doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[Gadianton]

thank you DT. I believe this is the first time you've provided an adequate reference when I've requested one.

[Res Ipsa]

I think I'm seeing some confusion between laws governing the minimum age of consent for sex and the minimum age for marriage without parental consent. They are not necessarily the same.

Here is the specific Utah statute that I am talking about:

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapt ... 0420220504

Effective 5/4/2022
76-5-401.2. Unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old -- Penalties -- Limitations.
(1)
(a) As used in this section:
(i) "Indecent liberties" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-5-401.1.
(ii) "Minor" means an individual who is 16 years old or older, but younger than 18 years old, at the time the sexual conduct described in Subsection (2) occurred.
(b) Terms defined in Section 76-1-101.5 apply to this section.
(2)
(a) Under circumstances not amounting to an offense listed in Subsection (4), an actor commits unlawful sexual conduct with a minor if the actor:
(i)
(A) is seven or more years older but less than 10 years older than the minor at the time of the sexual conduct;
(B) engages in any conduct listed in Subsection (2)(b); and
(C) knew or reasonably should have known the age of the minor; or
(ii)
(A) is 10 or more years older than the minor at the time of the sexual conduct; and
(B) engages in any conduct listed in Subsection (2)(b).
(b) As used in Subsection (2)(a), "sexual conduct" refers to when the actor:
(i) has sexual intercourse with the minor;
(ii) engages in any sexual act with the minor involving the genitals of one individual and the mouth or anus of another individual;
(iii)
(A) causes the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of the minor by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, including a part of the human body; and
(B) causes the penetration with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any individual or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any individual; or
(iv) with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any individual or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any individual:
(A) touches the anus, buttocks, pubic area, or any part of the genitals of the minor;
(B) touches the breast of a female minor; or
(C) otherwise takes indecent liberties with the minor.
(c)
(i) Any touching, even if accomplished through clothing, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of a violation of Subsection (2)(a).
(ii) Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element under Subsection (2)(b)(i).
(iii) Any touching, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element under Subsection (2)(b)(ii).
(3)
(a) A violation of Subsection (2)(b)(i), (ii), or (iii) is a third degree felony.
(b) A violation of Subsection (2)(b)(iv) is a class A misdemeanor.
(4) The offenses referred to in Subsection (2)(a) are:
(a) rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402;
(b) object rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402.2;
(c) forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 76-5-403;
(d) forcible sexual abuse, in violation of Section 76-5-404;
(e) aggravated sexual assault, in violation of Section 76-5-405; or
(f) an attempt to commit an offense listed in Subsections (4)(a) through (e).


Amended by Chapter 181, 2022 General Session

Doubtingthomas admits to having engaged in sexual intercouse with a 17 year old. So, if Doubtingthomas was in Utah at the time (and he has said he lives in Utah on several occasions) and if he was more than 7 years older than his conquest during their trist, then his conduct is punishable as a third degree felony.

ETA: I know what you said earlier, but, I'd like to hear it from him as to where he was when the act occurred. He has skipped around the simple question, vaguely alluding to other states that have different statutes. He needs to directly answer the simple question.

Respectfully, I disagree. He doesn’t “need” to reveal the state where he lives or lived at the time. Given the speculative accusations being made here, I wouldn’t be giving folks here any information that could lead to doxxing and really damaging false allegations.

We went through this same issue a couple years ago. I was convinced then, and am convinced now, that DT’s relationship was legal in the state where he lived at the time.

Please note UR 9:

Do not make threats or take actions to cause another member to feel harassed or fearful for his or her safety "in real life." Please do not do this via e-mail or private message, either.

[Dr Exiled]

Here is the specific Utah statute that I am talking about:

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapt ... 0420220504

Effective 5/4/2022
76-5-401.2. Unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old -- Penalties -- Limitations.
(1)
(a) As used in this section:
(i) "Indecent liberties" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-5-401.1.
(ii) "Minor" means an individual who is 16 years old or older, but younger than 18 years old, at the time the sexual conduct described in Subsection (2) occurred.
(b) Terms defined in Section 76-1-101.5 apply to this section.
(2)
(a) Under circumstances not amounting to an offense listed in Subsection (4), an actor commits unlawful sexual conduct with a minor if the actor:
(i)
(A) is seven or more years older but less than 10 years older than the minor at the time of the sexual conduct;
(B) engages in any conduct listed in Subsection (2)(b); and
(C) knew or reasonably should have known the age of the minor; or
(ii)
(A) is 10 or more years older than the minor at the time of the sexual conduct; and
(B) engages in any conduct listed in Subsection (2)(b).
(b) As used in Subsection (2)(a), "sexual conduct" refers to when the actor:
(i) has sexual intercourse with the minor;
(ii) engages in any sexual act with the minor involving the genitals of one individual and the mouth or anus of another individual;
(iii)
(A) causes the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of the minor by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, including a part of the human body; and
(B) causes the penetration with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any individual or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any individual; or
(iv) with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any individual or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any individual:
(A) touches the anus, buttocks, pubic area, or any part of the genitals of the minor;
(B) touches the breast of a female minor; or
(C) otherwise takes indecent liberties with the minor.
(c)
(i) Any touching, even if accomplished through clothing, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of a violation of Subsection (2)(a).
(ii) Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element under Subsection (2)(b)(i).
(iii) Any touching, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element under Subsection (2)(b)(ii).
(3)
(a) A violation of Subsection (2)(b)(i), (ii), or (iii) is a third degree felony.
(b) A violation of Subsection (2)(b)(iv) is a class A misdemeanor.
(4) The offenses referred to in Subsection (2)(a) are:
(a) rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402;
(b) object rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402.2;
(c) forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 76-5-403;
(d) forcible sexual abuse, in violation of Section 76-5-404;
(e) aggravated sexual assault, in violation of Section 76-5-405; or
(f) an attempt to commit an offense listed in Subsections (4)(a) through (e).


