Gilroy police: Canadian military man rode 3,000 miles to have sex with teen girl

Source: San Jose Mercury News

A Canadian military man who police say rode his motorcycle about 3,000 miles to have sex with a 17-year-old Gilroy girl was arrested Sunday night after he showed up at her home.

Michael DeBruyn, 24, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, was arrested at about 7:15 p.m. after the girl's parents called police, according to Gilroy police Sgt. Wes Stanford.

DeBruyn, who lives in Wallaceburg, Ontario and was on military leave, had been exchanging sexually graphic text messages and photos with the girl for the past two months, according to police.

DeBruyn was arrested for suspicion of sending or possession of obscene matter depicting minors, contact of minor with intent to commit sexual offense and annoying and/or molesting a child under 18, according to police. DeBruyn was also found to be in possession of child pornography, according to police.


Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14868265

---

This is one crazy story; it's also been re-reported on the AP nationally (via the Washington Post) and in Canada (via the Toronto Sun)

In half of the world, this "girl" would have 5 kids by now.

Treating her like she's 11 isn't fair to the man at all.

If a 17 year old girl had 5 children, she would have started at around 12 ...

WHAT are you recommending?

(Geesh!)

cali has 18 as the age of consent, which is silly

canada, ironically, where he's from, it's 14

WA has 16, which imo is reasonable since 15 and 14 are still legal to consent as long as the other party is within (iirc) 36 months of their age

a lot o these other laws (communicating w/a minor, etc) are crimes even if the minor is consent age

Below that, there are "close-in-age" provisions (14 if the other party is within 5 years, 12 if within 2 years).

i did not know that. i am updating my databases

:)

for her consent?

in california, aoc is 18, which i said is stupid

but in states where it's (for example) 16

if you were calling her from out of state and arranging to have sex with her, that would violate federal law, even though the sex wouldn't

kind of stupid

"communicating with a minor for immoral purposes"

the only exception is if you are married

and of course you can have sex, but you can't take pictures of it :)

Just might be worth it.

to put statutory rape with a 17-year-old in the same category as raping an 11-year-old.

At 17 her body is fully mature. Her mind may not be, but her body is, and if a man is aroused by her adult body, he may have poor judgement, but he's not necessarily a pervert.

14 in Canada? Wow that is a bit young but 17 geez that should not be a crime.

There can be no "gray area" when it comes to busting child rapists.

because they can't control their daughter.

could have waited another year. They had been chatting for four.

Do you have a teenaged daughter?

have sex with a minor is an asshole in my book. I'm sure any reasonable person would agree.

And I am sure that any reasonable person would agree. :)

I hope he gets a lot of time in jail for this. They love child abusers in jail. :)

:)

prude much?

me a "prude", so be it. I'm sure there are other "prudes" that would agree.

24/17 relationship as some sort of perversion worthy of arrest and ruining young lives, but 25/18 as fine, there is something wrong with your moral compass.

Not to mention very freeper/fundie like...

freeper comparison.

I don't condone abuse of minors. Yup, that makes me a freeper. :sarcasm:

LOL

Do you really change that much from when you are 17 and 364 days to 18? Saying this guy is a child molester because he wanted to get it on with a willing 17 year old is STUPID. It's a perfect example of why you don't go around assuming legal means ethical or vice versa.

Whether or not this guy is a jerk demands more details than the article provides. If this young woman had been one year older, or the age of consent set one arbitrary year lower (you're still stupid at 18, 19 etc...), you could base a Hollywood movie around this and it would be called a "love story." Homer wrote a long poem about a guy traveling a huge distance so he could bang the woman who was waiting for him, and it's a "classic." You think Penelope waited till 18?

Do you really think willing sex at 17 has the same effects on one's psyche as unwilling sex at 10? If not, we should not use the same word to describe both, it is really that simple. If you do, there is no point in talking to you, and there isn't much in you talking either, beyond irritating the rest of us.

You have a problem with a guy not being able to "bang" a minor. Fine. We'll agree to disagree. If you have a problem with the current law, petition to get it changed.

It's 2010, why are you talking about Shakespeare, who wrote that sick play about that child abuser, Romeo?

