Minimum Age On Hookup Sites

[rawTOP]

Got a question for you guys - I want to hear the pros and cons - what pops into your head when you hear something…

On BBBH.com I'm thinking of allowing guys who are under 18 to have limited access to the site if they meet the age of consent law in their area. But I'm thinking there should be a minimum age. I don't think I'd want 13 year olds from Comoros on my site.

If I did it, guys under 18 would have the following limitations:

• They could only upload "family friendly" photos of themselves
  
• They would only be allowed to see "family friendly" photos of other members
  
• They would not see any x-rated banner ads
  
• When adults send messages to them there would be a warning that even though they may be legal to have sex with that other laws such as "endangering the welfare of a minor" and transporting minors across state lines may still apply.
  

I'd also put in a feature which would allow users to permanently filter out people below a certain age which guys could use if they have no interest in guys 18 (or under 30 for that matter).

COPPA requires parental consent for kids 12 and under to be on websites. There's no way I'd go that low, so I think the most I'd need is for the teen to agree that they won't access the site if doing so would be against the parent's wishes.

The reason why I'm considering this is 1) some teens mature early. If it's legal, why not? And 2) I can actually have a safer environment for them than if they lied and said they were 18 since they won't be shown anything x-rated. Which means it's safer for the adults too. I hooked up with one kid a couple years ago who said he was 18 when he was actually 17. That's still legal in NY, but what if it weren't? Better for the adults to know the real age, right?

Thoughts?

Edited December 31, 2013 by rawTOP

[pssilverbear]

I agree with you. Better to have a safe place for them to talk then to lie about it. The laws are there to protect them but they are somewhat arbitrary due to differing maturies and sometimes don't make sense at all for some.

[breedmeup]

I think you are entering areas I would not be interested in. Minors should not be allowed you place them and everyone using the site at risk by allowing them in. I would be tempted to no use the site. I could be risking a lot.

[renaissancemanuk]

A arbitrary age limit is necessary for many things, but when it includes the maturity of individuals it is not very good. Many young men are much more mature in their mental and physical functions then men twice their age.

With your proposed "safeguards" it would allow the younger men to have some of the experiences they have sought out.

[barefootbob]

I know the site is open and available too all from all over the world where age of consent varies. That said you're in the US and the rules are tougher here, I would make it 18 to CYA, all it would take is a 15 year olds parents finding out he came here and there could be hell to pay.

[bearbandit]

No. Even family friendly photos could, in the UK, be seen as evidence of paedophile activity. Even a software filter would not be enough. In the UK ignorance is not a defence. I, for one, would feel it necessary to disguise my past involvement with the site and have no further involvement with it. The law stinks, but it can hurt me more than I can hurt it.

I can understand your reasoning, but I think it's simply too risky.

[ChaserBoysRHot]

I agree that, while the concept is attractive, it's inviting legal problems. In a perfect world? Yes. In today's society, legal environment and NSA monitoring environment in the USA (where the server and owner reside)? No.

I think the best way for those not over 18 (or whatever) to access the site is the same way that they have since porn on the Internet came to be:

Website: "Do you certify you're over 18?"

15yo kid: "Why yes, of course!"

Website: "What year were you born?"

15yo kid: (quick mental calculation subtracting 18 to 25 from today's date) "1993".

Website: "Thank you. You may enter."

I was growing up long before the Internet was around so I never did that, but I can categorically state that, if it had been an option when I was that age, I would have spent most of my high school years jerking off to Internet porn nightly as an '18yo'. True, they can't come out as who they really are and interact with each other as peers, but if they are into bareback, there's a decent chance they'll find the site and will have access to all of the information here. There are probably a few here now (as well as a few '18yo' users who are really in their 40s - it works both ways).

Nice idea, but the wrong country and timeframe to do it in, imho.

[rawTOP]

I think you are entering areas I would not be interested in. Minors should not be allowed you place them and everyone using the site at risk by allowing them in. I would be tempted to no use the site. I could be risking a lot.

Can you explain what risk you're talking about? I'd limit it to ages that are above the age of consent.

No. Even family friendly photos could, in the UK, be seen as evidence of paedophile activity. Even a software filter would not be enough. In the UK ignorance is not a defence. I, for one, would feel it necessary to disguise my past involvement with the site and have no further involvement with it. The law stinks, but it can hurt me more than I can hurt it.

I don't get it. The age of consent in the UK is 16. What law could possibly broken? Can you explain further?

[bearbandit]

I don't get it. The age of consent in the UK is 16. What law could possibly broken? Can you explain further?

