Another bad day for Wander Franco. I'm still wondering whether this is all from an earlier part of his life when he was close to 18. Is it possible that he could be doing this in real time in another country ? Doesn't seem likely.

DR age of consent is 18 and they have no Romeo & Juliet exceptions so it doesn't matter if he's "close to" 18 or not.

DR age of consent is 18 and they have no Romeo & Juliet exceptions so it doesn't matter if he's "close to" 18 or not

That’s absolutely crazy.And I thought it was just the US that had such terrible laws that we put 17 year olds in prison for having consensual sex with their 15 year old girlfriends.

Last I checked Franco was 22.

Last I checked Franco was 22.

Maybe the Rays did an Adrian Beltre with him and he's actually younger.

Seriously, though, I'm not following this story closely (and don't want to) but I don't think we've seen any concrete timeline for this, only that these girls/women claimed they were minors at the time of the relationship with Franco. We don't know if they happened this year, or sometime in the past.

If, for example, he was 20 and his girlfriend/hookup was a few weeks shy of 18 that doesn't seem like it should be criminal. If it's 22 and 14 (and there were three concurrently)... yeah, that ain't good.

Yeah, this is a mess. I'd be quite surprised if he ever plays MLB again - I suspect MLB will do a payout to him (quietly if possible) to prevent a lawsuit (with $176 million left on his contract something has to be done as he'd have many lawyers fighting to do a lawsuit over this otherwise) and ban him for life. There just isn't a path forward for a guy who sleeps with teenage girls, especially while married with children.

With 3 now rumoured to be found who are accusing him I can't see how he gets out of it. The big question is are there other players with these secret girlfriends and if so who and how tense must those guys be now? Sadly, in truth I'd be surprised if Franco is the only one.

DR age of consent is 18 and they have no Romeo & Juliet exceptions so it doesn't matter if he's "close to" 18 or not.

If both parties are under 18, how do they decide which one is a dastardly criminal?

I just scratch my head. Wander Franco (and others in his position) can basically have any woman he wants. Why mess with minors?

If both parties are under 18, how do they decide which one is a dastardly criminal?

In some cultures, it's automatically the woman's fault, every time.

If both parties are under 18,

Where is this being reported as being the case?

There’s very little solid information out there, but apparently there are 2 17-year-old girls and one 14-year-old (?) who he allegedly had sex with.

Nothing is confirmed, but the accusations do not appear to be about classmates, where one is slightly older.

At some point, we’ll know more, I assume.

Where is this being reported as being the case?

I'm not following it closely but where is it being reported that it's not? The linked report makes no claim that Franco was over 18 at the time. The "reports" I've seen have never gone longer than a couple paragraphs and say the same sort of thing: women have come forward saying they had a relationship with Franco when they were a minor ... with no information about how old Franco was at the time of these relationships. I don't think I've even seen any reporting about what year these events allegedly took place nor how old these women are now or at the time. (Which is fine, protect the victim's identidy, the police don't need to share this information yet, we could all wait for the investigation to release some findings before drawing conclusions.)

Now I "assume" that the fact they are still being investigated means that indeed the claim is that these are fairly recent events (i.e. within the last 4 years) or that they were non-consensual. Sorry if I missed reporting that makes it clear that is the nature of the allegations.

the 17/18 distinction is real. in PA, I had a fraternity brother who was 18 that slept with a 17 y.o. girl and got successfully sued by her parents, despite only being 6 months older.

I just scratch my head. Wander Franco (and others in his position) can basically have any woman he wants. Why mess with minors?

You don't think much of women, do you. Guess they all get the vapors when a real life major league baseball player enters the room.

You do know what hyperbole is, no?

There are plenty of adult women available to Wander Franco, to the point where messing with a minor is completely unnecessary. (Not that it ever is, but ESPECIALLY not in Franco's position.)

Just like there are plenty of shallow men who would throw themselves at Taylor Swift.

DR age of consent is 18 and they have no Romeo & Juliet exceptions so it doesn't matter if he's "close to" 18 or not.

That’s messed up. Let’s say Jack is exactly one day older than his girlfriend Jill. As long as both are 17, no problem. Once they both turn 18, no problem. But sucks to be Jack on his birthday.

Where is this being reported as being the case?

I guess I assumed that everyone would be familiar with how "if" works. My bad.

That’s messed up. Let’s say Jack is exactly one day older than his girlfriend Jill. As long as both are 17, no problem. Once they both turn 18, no problem. But sucks to be Jack on his birthday.

If you make anything age-based, there are going to be nonsensical edge cases. Mature, thoughtful kids who can't legally vote while doofuses can. Responsible kids who can't drive because they're not legal yet, but selfish daredevils in other states the exact same age can drive all they want.

It sucks in the above example. And there are lots of other cases in which it sucks. But we protect children in this country from coercive sex. Got a better way?

Got a better way?

Well, for starters, you could have legality be sticky (i.e. if it's legal today, it will never be illegal in the future).

You could make the relevant threshold an age gap rather than the age of the younger party.

Got a better way?

Close-in-age gap exceptions - maybe 2 years or so - is definitely a better way. Don't lots of places (including many U.S. states) do this? So an 18 year old could have consensual relations with a 16 or 17 year old, but no lower.

The idea that an 18 year old high school senior could be arrested or sued for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend that's in the same grade and only a few months, weeks, or even days younger is batsh!t crazy. That's not protecting kids in any meaningful way.