It's 2010, why are you talking about Laura Ingalls Wilder who started courting with Almanzo when she was sixteen. He was TEN YEARS older than she was. Thank goodness she lived to tell the tale of his perversion.

It's 2010, why are you talking about "Mrs. Mike", aka Kathryn Mary Flannagan, who married Mike when she was seventeen. Canadians and their sex drives!

It's 2010, why are you talking about Ezra Pound and H.D.? They met when she was 15 and after he ruined her for life, all she got out of was a bunch of poems. Oh, wait, she wasn't ruined and she started writing her own poems.

It's 2010, why are you talking about EFerrari who met her pedophile/future husband at 16. The bastard lived with her for a few years before they got married. What is the statute of limitations? :)

...since the Sixties, or Seventies....or Eighties for that matter...

"free love" was the watch word, back then....

Rock stars and their underage groupies were envied.

The world may be going to hell fast, but this particular incident is not the reason.

by your description of consensual sex between an adult and an almost-adult (who would be an adult almost anywhere else in the civilized world) as "sick" while putting a nice little smileyface at the notion of prison rape.

Your values are beyond messed-up.

Explain to me why he is "sick" for a sex act committed here that would be legal in Canada? A lawbreaker? Yes, obviously. Sick? That's just fucking absurd.

If this guy wants to fuck a minor legally, he can make like Rush and fly to Cambodia.

You question my values while approving sex between an adult and a person that can't legally give consent? That's rich.

Oh, my smiley face wasn't hinting at prison rape, but a thorough ass kicking which is what this would be child abuser deserves.

Jesus. You don't have issues, you've got an entire subscription.

Type away now.

Didn't realize the forum was so puritan. I'll be sure not to engage in any unmarried sex anymore either or risk your wrath.

Though I'm guessing adult sex is pretty awful to you as well. Just think, a couple more months and she will magically spring from "child" status to being an ADULT!!!


OH NOEZ!!! ZOMG!!!

That makes me a "puritan"? Damn.

Engage in all the unmarried sex you want as long as your partner is an adult and you are too. I have no problem with that, so there is no need to worry about my wrath.

of U.S. states, then you would suddenly switch from calling this a "sick perversion" and "child abuse" to calling it a young woman making her own decisions about who to have sex with?

You really don't understand how off that is?

Anyone who would do that is either driving to meet an extremely dedicated supermodel, or has MANY life lessons left to learn the hard way.

Come to think of it I've got an acquaintance who biked from Maine to someplace like North Carolina to see a girl who had a boyfriend and wasn't expecting or pleased to see him show up.

Just a guy with a lot left to learn.

if every 20 year old with an unrelated 13 year old in their contacts on facebook are perverts, molesters, or even simply having some sort of unseemly contact, we will need more jails...

There was no or damned little contact between these 2 until a few months ago..but don't let the facts interfere with your own dirty ideas

and was mature enough to make those kind of decisions. The fellow was only 24 which is not so far away in age.

and at 17 1/2 was living on my own with roomates in a shitty apartment...working nights and weekends at White Castle


You have to remember some people are coddled and nursed until they are 24-25 years old so they have different life experiences :)

If you have the mental and physical capacity to drive legally (16) then you should be able to choose your sexual partners. If both parties are under 18 it shouldnt matter, unless one is under 14.

We are not pretending the guy is not a criminal. You are acting as though if I convince congress to pass a law I have justified my ethical view.

We once convinced our government to let us hold people as slaves. I guess slavery was ethical then?

At seventeen you are old enough to appreciate sex. People of that age generally have a very high sex drive.

People who are not old enough to have developed adult sexual capabilities cannot truly understand sex. Hence, convincing them to have relations with you is always rape. Rape is a life shattering experience for the victim, an act of evil right up there with the murder of an innocent.

I do think laws should match ethics, but I understand ethics is too, as you put it, gray to always be law.

There are so many more important things to change in my city, state and country bigger than the age of sexual consent, so I would never dream of trying to campaign for revising this law right now.

That does not mean this young man in Canada is as dangerous as pedophiles.