The sections of the law that prohibit the use of photos of models apparently under the age of 16, so that a young-looking eighteen your-old's photo can be considered in evidence because the defendant "may have considered" the model to be under 16. This applies to photoshopping and absurdly, to 3D constructs such as those produced by Poser and other 3D modelling programs. Think George Orwell. Think "thoughtcrime".

There's even the offence of having images in your internet cache: by downloading an image you "create" it. We have a corrupt government whose defense against their own corruption is to accuse everyone else of the same crime.

There's also the catch-all offence of "conspiracy". What you conspire to do needn't necessarily be illegal but if they don't like it, you're screwed. An enthusiastic court could take any Briton's taking part in this board as a conspiracy to pass on HIV, contrary to the Offences against the Person Act of 1861...

Since the law around STIs is considered case law, springing from this Act, every case is running on different premises

Edited December 28, 2013 by bearbandit

[rawTOP]

The sections of the law that prohibit the use of photos of models apparently under the age of 16, so that a young-looking eighteen your-old's photo can be considered in evidence because the defendant "may have considered" the model to be under 16. This applies to photoshopping and absurdly, to 3D constructs such as those produced by Poser and other 3D modelling programs. Think George Orwell. Think "thoughtcrime".

But all the images of the people in question will be "family friendly" / PG-13. And they won't see anything x-rated of yours. What you're talking about relates to porn. I know the UK is going through some weird shit right now with porn, but it'll pass. I mean the holes in the law are big enough to drive a bus through and the filters are blocking websites belonging to conservative MPs among others.

The point is, if it's legal to have sex with the person, then certainly chatting with them and exchanging PG-13 images can't be illegal. That makes no sense.

[barefootbob]

RT you have to remember you are living and the site registered in the US, an over zealous DA could make life very difficult for you and could even have you tagged as a child predator (I know that's a stretch) but once the wheels of justice start to run you over you're screwded.

[PissPigBrooklyn]

To even have younger than the highest age of consent on the site invites increased scrutiny if not further action.

[bearbandit]

The point is, if it's legal to have sex with the person, then certainly chatting with them and exchanging PG-13 images can't be illegal. That makes no sense.

I know, but then it can be illegal to model a 3D scene (or other representation) in which one person appears to be under the age of consent and that's illegal even though we''re talking about a fiction. And this has been going on for long before the current mess: a couple of newsreaders had to fight a child porn case maybe ten years ago because of family photos of their kids having a bath... No, I can't explain it. A paediatrician was hounded out of his home because the mob didn't know the difference between paediatrician and paedophile.

A friend used to send me porn VHS's (remember them) from Sweden. The one time we got caught out they also confiscated a perfectly innocent postcard because it was found with the porn video...

[BBCumPigGA]

I would not use a hookup site that allowed someone to be a member if they were under 18. My reasoning is not age of consent related, but more how broadly the stroke is done with child porn. I have a good friend who just got out of jail for child porn. He was chatting with a 17yo online (age of consent in my state is 16) and the kid had sent him some pictures of him in his underwear. They weren't even sexual in nature, but because the discussion surrounding them was sexual, they were considered porn. As were some in which the guy was merely shirtless. This is part of the "conspiracy" thing BearBandit mentioned. If the context in which they are presented are sexual, then they can be considered porn.

Additionally, there are some states that have a sliding scale age of consent, where the age of consent for people under 21 may be 16 but for those over 21 it may be 18. That could be a whole new nightmare.

It seems to me if you went ahead of this, it would take a LOT of time with lawyers setting it up with a number on retainer at all times.

RT you have to remember you are living and the site registered in the US, an over zealous DA could make life very difficult for you and could even have you tagged as a child predator (I know that's a stretch) but once the wheels of justice start to run you over you're screwded.

^ This. As someone who was once facing jail time and being labeled as a sexual offender for, at 23, having consensual sex with a 31 year old in the privacy of a bedroom in a house where we had permission from the owner to be in, logic doesn't really come into play when it comes to "child predator" laws.

Edited December 29, 2013 by BBCumPigGA

[iman2004]

I think you need to consider, regardless of what the Law states in the nation or the State in question, where all such issues regarding young adults are being tried. That is normally in the court of public opinion and the tabloid press. I think bearbandit, who generally talks a lot of sense, paints an overly-depressing image of the Government in the UK but we can point to numerous cases over the last 10 years where what the Law or the justice system actually said was almost incidental. This has resulted in at least one death amongst someone who was accused on rumour alone. This is not the action of Government, justice system or Law but the outcome of bad press and inuendo.

I recognise the issue of allowing yound adults exposure to a sex environment where protections for them can be put in place, the problem is that this may not really protect your other users from accusations which may not surface until many years down the line.