Non-hypothetical scenario involving internet hoo-ha.

[DudeGuyMan]

Here's the scenario.

You're an officer in a smallish World of Warcraft guild. It comes to your attention by way of a third party that two of your members, a 28 year old man and a 15 year old girl, have been cyberfucking for a couple of weeks now.

The man, for his part, is embarassed to have been found out but insists that he hasn't done anything genuinely bad. To hear him tell it, the girl isn't a virgin in real life, isn't a stranger to cyber, and initiated the affair herself with the attitude that it's "just internet" and that neither of them should get attached. Additonally, he says, it's well-known within the guild that this girl will be starting college before her 16th birthday and is thus "a lot older mentally" than her actual age.

According to the female guild leader who spoke to her, the girl says the exact same thing. Yes she initiated, she's not a virgin and we're not her parents, why should we care what text she reads or who it's from, blah blah blah, mind our own business.

The guild leader asks "So what the hell should we do?"

My advice was to just kick them both out and wash our hands of the whole thing, which is in fact what ended up being done. If it had stayed within the realm of mere rumor we might have just dismissed it, but since neither of them made any real effort to deny it, it's just not something our little organization could openly condone.

(His character has joined a new guild, hers has joined a different one and is rarely seen online. I suppose this experience took all the fun out of their little thing.)

My question is, what would you have advised? I kinda didn't want to kick the girl out, I think she's probably too smart to make trouble twice, but it seemed better to just nuke the whole situation from orbit and detach our guild from it completely. Also, how unethical is the guy and do his rationalizations carry any weight? For the record I'll state, if the girl had said "I'm actually 25 with a youthful voice, not 15, I just lied for (insert reason)" I wouldn't have dismissed it out of hand.

I can't help but feel like throwing them both out and just going "WE AIN'T SEEN NUTHIN!" was somehow inadequate, but it's not like we really have any sort of authority or importance, and I can't imagine the customer service staff would do anything with a message consisting of "these two people talked dirty, we can't prove it but they did, also one of them was underage but nobody can prove that either."

Posted in SLAM because the M part seems to apply here.

[Hawkwings]

Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

I think the key thing you said there was "it's just not something our little organization could openly condone". Now, granted, very roughly speaking this organization is simply a group of people that organize themselves do things together, and personal business is none of the group's business. If you had allowed them to stay and someone called you out on it, you would be very correct in saying "what our members do outside of the game is their own damn business." But simply knowing about it and not doing anything would be viewed as accepting or condoning it, and there are negative consequences of even being associated with that, especially with an underage girl involved. Kicking them both out was a valid decision and nobody is going to fault you for it.

Then again, knowing the internet, said 28-year old man is going to be in for a rude shock when 15-year old girl turns out to be a 6- year old man.

[Lagmonster]

Cyber-sexing with someone you can't verify the identity of is, without exception, mind-bogglingly stupid. Cyber-sexing with someone who claims the identity of a person for whom the act is illegal is even dumber than that, if such a thing could be measured.

I'm not saying you should have called the cops or anything, but the two of them should have been smacked so far upside the head that their parts shifted. It's stupid to initiate cybersex when you are an underage girl. It is stupid to be seduced by an underage girl. This is not a complicated social convention.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Repeat after me: Statutory rape is rape.

The man, for his part, is embarassed to have been found out but insists that he hasn't done anything genuinely bad.

No, he's just taking advantage of someone lacking the maturity necessary to make the sort of judgment call that would tell her "hooking up with some dude from the Interwebs that's nearly twice my age is a stupid idea."

To hear him tell it, the girl isn't a virgin in real life, isn't a stranger to cyber, and initiated the affair herself with the attitude that it's "just internet" and that neither of them should get attached.

In short, according to him, it's all her fault. Even though he's the alleged adult of the relationship. This does not speak well of his character. At all.

Additonally, he says, it's well-known within the guild that this girl will be starting college before her 16th birthday and is thus "a lot older mentally" than her actual age.

She's starting college before 16 . . . what does this prove, exactly? It just means she's very good at completing coursework. The fact that she's decided an inappropriate internet relationship with a man nearly twice her age is a good idea . . . well, that just throws any notion that she's mentally mature right out the window. Of course, since the 28 year old man is likely grooming her (in the sexual predator sort of way,) he's probably feeding her the sort of attention and psychological validation that some teenagers crave.

According to the female guild leader who spoke to her, the girl says the exact same thing. Yes she initiated, she's not a virgin and we're not her parents, why should we care what text she reads or who it's from, blah blah blah, mind our own business.