You have been rightly taken to task by many people on this thread for suggesting that this guy deserves to be imprisoned, and then abused or raped himself, because he tried to initiate relations with a willing and physically developed partner. That is ridiculous.

He deserves it in the sense that he knew of a law and broke it, but not in the sense that he necessarily caused harm. This is a distinction you seem incapable of making.

Many people on this thread have pointed this out to you now, but rather than try to defend the stance that the law ought to always dictate our personal ethics, you simply keep assuming it.

How about instead of us talking to our reps, you explain how it is reasonable for a person to be forever labeled a child molester for having sex with a person who is 17 years and 364 days old, but a day later it's perfectly normal.

Our laws clearly do not match our daily lives in this case. I don't want congress to waste valuable time changing this right now, I want you to defend the idea that laws and ethics are the same, or to admit your assumption is incorrect.

I wonder how many pedophile priests have picked on 17-year-olds.

The guy should have gone to Gilroy for the garlic, not for pedophilia.

:shrug:

The dinginess of driving 3,000 miles to meet someone you've only met online notwithstanding, there is a slippery slope aspect to some of this sexual alarmism...

I mean, if we're finally agreeing people shouldn't be locked up for possessing a joint, isn't there something other than incarceration for sex with 17 year olds?

One of my friends drove to Chicago to get some pizza once. He was 22. :)

The attraction to teenage kids is technically termed ephebophilia. The term pedophilia would not apply in the instance.

Especially if he's stall attracted to her at age 17. I'm not arguing that this is a GOOD thing. I just believe that we need to be precise in our use of terminology, given the potential for ruined lives on either side of the "relationship," not to mention the hysteria around the broad category of sex crimes in general.

But you're right. That garlic is really good! lol

Someone dealing with a young person better find out local law before making a move. He's been waiting since she was 13 and he was 20 (supposedly, anyway). He should have waiting a little longer.

Seriously.

I'm thinking, this situation was handled as badly as possible. He told the young woman he was coming to see her. He obviously didn't make her promise not to tell her parents. She tells her parents. They have him arrested.

What will these two kids learn from this episode? To lie.

To a 16 year old. Chances are, so did 1/2 of DU members' ancestors marry at similar ages.

I think the biggest difference between then and now is then, it was expected (by most) you didn't mess around w/a 16 YO you didn't intend to marry. Today, a guy who messes with jail bait isn't likely to have to own their shit. Personally, I think someone who's willing to ride 3k miles just might be.

"DeBruyn first met the girl about four years ago through an online social networking site....."

The point was to make clear that this wasn't a 24/17 relationship, it was a 20/13 relationship, getting prosecuted.

If contact on Facebook can be deemed 'grooming' when there was no contact between them for 4 years..keeerist :eyes:

I don't try to have sex with them.

I would drive 3,000 miles to see them, but not without their parents knowing.

Congrats on equating the behavior of sexual predators with casual contact.

Perhaps you could work in the Catholic Church.

my kids (and virtually every single 17 year old I know) had been on facebook for years by the time they turn 17. Their contact list is in the several hundreds. Some of those contacts have been there for years with no contact. Anyone who has an understanding of facebook knows your post 57 is based on ignorance of the online culture of 17 year olds.

At one point in time, I had 19 thousand hits in google on my name. Quite amusing.

FWIW, my code is part of facebook's code. I know the code.

As to the culture?

Maybe kids are stupid these days, and don't know what "jailbait" is.

That's possible.

"Results 1 - 10 of about 1,970,000 for jailbait"

Maybe not.

go ahead and approve of ruining lives for kids being kids..

Online or off, it's not normal for a 20 year old to get that stuck on a 13 year old.

You are making stuff up that isn't in the article.

Facebook allows for 13 year old girls to contact 20 year old boys, which by the way happens at least as often as the other way I would be willing to bet...I know it happens as I have 2 19 year old boys and they tire of 'teenyboppers' sending messages. Either way, the article reads there was no contact until recently. If the 17 year old was my daughter I would blame her and tell the kid to stay away maybe, depending on the relationship with my daughter and her level of maturity and trustworthiness, but have the kid arrested??.,..I'm sure the daughter...the 17 year old girl...had nothing to do with this and is just an innocent church going angel..

in the entire history of humanity. I really can't believe some of the absurd assertions in this thread. Sure doesn't sound like liberialism to me. It seems more and more I am reading here on DU people advocating jailing people for being human...I don't get it..

do talk to both sexes, right? They are not kept in coccoons until they are of the age of consent? Isn't that pretty much how young women learn to manage themselves with boys and men, by talking to them?

