me put scalding liquids in my crotch.

 

Why don't you ask him now and make sure?

 

>This is a specious argument. You could just as well ask why

>McDonalds customers should have to suffer for the actions of a

>demented (or stupid or both) woman.

 

What "customers" suffered? It's the McDonalds shareholders, you dummy, who end up paying damages assessed against the company. Why should they pay? Because they own and control the company that was warned about this problem over and over again and did nothing about it, that's why. Now that I've explained that, do you need me to explain to you how to wipe your nose when it runs, or how to tie your shoelaces?

 

>This has nothing to do with anything I was arguing about, but

>it does bring up a point. You seem to liken PI litigation

>with a trip to a Vegas casino. Lawsuits should be undertaken

>for legitimate reasons, not because one enjoys taking risks

>and has a "lottery" mentality.

 

If it has nothing to do with anything, why did you bring it up? You asked why the plaintiff and lawyer should get the punitive damages. The same reason that federal law grants whistleblowers who expose fraud by federal contractors a big share of the money the government recovers -- to provide people with an incentive to take the risks involved in being whistleblowers. Now do you get it?

[trilingual]

Thanks for posting this link. It's a very useful overview of ages and laws on age of consent around the world. Please note that the site does NOT appear to have been updated since around 2001, and laws have changed since then. For example, consensual adult "sodomy" is no longer illegal anywhere in the U.S. In Brazil, in addition to the legal rights of gays mentioned, additional jurisdictions have passed non-discrimination laws and courts have ruled that Brazilians can sponsor their foreign same-sex partners for permanent residence visas. Additional changes may have happened in other countries changing age of consent, what constitute illegal sex acts, etc.

 

As for "age of consent," if appears that if you limit your contacts to people over 18 you should pretty much be safe from prosecution anywhere you're likely to visit, although not if it involves an act of prostitution in jurisdictions where prostitution is illegal, like most of the U.S. states.

 

By the way, on its face, it would appear that the American who went to Canada to have sex with a 14-year old boy faces criminal liability in the U.S. under its "child sex tourism" law. In other words, he could be exonerated in Canada (if he's found not to have violated it's "anti-abduction" law) but would still be liable in the U.S. because the boy is under the age of 16.

 

Moral of this whole story and thread: Stay away from kids under 18. If you don't, you're probably going to find yourself in a world of trouble whose nightmare proportions you've barely begun to imagine!

[Doug69]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>You obviously didn't read my post, or were drunk or high on

>drugs when you did. Quite opposite to what you said, I

>stated:

 

I´m afraid you´re mistaken. In the original post you wrote about this verdict to Woodlawn, you said nothing of the kind. You are quoting from the post you wrote AFTER your original post - a post you wrote only after you read the site provided by Woodlawn and then learned about punitive damages, apparently for the first time.

 

In your original post, you unquestionably had no idea what the purpose of punitive damages was, and plainly mistakenly believed - just as I said - that they had a compensatory purpose.

 

That is conclusively proven by this idiotic statement of yours, written in that original post:

 

UNICORN: ´´ I seem to recall that the figure was over $100 million. This figure would have been ridiculous even if the plaintiff had to have both of her legs amputated!´´

 

Plainly, you thought that the amount she received, the bulk of which was in punitive damages, was a function of the severity of her injuries. That is the only thing that could explain your nonsensical statement that the amount she received would have been excessive even if she had her legs amuptated.

 

There is nothing wrong with being misinformed. People are misinformed all the time, and there´s no shame in that. It only becomes shameful, and reprehensible, when the person becomes so embarrassed that they have to pretend it didn´t happen, even resorting to telling transparent lies to cover up their mistake.

 

That - the inability to admit error - is a rather common trait among doctors. It´s one of the reasons they are so despised.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

"That - the inability to admit error - is a rather common trait among doctors. It´s one of the reasons they are so despised."

 

And, of course, doctors in turn can despise their patients. Some doctors resent having to deal with welfare cases and those on the skids, or anybody that can't pay full price. Right, Unicorn?

[Doug69]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>And, of course, doctors in turn can despise their patients.

>Some doctors resent having to deal with welfare cases and

>those on the skids, or anybody that can't pay full price.

>Right, Unicorn?

 

Unicorn is worse than that. He actually thinks he´s in the position to decide what people deserve their illnesses and which ones don´t and, after making that determination, he thinks he´s able to pronounce which people should die as quickly as possible.

