Probably, in this case, the distinction is made due to the fact that the girls were between the ages of 15 - 17.

Matchmaking means setting someone up for a date and a relationship. Pimping means setting someone up to have sex for payment. It really isn't rocket science goom.

yes female gold diggers who deprive older money abled white men of their money knowing fully well they cannot resist temptation.

Goom: Autistically breaks apart every single line of a judicial ruling to meticulously critique the legal reasoning in favor of Republicans

Also Goom: Can anybody really say giving gifts to multiple 16 year olds to have sex with them is wrong or illegal in any way?

That wouldn't make a distinction, since if no money changed hands in quid pro quo then it would be legal matchmaking under the law regardless of age, and if money changed hands in quid pro quo it would be illegal sex trafficking under the law regardless of age. There's no shortage of state and federal laws against sex trafficking, once you open the door to defining something as a commercial sex act than its not just covered by 18 US Code § 1591, its also covered by federal 2241 and 2242, the Mann act, as well as all relevant state laws. And while its true that federal definition of 'commercial sex act' to include gifts wouldn't automatically impose this definitions on states, it would apply to states that defer to federal definitions and prosecutors willing to test it by setting that precedent.

So you're arguing that he paid the 19-year-old as a matchmaker for just dating?

How silly, thinking Goom is approaching this topic with even a shred of honesty. (although I doubt you are really. You're just a good person)

For the uninitiated, Goom is arguing that because we don't have messages explicitly saying "You hook me up with 16 year olds to fuck and I'll pay you", that we should just assume it was totally innocent and ignore all context. Yes, it's dishonest. No, this isn't the first time. Yes, Goom will do this on literally every subject instead of just acknowledging the obvious.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jan 29 2022 07:16pm

I think its readily apparent that he paid the 19 year old to facilitate his sugar daddy relationships by finding willing girls. The distinction between what constitutes dating vs prostitution, or matchmaking vs pimping, is the crux of the issue. The sugar daddy sites exist by exploiting that ambiguity to serve as something that is not explicit prostitution, but matchmaking with an implicit expectation of men who give gifts and girls who give sex. Resolving that ambiguity to call it prostitution is a legal challenge that involves setting the criterion defining it by a precedent like this one. And if those criterion are so wide and reckless that they don't distinguish between normal relationships with gifts involved, and sugar daddy pseudoprostitution, then what you wind up with is a legal code that criminalizes the normal lives of normal people.

And that's what's at issue. If the prosecutors manage to set a precedent like this, they can charge an 18 year old that takes 17 year old on a date to the movies and throw him in federal prison for life with no parole. The feds could charge a couple of 25 year olds for crossing state lines to buy jewelry from the mall on a date. States could charge them even if they didn't cross state lines. And what's the safeguard against that? Prosecutorial discretion? Create precedents that say the government can arrest anyone for anything and give them the most draconian sentences possible, and then trust the government not to abuse it? When the very case this is premised on has the government very blatantly intervening for political purposes.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jan 29 2022 07:21pm

You know if you lead off with "He's a POS pervert who shouldn't be trusted" and then went into a legal analysis you wouldn't be accused of defending pedophelia.

But that part of your argument is conspicously absent, because you don't really care that he's shitty, you care about playing defense for your team even when they are pedophiles.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jan 29 2022 07:21pm

Show me literally one example of a MN prosecutor arresting an 18 year old taking his 17 year old date to the movies being charged with sex trafficking. You're being hysterical about this for no reason.

A 30 year old man paying underage girls for sex is wrong. End of story. You cannot spin your way out of this.