If this guy is a sexual predator, he's the world's worse one because it took him four years to even try.

I "only" have around 250 friends, I think at the time it was in the mid-220s.

I don't understand how a fourteen year old has the time to meet all of these people, but for some of the little clowns I think friend numbers are actually like a game.

over the last four years.

How do you know the attraction aspect of their interactions didn't come about sometime after the initial electric introduction?

says they were not in contact(Full Stop) until recently

oh and Woody fucking Allen? Really? The same Woody who married his daughter?

results in certain feelings being established, and the attendant expectations. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this girl egged the man on. Were I the judge in this case, the man would walk. The girl would lose her computer. This case makes me angry.

bu succumb to her advance--and ride or 3000 miles to surrender to her long term seduction.

The article clearly states that they met four years ago on a "social networking site" (probably MySpace) and then lost contact. They reconnected a few months ago, and the relationship has grown "more sexually explicit" during that time.

There is nothing in the article suggesting that the relationship was sexually explicit, or even inappropriate, when they initially made contact. On these sites, it's not uncommon for a friend of a friend, or even a friend of a friend of a friend, to end up on your friends list. Heck, my 16 year old daughter has a twentysomething year old guy from Australia on her friends list. I asked her about him, and he's apparently the cousin of one of her friends. No biggie.

you do not know. This could be a seminary student off the reservation for all you know. He was traveling 3000 miles to bring the girl to Jesus.

The way I read the article, they have been friends on Facebook for four years and recently made plans to bang.


Doesn't seem like a relationship to me, at least not for the entire span of their acquiantance with one another.

Regardless of how you characterize relationship. They knew each other on the intarwebs for awhile, lost contact, got back in touch a few months back and that is when things got a little more heated.

And that is STILL not a relationship. Ever hear of casual sex? It's where you bone but are not actually in a relationship, and it is just as likely that he decided to take a trip to California during his leave and finally tag the girl he'd been chatting with about boning for a couple months.

the level of the state of being where one person feels something for another. I don't see this as casual "boning" to quote your disgusting characterization. I see it as love in bloom, seeking transitory fulfillment in the form of sex. For me, sex was a serious thing; nowadays, it's like shaking hands. I choose to be a Romantic. You choose otherwise.

based on my entirely accurate assessment of the way young people view sex sometimes.

If I made you dry heave though, it was all worth it.


Theses two knew each other probably via a string of online mutual acquaintances, the way so many people initially meet now. They lost touch for a couple of years, and reconnected a few months ago. Their communications did not take on any sexual nature until after they reconnected recently.

What part of that sounds like they were in a four year long relationship, regardless of how either one "felt" about the other over the last three and a half years?

257 people because of our Facebook connection.

From the story in the OP:



So, no, it is not a four year relationship, if they lost contact. And it's only been sexually explicit in the last few months.

said four-year relationship. So they had an on-line relationship, broke it off, then came back ostensibly into a stronger relationship, one which has sexual overtones toward the end. Doesn't this sound rather normal to you? My wife and I met in 1970. We knew each other for nine days and then got married in Vegas on day ten. We just celebrated our 40th anniversary. Now this is a different situation, I know. Still, I maintain there was something in these two people's "relationship" more than sexual, which is really just a transitory highlight. The parents should have explored this whole adventure a little more before going after this dude, imo. And in no case should he been held solely liable. He may have been "the" one. I'm sure this little interference has changed the girl's life for the worst, left her with permanent scars. She will no doubt continue onward and end up marrying some dentist who screwing patients getting root canals. This constant seek of villains is not productive.

For a minute I thought it was myself, eFerrari, and one or two others.

But, that was me.

lots of girls went out with older guys.

that were 24 going on 18. Maybe that was part of it. They didn't get to be kids and had time to make up.