Amended by Chapter 181, 2022 General Session

Doubtingthomas admits to having engaged in sexual intercouse with a 17 year old. So, if Doubtingthomas was in Utah at the time (and he has said he lives in Utah on several occasions) and if he was more than 7 years older than his conquest during their trist, then his conduct is punishable as a third degree felony.

ETA: I know what you said earlier, but, I'd like to hear it from him as to where he was when the act occurred. He has skipped around the simple question, vaguely alluding to other states that have different statutes. He needs to directly answer the simple question.

Respectfully, I disagree. He doesn’t “need” to reveal the state where he lives or lived at the time. Given the speculative accusations being made here, I wouldn’t be giving folks here any information that could lead to doxxing and really damaging false allegations.

We went through this same issue a couple years ago. I was convinced then, and am convinced now, that DT’s relationship was legal in the state where he lived at the time.

Please note UR 9:

Do not make threats or take actions to cause another member to feel harassed or fearful for his or her safety "in real life." Please do not do this via e-mail or private message, either.

No, he needs to respond if he wants any type of respect from the posters here. He confessed to making it with a 17 year old and is evasive on where the transaction occurred, by design in my mind. And why are you supporting this? Do you want to change this to "minor attracted" instead of what it should be called?

[doubtingthomas]

No, he needs to respond if he wants any type of respect from the posters here.

Since you are not responding to what I am telling you, why should I tell you the state? A lot of people here are respecting me, including Gadianton, any reasonable person would.

Do you want to change this to "minor attracted" instead of what it should be called?

She wouldn't be a minor in my state, at least not in this context. According to Science, she's old enough to consent, it's not my problem that you would rather believe in dogmas.

It should be called a high-five.

[doubtingthomas]

No, he needs to respond if he wants any type of respect from the posters here

I would tell the cops to "F" off, what makes you think that I owe you an explanation? And the cops won't question me unless they are ignorant about the law.

[doubtingthomas]

No, he needs to respond if he wants any type of respect from the posters here.

And I don't care if some of you guys don't respect me, it's clear that your brain cells are dying.

You are unable to grasp that I didn't do anything wrong.

[honorentheos]

It should be called a high-five.

[Res Ipsa]

Respectfully, I disagree. He doesn’t “need” to reveal the state where he lives or lived at the time. Given the speculative accusations being made here, I wouldn’t be giving folks here any information that could lead to doxxing and really damaging false allegations.

We went through this same issue a couple years ago. I was convinced then, and am convinced now, that DT’s relationship was legal in the state where he lived at the time.

Please note UR 9:

No, he needs to respond if he wants any type of respect from the posters here. He confessed to making it with a 17 year old and is evasive on where the transaction occurred, by design in my mind. And why are you supporting this? Do you want to change this to "minor attracted" instead of what it should be called?

I’m not sure what the “this” is you think I’m supporting. All I’m talking about is whether his conduct was in compliance with the law in the state where it occurred. Period. What I don’t support is accusing someone of committing serious crimes that would land one on a sex offender register without having sufficient information to reach that conclusion.

Beyond that, I’ve wasted far too much time talking about DT and sex.

[Dr. Shades]

Dr. Exile doesn't seem to understand that I am living in a state where the legal age of consent is at least 17, if not younger.

Right, but were you living in the same state that you're living in now when you and the 17 year-old had the affair?

[Dr Exiled]

No, he needs to respond if he wants any type of respect from the posters here.

Since you are not responding to what I am telling you, why should I tell you the state? A lot of people here are respecting me, including Gadianton, any reasonable person would.

Do you want to change this to "minor attracted" instead of what it should be called?

She wouldn't be a minor in my state, at least not in this context. According to Science, she's old enough to consent, it's not my problem that you would rather believe in dogmas.

It should be called a high-five.

Tell us for the "high fives", right?