Of course she's going to say the same thing. She's a teenager, so her behavior is dictated by hormones, since the parts of her brain that make reasoned judgment calls won't be fully mature for another ten years. He's validating her need to feel "mature" and "grown up," and she's reacting defensively to the threat that this superficial psychological validation might be taken away.

My question is, what would you have advised? I kinda didn't want to kick the girl out, I think she's probably too smart to make trouble twice, but it seemed better to just nuke the whole situation from orbit and detach our guild from it completely. Also, how unethical is the guy and do his rationalizations carry any weight? For the record I'll state, if the girl had said "I'm actually 25 with a youthful voice, not 15, I just lied for (insert reason)" I wouldn't have dismissed it out of hand.

The right thing to have done would've been to contact her parents. There is (at least) one man taking advantage of her poor judgment for his own gratification. If she initiated the contact with this one guy, it's almost certain that she's initiated contact with other men; and it will only be a matter of time before she does something really stupid, like agree to meet one of them in person. She likely has some psychological or home-life issues that need to be sorted out by competent professionals, rather than her self-medicating with potentially dangerous behaviors. And the man needs to be called into his local law-enforcement, or FBI office, and given a stern talking-to about the potential consequences of his actions. For example, if the relationship had progressed to the "in person" phase, and the police had known about it beforehand . . . he'd have been arrested at the airport, and charged with a number of serious offenses. These would almost certainly result in prison time, and a mandatory registration as a sexual offender.

[Zed]

I'm not going to wade into the discussion, but I'll just toss in a number of questions that might be of relevance that don't seem to be answered yet: What is the age of consent in the girl's country? What is the age of consent in the man's country? (14 and 15 are common ages of consent in Europe, for instance.) Do you have the girl's real name? Could you provide sufficient evidence to Blizzard for them to override privacy regulations (for which it is likely they would have to contact the police) and disclose the girl's real name and a means of contacting her parents?

[Todeswind]

Actually I'd argue that the guild leaders are obligated to do something as it doesn't seem like that much of a leap for them to face "facilitating distribution of child pornography" if it comes out that this situation was ongoing and they did nothing if for no other reason than avoiding the loss of their accounts. While the laws of their respective countries are pertinent the WoW TOS state that WoW cannot be used for the facilitation of any "illegal" acts, and virtually anything that comes within a mile of "child pornography" gets slapped with that clause as fast as is possible. I'm not sure if they'd actually be legally liable for anything but the blizzard mods pretty much wouldn't care. All it takes is for one angry former guild member in the know to get pissy about it to either the WoW GM's or the FBI cyber crimes division and it won't matter if nothing comes of it in the actual court system, short term or permanent bans are entirely plausible.

And on a less selfish angle... that shit is seriously messed up. Even if she's lying to the guy and saying she's older than she is that just seems like a huge barrel of drama that you do not want in your guild.

[Hamstray]

14 and 15 are common ages of consent in Europe, for instance.

Yeah, even though age of consent is 14 in my country recent legislation did make cybersexing with people under 18 illegal. Apparently we need to "protect" teenagers from doing something they later could regret, presumably because of the possibility of that cybersexing could be recorded and spread onto the internet.
Regret what? It's not like someone would want to have anything to do with <current/future> <employers/friends/spouse/random people on the internet/puritans/...> that <judge you based on your sexuality/call you a slut/don't know the difference between paedophilia and ephebophilia/preach that you will go to hell/...> anyways. Under the same premises people might as well regret being gay and they don't have a choice at all. Not like you could get pregnant/STDs from cybersexing anyways.

[Duckie]

[I'm Duckie in the process of account reclamation].

Uh, perhaps I'm missing something here because of everyone flipping out about rape and oh noes our young children, but just to clarify my understanding with everyone- Cybersex, as in WOW Cybering, isn't actually sex any more than writing self-insert star trek fanfiction makes you an officer of the united federation of planets.

Is it probably kinda creepy for a 28-year old dude to be cybering a 16-year old girl? Yeah. But neither of them are having sex as themselves, but as fictionalised versions of themselves or even other people entirely. It's collaborative erotic fiction writing. Crap writing, probably, but still. There is absolutely nothing in Cybering that mandates he travel across the country and come molest her, any more than co-writing a story where my previous hypothetical UFP Officer fucks a green space babe means that I'm having sex with the their dialogue writer.

Let's run through the scenarios here.