A new term for "unhinged" or "cracked" I say! I'm using it, and if you want you can get partial credit for coining it via typo.

Deal?

:)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So, if a 12 year old shoots somebody to death they should be tried as an adult because they knew what they were doing was wrong, but if a 17 has sex they should be treated as a child because they weren't able to really know what they were doing? Sometimes I think we live in really weird times?

isn't it?

And a good illustration of how bent law enforcement is when it comes to minors.

The law has drawn a clear line. For example you can't legally drink until you are at least 21. You can't legally smoke until you are 18 or over. If you do so one day before those ages, you are breaking the law. Get it?

It used to be illegal to keep more than three dildos in your home in Texas. Do you think all the women who did should have been thrown in jail?

You know, the law is not the bible. You have to make your own decisions based on your best judgment. And whether you like it or not, other people are doing the same thing even as we sit here and argue about a group of people we will never know.

lol

ETA: The bible is not the bible, either.

That is not easy in the realm of law. Lawyers make their living by interpreting "gray areas" of the law. That isn't the case here.

What does the bible have to do with this?

I'm not talking about laws that have been revised. If the legal definition of a minor is changed to under 17, then so be it. For now it is under 18. We can't pick and choose which laws to obey. The result would be anarchy.

A sort of anarchy from the top down.

In others, it is 18. In others yet, it depends on the ages of both people involved. So the law is not clear; it is arbitrary and confusing.

As for the law of smoking when you are over 18, you are plain wrong. You are not allowed to buy cigarettes until you are 18, but you can smoke before then if someone else gives them to you.

With regards to drinking, it depends whether you are drinking in a restaurant/pub, with or without a guardian, and whether it is in a public venue or at home, among other conditions. As well, police in most jurisdictions have discretionary power on whether or not to enforce drinking under 21 rules, just as they have discretionary powers for disorderly conduct and public drunkenness.

in California, and then they could legally have sex. In fact, California allows marriage at any age with parental consent, and a "court order granting permission to the underage person to marry, obtained on the showing the court requires".

So it's not a clear line of "sex with someone under 18 is illegal".

If the law said, "no sex with an immature 17 year old,' the law would be open to interpretation. "No sex with someone 17 unless it's your spouse" is not open to interpretation. It's a hard, bright line. Perfectly clear.

And this girl's parents consented only to this clown going away and not coming back. But, he went back anyway.

I find it interesting that no one has a problem with minimum age when it comes to getting married (whether parental consent is necessary or not) selling cigarettes to minors or serving booze to minors, only when it comes to sex.

Are we still operating under the myth hat men can't control themselves without being conscious of it?

This was not something done in the heat of passion. He had to ride 3000 miles in order to break the law.

Or are we going too far to rebel against our Puritannical past? That can't be it, or we'd be arguing about age when it comes to serving booze.

And a poster like Paulsby, who is so law and order that he never seems to have met a law he didn't like, or a shooting or a beating by a cop that wasn't totally justified, is up in arms about the arrest of this lawbreaker.

And the right wing, also law and order, never seems to find a useful rape law these days.

Not sure what accounts for these discrepancies, but observing them is interesting.

because in his own country, and in most parts of the US, it wouldn't have been. Anyone sensible would check, of course, and it would seem risky to take a girl's word for it that she's 17 in this situation anyway. But to say "in order to break the law" implies he knew beforehand it was illegal, which I haven't actually seen in a report yet.

Yes, what he did was illegal, but that doesn't mean people can't suggest that it should have been legal. 18 is a surprisingly high age for being able to consent to sex without parental permission. For instance, a 2004 poll said 43 percent of American 17 year olds had had sex.

I suspect that's why this has generated a lot of comment here - because people don't expect California to be so puritanical. FWIW, when the age for buying drink comes up, many DUers will always say that 21 is ridiculously high. It's just that's not the subject of this thread.

