2168 We do realize that this means an 18 year old can fuck an 8 year old and not have to register as a sex offender, right? RIGHT?!?!?! (twitter.com) posted 227 days ago by FreshFriggy 227 days ago by FreshFriggy +2168 / -0 163 comments share 163 comments share save hide report block hide child comments Comments (163) sorted by: top new old worst You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread. ▲ 4 ▼ – tgwbd 4 points 227 days ago +4 / -0 Why can't a legislature just apply the "half your age plus seven" rule. Anything younger is robbing the cradle. The formula is simple: olderAge / 2 + 7 == minimumAge This implies that younger than 14 is off limits, period. Let's begin: 14: 14 16: 15 18: 16 20: 17 This is where the law stops because 18 is "of age" but if we were to continue... 22: 18 24: 19 26: 20 28: 21 30: 22 Fill in the blanks... you get the idea: 40: 27 50: 32 60: 37 70: 42 80: 47 90: 52 See? Super simple. Works for men, women, and all other genders anyone wishes to claim in any coupling one can imagine. Keep in mind the result is the minimum age. Not at all recommended, but generally you won't get too many dirty looks. permalink save report block reply ▲ 1 ▼ – RenaissanceOfHope 1 point 227 days ago +1 / -0 No! That type of rule should NOT be the law. Just have Romeo/Juliet clauses instead. permalink parent save report block reply
Why can't a legislature just apply the "half your age plus seven" rule. Anything younger is robbing the cradle.
The formula is simple: olderAge / 2 + 7 == minimumAge
This implies that younger than 14 is off limits, period. Let's begin:
This is where the law stops because 18 is "of age" but if we were to continue...
Fill in the blanks... you get the idea:
See? Super simple. Works for men, women, and all other genders anyone wishes to claim in any coupling one can imagine.
Keep in mind the result is the minimum age. Not at all recommended, but generally you won't get too many dirty looks.
No! That type of rule should NOT be the law. Just have Romeo/Juliet clauses instead.