The girl is not of age. So what? Cybersex is talking about sex. Are the moral guardians here unaware that persons below the age of consent in their jurisdiction frequently talk about sex or can roleplay a sexual activity? People below the age of sex masturbate too. Cybersex is just the two of those combined.

If she is of age in her jurisdiction (note the US age is not 18, except in a few states), then this just becomes more hilarious. If she were 18, nobody would have batted an eye, which is an amazing leap of parochial logic.

By all means, violate someone's privacy to tell people's parents about the fact that they're collaboratively writing WoW Erotic Fanfiction, if it morally offends you that two people are doing so and both getting off on it. But don't dress it up and pretend "Cybersex" means "Actual Physical Fucking Going On Here". If that were the case then we'd have to prosecute STGOD participants for wanton murder and warcrimes as leaders of countries.

[Duckie]

Uh, with that said, despite my strident tone, I think it's pretty damn creepy for a 28-year old man, and you certainly can kick a dude out of your guild for being creepy.

But it's neither rape nor sex nor molestation of a minor to engage in consensual collaborative fiction, regardless of whether it causes one or both of you to get off on it. And it's not even necessarily poor judgment on the part of the girl- if she's not revealing any personal information and she's just writing some smutty fiction in real time that amuses her, what exactly poor judgment is she exercising*? or immanent danger is she exposing herself to?

Now, if by 'cybersex' you mean 'they have cybersex and are also RL Dating', then of course, but it's the latter that's the problem.

*Besides having a lack of taste in non-creepiness.

[Broomstick]

You're an officer in a smallish World of Warcraft guild. It comes to your attention by way of a third party that two of your members, a 28 year old man and a 15 year old girl, have been cyberfucking for a couple of weeks now.

I'm not quite clear on what this "cyberfucking" entails - is it the toon posturing common around locations like Goldshire, or are they getting hot and heavy in private chat, or exchanging naked pictures? While I back your guild not wanting a part of any of that, the exact nature of what they're doing does matter as far as legal repercussions are concerned.

The man, for his part, is embarassed to have been found out but insists that he hasn't done anything genuinely bad.

Hence, my point about what, exactly, are they doing? Rubbing pixels in Goldshire? He might have a point. In my other two examples there is increasing likelihood he is breaking the law.

To hear him tell it, the girl isn't a virgin in real life,

Irrelevant, if he's crossing the line into statutory rape or child porn.

isn't a stranger to cyber

Irrelevant, if he's crossing the line into statutory rape or child porn.

and initiated the affair herself with the attitude that it's "just internet" and that neither of them should get attached.

Irrelevant, if he's crossing the line into statutory rape or child porn.

Additonally, he says, it's well-known within the guild that this girl will be starting college before her 16th birthday and is thus "a lot older mentally" than her actual age.

Irrelevant, if he's crossing the line into statutory rape or child porn.

Are you starting to see a pattern here?

According to the female guild leader who spoke to her, the girl says the exact same thing. Yes she initiated, she's not a virgin and we're not her parents, why should we care what text she reads or who it's from, blah blah blah, mind our own business.

It's other peoples' business as soon as they are facing the possibility of legal action against them, or termination of their WoW account if Blizzard doesn't like the situation.

The guild leader asks "So what the hell should we do?"

My personal opinion? Tell them to stop it and if they don't boot them both.

My question is, what would you have advised?

The same as what you actually did.

I kinda didn't want to kick the girl out, I think she's probably too smart to make trouble twice,

Uh, no - I disagree. She may be academically smart but she's displaying really bad relationship skills here. She's having her fun with no regards to the consequences to others. I'm sure she'll do it again and again until SHE sufffers negatively from her actions.

Also, how unethical is the guy and do his rationalizations carry any weight?

I don't know the age of consent in your area, but as already pointed out, it varies and it also varies between real life and the internet. In some locations she might be of age to consent to sex with someone close to her age but not significantly older - typically 5-7 years older, which means she might not be old enough to consent to someone his age and he's getting close to being charged with some sort of violation of sex laws. If he's in the US, this means he's flirting with being put on a sexual offender list, which will fuck with him for life. Granted, the odds of getting caught if they keep it solely on the internet are low, but it's a definite possibility.

The man in question needs to stop rationalizing his lust and realize that if this blows up HE is the one most likely to suffer legally and long term from this. She'll walk away unscathed.