If you make anything age-based, there are going to be nonsensical edge cases. Mature, thoughtful kids who can't legally vote while doofuses can. Responsible kids who can't drive because they're not legal yet, but selfish daredevils in other states the exact same age can drive all they want.

It sucks in the above example. And there are lots of other cases in which it sucks.

Sure, there's always going to be edge cases with anything age based. But the penalty for say, underage drinking, isn't a felony and won't get your name on the sex offender registry. And there's nothing about these other age cutoff rules as non-sensical as allowing two 17 year olds to legally have sex, then making it illegal for a few months as soon as one of them turns 18, and then making it legal again a few months later when the second one turns 18. That's like making alcohol consumption legal at 19, illegal at 20, and then legal at 21 again.

That's like making alcohol consumption legal at 19, illegal at 20, and then legal at 21 again.

you're taking me back to my youth!

I grew up on a state border at a time when the drinking age changed more than once in both states. I was just old enough to escape the crazy, but the youngest guy in our posse was legal in one state for 8 months but then not legal for the last 4 months before becoming legal again. He was relegated to drinking with us at our most local watering hole - he was such a regular that he never got "proofed" there.

the difference in age requirements also provided a powerful incentive to drive across the border to get - well, too drunk to drive. not as dangerous if you lived a mile or two away, but a more perilous journey for both the drinkers and innocent drivers if one lived 20-30 miles away from "freedom."

Where is this being reported as being the case?

Yea, I doubt there would be THREE cases filed now if this is from five years ago when he was a minor as well.

The idea that an 18 year old high school senior could be arrested or sued for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend that's in the same grade and only a few months, weeks, or even days younger is batsh!t crazy. That's not protecting kids in any meaningful way.

Convinced! Do you prefer "The Right to Plow Children Act of 2023", or "Protecting Rapists Act of 2023" for the name of the bill?

#23 - Ah, inflammatory and ridiculously over the top hyperbole! What would internet conversations be like in 2023 without it? Sticking with honest, good faith arguments is sooo 2005, amirite?

So you think prosecuting an 18 year old for having sex with someone one month younger is a good thing? It's legal for a 17 year old to have sex with a 14 or 15 year old, isn't it? But an 18 year old canoodling with a 17 year old is crossing the line?

Do you have a legit answer for why close-in-age gap exceptions aren't a better system than the hard line in the sand between 2 consenting people of almost the exact same age we're talking about here?

That's wacky. I didn't write that.

If I'm gonna get Nannied, I would prefer that the Nanny takes my name off the post and identifies him or herself.

Do you have a legit answer for why close-in-age gap exceptions aren't a better system than the hard line in the sand between 2 consenting people of almost the exact same age we're talking about here

?

In our system, a 17-year-old is not expected to be capable of making these decisions for him or herself. No exceptions if they choose a sixteen-year-old or a thirty-year-old to have sex with. Legally, it's not their body and not their choice. As I tried to express upstairs, they are legally children at that point.

We generally don't hold children criminally responsible for things. We do this because the science says that children are not capable of grokking the action in fullness.

In our system, a 17-year-old is not expected to be capable of making these decisions for him or herself. No exceptions if they choose a sixteen-year-old or a thirty-year-old to have sex with. Legally, it's not their body and not their choice. As I tried to express upstairs, they are legally children at that point.

We generally don't hold children criminally responsible for things. We do this because the science says that children are not capable of grokking the action in fullness.

Many US states have passed laws which explicitly contradict this reasoning. Your argument seems to be that those laws are...illegal?

Or alternatively, you're arguing that it's a matter of science that someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is emotionally incapable of determining the course of their own life, while someone who is 18 years and 0 days old is 100% in control of their own decisions and it is appropriate to punish them to the full extent of state authority.

Or alternatively, you're arguing that it's a matter of science that someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is emotionally incapable of determining the course of their own life, while someone who is 18 years and 0 days old is 100% in control of their own decisions and it is appropriate to punish them to the full extent of state authority.

Well, not science. Law. A 17/364 person cannot vote, cannot sign a mortgage, cannot do a lot of things, legally. Does this make 100% sense in all cases? It does not.

But I think there's legal value and some science behind not holding children responsible for things the way adults can be. The other side here is that we are "holding back" very mature children. Sucks for them, but I think a bright line between childhood and adulthood makes sense.

A 2 year rule for anyone having sex with any minor makes a ton of sense. If 17 year olds are so incapable of serious decisions then I don't want them able to pick which 13 or 14 year olds are mature enough to have sex with, and you miss a lot of the weird border rules because the gf three years younger was off-limits all along.

A tangent: I was 19 and a college freshman when my then-girlfriend was 18 and a high school senior. Before they would give permission for me to attend her senior prom as her date I had to fill out a multi-page form, attach character witnesses, and sign an affidavit that I would make no physical contact whatsoever with anyone while on the premises. There was no exception in it for my girlfriend. Who was 18. This was a public school, not a puritanical private one.

I'm not so much questioning the wisdom of making a high school senior's college-freshman FO jump all those hoops. I do question why, if they feel that's the prudent path, they don't make all their own 18-year-old seniors do it too. But maybe they do nowadays, I'm a long way out of that loop.

fortunately, PASTE used the odd scenario as the loosely-based inspiration for his Hollywood script called "Footloose" - and made millions !

This is the part where I'm forced to admit that I'm the only adult in the world who has never seen Footloose in any form, and is entirely unfamiliar with its plot.

This is the part where I'm forced to admit that I'm the only adult in the world who has never seen Footloose in any form, and is entirely unfamiliar with its plot.

That makes two of us, though I do know what it's about.