I was getting kind of lonely here. :rofl:

You missed my point the example wasn't meant to compare murder and sex with minors it was meant to illustrate that the authorities are not consistent with the idea of what is a minor and what isn't. Some here have pointed out that 'its the law' that anyone under a certain age is a minor. Well, that is unless the district attorney decides to make a big splash and try the 'minor' as an adult. Actually, I agree that if you are going to set an age limit where below it a person is a minor and above an adult then it should be absolute and not up to somebody running for public office to decide. As in my example I still don't see how you can rationalize having it both ways.

different activities?

This guy didn't ride 3000 miles to sell her cigarettes. All he had to do was check one law, or risk breaking it. Most people understand that sex with a minor, even with the "consent" of the minor, is illegal. The only open issue is the age set by the law of the state in question. Not that difficult to find out these days. You don't even have to make an anonymous call.

And he must have had some concept of it. He's been glommed onto this girl since she was 13 and he was 20.

My point is just tangential to the original article I am just trying to make the point that American society these days is inconsistent with the way they define 'minor'. It has become situational. Do one thing your a poor defenseless child do another thing oh! your an adult. My point is that if you want to set an age of minority and be consistent then anyone under that age no matter what they have done is a minor and should be treated accordingly.

The dead children get a reprieve.

Survivors do not.

One out of four women, one out of six men, live out the rest of their lives with years of shame, bigotry, and condescension.

So, on behalf of them, and myself:

FUCK. YOU.

Is traumatizing one quarter of U.S. women and one sixth of U.S. men, who are facing shame and bigotry because of it.


I actuall kind of agree with you, this guy is the victim of condescension, bigotry, and the shame of possibly becoming a sex offender for something no other nation and most other states would have ever arrested him for.

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm

Abuse is rampant, and emboldened by the attitude that "he/she was old enough to consent". A sample stat from that page:

"In the adult retrosptective study, victimization was reported by 27 percent of the women and 16 percent of the men. The median age for the occurrence of reported abuse was 9.9 for boys and 9.6 for girls. Victimization occurred before age eight for 22 percent of boys and for 23 percent of girls. Most of the abuse of both boys and girls was by offenders 10 or more years older than their victims. Girls were more likely than boys to disclose the abuse. Forty-two percent of the women and thirty-three percent of the men reported never having disclosed the experience to anyone.
Source: Finkelhor et al., 1990."

I'm not sure anyone can help you.

Remember these two weren't engaging in sexual communications until just recently, prior to this they were just online acquaintances.

Again, if you can't tell the difference between a a 17 year old young woman, possibly only a month or two from her 18th birthday, and a 9.6 year old little girl, you need to reevaluate why you can't distinguish between "under 18 by a matter of months" and "child".

Four articles for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

Since you seem hung up the number 9 for some reason (perhaps the sample statistic?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

edit: added consent and rape articles.

So don't be a dick, and read your own damn posts before you jump all over me for replying to them.

It's really that simple.

Besides, I don't think a 20 year old glomming onto a 13 year old for four years is all that normal.

Or were you the one he dictated all of his typing to while they were in contact through Myspace or Facebook or whatever?

California happens to be one of only 11 states that still has an 18 year old age of consent for women. In the other 39 states, the age of consent is 16 or 17. In five of the 11 states with an 18 year old age of consent, the legality of the limitation is questionable because they set different age of consent for boys that girls (in Washington, for example, a 30 year old woman can legally sleep with a 16 year old boy, but a 30 year old man cannot legally sleep with a 16 year old girl). There's a potential equal protection challenge there.

California is flat and unwavering in its prohibition though. Sex with or between people under the age of 18 is a crime...always. If the sex is between two teenagers, the charge is reduced to a misdemeanor, but it's still a prosecutable offense.

The guy had the bad luck to fall for a girl in California.

I thought that was 3 beavers armed with sporks...

$600 billion, vs. Canada's $20 billion?

The US is 10x Canada's population, and spends 30x what Canada spends on bombs and shit.

Ask your average American and they'd say the US is protecting Canada. General stupidity and arrogance on the matter rules, basically.

Hirohito's Japan & Hitler's Germany & Saddam's Iraq
or ended the cold war by dissolution of USSR.

Pilgrim.

Hitler and Hirohito eh?

Real bastions of human rights those two had going.

You just sound stupid when you drift off-topic like that.