 

I honestly can´t think of a worse attribute to find in a doctor.

[atlman222]

Hey everyone, I've been reading this board for the last couple years. Never felt the need to join in until now. Mainly, because this subject is important to me.

 

I'll like to tell you my story of what happens when an adult has sex with 14 year old boy. This may take a minute to read and I hope someone gets something out of this next time they think it's ok to have sex with anyone under the age of 18. The story is what it is. I've been lucky in the fact I found a good therapist who's help me tell what I'm going to tell and not feel any shame in it anymore.

 

I started having sex with adults around the age of 6. My dad was the first. He was pretty much your classic pedophile. He jumped my sisters, (I have 3) myself, a few of my friends and I'm sure my brothers (I have 3). I've never asked my brothers because I don't want to know. They exhibit the traits. All three have had lovers old enough to be their father. One even had one with grandchildren. He was 17 the guy was 42.

 

All three are drug addicts and alcholics and 2 were huslters(that's was term used the 70's and early 80's,).

 

My best friend's dad used to have sex with us too. He'd let us drive his car, buy us alcohol and cigarettes and for payment he got sex. He also like to watch us together or my best friend with his brothers (he had 3 brothers too). His brothers are str8, but, they too, used to have sex with us (they were all older) when girls weren't around.

 

Anyway, all that was background info so you know where I'm coming from.

 

This was normal behavior me and mine. This was what I was taught and from all this, the message I got was I was supposed to have sex with anyone who wanted it. I had no say in it. I like to say that I wasn't raised by my parents or adults, I was trained.

 

If I wanted any kind of attention, money, or love from an adult, and eventually, peers and boyfriends, I did what was expected of me, even if I had no interest in it or didn't want to do it. I cannot tell you how many men I've been with because I didn't know I could say no and have it respected.

 

Don't get me wrong, As an adult, I've said no many times, but had sex anyway because they wanted it and if I didn't they wouldn't like me or they'd leave me or punish me by withholding something. This behavior was mine(this is what I was taught and experienced growing up), not my sexual partners, I'm sure if I was adament about not wanting sex, they would've respected it, but I didn't know that.

 

This thought process went well into my 30's. (I'm in my 40's now).

 

Anyway, when you have sex with a 14 year old boy, I believe you reinstate they're only good for sex. You reinforce their belief that the only way for anyone to pay attention to them is for them to have sex with them. Even if they are agreeable, they don't have the maturity to realize what's going on. This belief system carries into their 20's and 30's before they even have the capability to figure out what's going on.

 

When you have sex with a 14 year old boy, you don't know what he's been thru before you, and I believe you're adding to the warped belief system he's already been shown. You may as well be the rapist who started it all.

 

As an adult, if a 14 year old expresses intrest in sex with you, you need to find out why and break it by showing them you value them as a human being by not having sex with them and stick around to reinforce that decision. If you discard them, that too reinforces the thought they have to have sex in order to be loved. You lose out on the sex, but they get a healthy message from an adult. It's a big responsiblity to be an adult.

 

This was a lot and I hope I communicated my thoughts clearly. I have a problem with that. I haven't even tipped the iceburg on other behaviors involved, but I hope someone gets the idea adults really shouldn't be having sex with kids or teenagers. It kills our innocence.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Mesmerized

 

>What is less than zero?

 

Your likeability factor?

 

HotDadE and I have disagreed about issues in the past, but I have always found him to be respectful, open-minded, thoughtful and intelligent in his posts. There is nothing about his posts to ever suggest that he is the type to fawn over or idolize escorts. You're way off base again.

[joel304]

RE: Mesmerized

 

>>What is less than zero?

>

>Your likeability factor?

>

>HotDadE and I have disagreed about issues in the past, but I

>have always found him to be respectful, open-minded,

>thoughtful and intelligent in his posts. There is nothing

>about his posts to ever suggest that he is the type to fawn

>over or idolize escorts. You're way off base again.

 

 

I agree with you, but I'm mesmerized by you at the same time. Therefore, I may be confused.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Mesmerized

 

>I'm mesmerized by you at the same time.

 

It's a good thing. }(

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38106000/jpg/_38106571_bbc150stewart.jpg

[TerryP]

>If you want to get an idea of the wide variation in age of

>consent across the world check out

>http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

 

Pardon my ignorance but is the part about Canada's age of consent for male to male sex incorrect/outdated? It states the age is 18.