Oh, wait. You are stupid.

n/t

the meme that "US spends way more than Canada on military".
And that is true. But there have been benefits such as I
listed in previous post. Those successes can not be achieved
if US military spent on par with Canada.

:D

average American would say about your comparison.

The two nations and their respective histories during the past 100 years and their respective positions in the world are entirely different.

I am not saying that one is right or wrong or that one is better than the other. Just saying your comparison of dollars and population is not at all meaningful. Nor is pulling something about an average American out of your ear and then using what you pulled out of your ear as a basis to assert that the average American is ignorant and arrogant.

BTW, you do know that this board is for members of the American Democratic Party, right?

I'd be surprised if he could even have sex after riding a motorcycle 3000 miles, at least not for a few days anyway... :crazy:

thinking about an attractive young female at the end of the ride?

What it's like to be 24 :(

to have reduced this kid's intentions to driving 3000 miles to 'have sex' and not meet up with a girl who has participated in a long distance relationship with him for months after knowing each other for 4 years.

Several years ago while I was doing some debt collection I came across a 24 year old who, when he was 17 was dating a 15 year old in his home town. They ultimately had sex and a baby was conceived..turns out the child was conceived less than 2 months from the girl turning 16 (age of consent), the boy had turned 18 one month before the conception. The boy was charged and convicted of statutory rape and required to register as a sex offender indefinitely. Fast forward 6 years. The boy received his bachelors degree, the girl an associates degree, the two married when the girl turned 18 and they now have a second child. The male still has to register as a sex offender and carries that stigma as well as not being able to get as good of job or live in certain distances of schools, etc.

Just because the law is there doesn't make the response reasonable.

It's not up to some motorcycle rider in another country.

DeBruyn contacted the girl Saturday. She informed her parents, who met with DeBruyn and told him to leave, according to Stanford. But he showed up at the girl's house again Sunday. Police were called, and he was arrested.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14868265

As he's neither a priest nor a teacher, it appears to be overblown... :sarcasm:

My mom chased a few men away when I was 16 or so. She didn't call the police, lol. Geeze, if the police were called every time some kid made unwanted advances to a 17 year old, that's pretty much all they would do all day. :)

based on her state law, but years past when she'd be able to legally consent where he come from. If they were 21 & 28, no one would worry about the age difference because they are both old enough to handle it.

But I'm wondering how many who are saying she's not old enough to make that decision now think she's old enough to go get an abortion without parental involvement if she had gotten pregnant with a boy her own age.

If she'd been the one charged with a serious crime like murder, how many think she should be tried as an adult?

The various opinions are really amazing. We'll trust her with a 2,000 lb vehicle but not her own body - unless she's already pregnant, so apparently she's old enough to make decisions about her womb, but not her vagina. In a few more months, we'll trust her to select this countries leaders and be able to carry a gun, even join the military and actually take others lives. But we still won't let her drink alcohol, and gawd forbid she want to partake of something she can grow in the garden next to the heirloom tomatoes.

there need to be some commonsense restrictions that apply equally to all 50 states.

At this time, one 16 year old girl is reaching the end of her successful circumnavigation of the globe: something over 19,000 miles and just over 5 months...a SOLO trip in a 34 foot sailboat. Jessica Watson on the 'Ella's Pink Lady.'

http://www.jessicawatson.com.au/_blog/official_ _Jessica_Watson_Blog/page/1

A really interesting read. Not all 16/17 year olds are alike. But, they can be capable of making this sort of decision.

The age range between these two isn't that great. Was marriage ever a possibility?

What is a reasonable 'age of consent?'

and a 17 yr old is somehow horribly wrong? I dunno about that. We know from the news stories that sexually mature 11 & 12 yr olds have sex with adults, and I agree, that's wrong. But when a 17 yr old has a relationship with an adult 1 or however many years older than they are, how is that anything like a 14 yr old having sex with a 40 year old? It should be 16 with parental consent, and 17 AOC for any relationship the 17 yr old deems alright for them. And may we all remember, these laws are ALL OVER THE PLACE in terms of ages and what's allowed. No wonder there's so much confusion. I would recommend anyone with a 17 yr old ask the parents if it's okay they date them.