Blizzard takes a dim view of anything smelling of illegality. They have had trouble in the past with people taking their cybersex into real life (the most recent case being an underage boy in Texas traveling to Toronto, Canada to meet his on-line sweetheart, a 45 year old woman. I'm not clear on whether they knew each other's true ages, suffice to say that some lawyers made money what with this involving an underage person and crossing an international border). Blizzard will tend to suspend/cancel accounts first and ask questions later if things start smelling like legal trouble. If accusations are made they can either look into it themselves, or they can turn it over to legal authorities (and they have done that sort of thing in the past). Blizzard doesn't care what legal adults say to each other in private chat, but they DO care about trouble with minors because it potentially opens them up to legal costs.

So even if, technically, they aren't breaking any laws if Blizzard gets wind of it and thinks it's fishy they can pull the plug on both of them. Blizzard has done that in the past.

So -

1) It doesn't matter if the girl is a cyberslut or reallifeslut or virgin or who started it or whatever - if she's underage for the activity(s) in question it's the man who's most likely to suffer long term if they're caught.
2) If Blizzard doesn't like it, Blizzard can exile them both permanently from WoW.

If they want to continue to engage in such antics they are welcome to do it where they will not put anyone else at risk. In other words, take it out of the game. Entirely. Completely. Which I suspect neither would be capable of doing so you're back to booting them out of your guild.

[DudeGuyMan]

Yeah, I should clarify that (to the best of my knowledge) there was nothing afoot other than text cybering. No naughty pics, no delusions of meeting up in real life, etcetera. If I thought there were something like THAT going on, I'd have notified Blizzard on principle alone even if I didn't think it would accomplish anything. I don't think they were doing anything actually illegal. I don't really know about this area of law, though. They usually seem to need more than this to bust someone when you hear about them getting busted.

Also, I should point out again that our guild is nothing but private citizens of no authority, with no real way to validate our claims. The guy who said we should tell her parents needs to get real. What are we supposed to do, ask her for her home telephone number so that she can laugh and log out, or better yet give us the number of some kid at school she hates?

Having read these responses I feel reasonably good about the course of action we took. If the kid learns that poor sexual choices can have negative consequences, then she learned that lesson a lot more cheaply than some other people have.

As for the dude, I suppose we could let his new guild know why he's not in this one anymore. But ultimately the most that would accomplish is to annoy him somewhat by forcing him to join a third guild on a different character.

[Todeswind]

Yeah, I should clarify that (to the best of my knowledge) there was nothing afoot other than text cybering. No naughty pics, no delusions of meeting up in real life, etcetera. If I thought there were something like THAT going on, I'd have notified Blizzard on principle alone even if I didn't think it would accomplish anything. I don't think they were doing anything actually illegal. I don't really know about this area of law, though. They usually seem to need more than this to bust someone when you hear about them getting busted.

That form of cyber sex is covered under the general blanket of "Sexual Exploitation of Children" or "Electronic luring" which is still considered a form of child pornography and illegal exploitation of minors under US law, though admittedly a lesser one. The FBI or state authorities can pursue charges for that (admittedly lesser ones) provided that the 25 year old was aware that the girl was 15 at the time. As to what Blizzard's stance on the subject, Blizzard is really mostly worried about what the FBI will consider them liable for with relation to internet crimes as their servers are in California making what happens on them subject to US law (at least as far as the FBI is concerned anyway). If the Blizzard mods can track a record of their cybering through WoW it would actually be enough to get a permanent ban from the game. I'm really not joking about this, Blizzard does not take ANY chances with the potential sexual exploitation of children by adults.

[Duckie]

That's a ridiculous law. At what point does something become 'illegal cybersex'? Roleplaying in a story that includes sex with a coauthor where we both are obvious self-inserts? Writing such a story while masturbating? Writing a story that includes sex but with fictional characters? Roleplaying a dominant-submissive relationship with implications of sex but never roleplaying the act? Roleplaying any story with erotic themes but no explicit on'screen' sex? Merely writing such a story with a non-minor as an assistant? Is it only if each of you invented one of the two participants?

American puritanism never ceases to amaze me. I have no idea how you'd apply such a law other than "People below 18 aren't allowed to say sexy words to anyone in any fictional context whatsoever" without making its enforcement absolutely arbitrary.

It's silly- sex with minors should be illegal (within some obvious limits- with other appropriately aged minors, when both are of appropriate age, and respecting the obvious fact that a 17 year 350 day old person is clearly mentally capable of having sex with their girlfriend who is 20 days older than her, as some obvious ones). Attempting to solicit sex from a minor is similarly obviously illegal. But cybersex isn't that. Cybersex is internet phonesex, or perhaps collaborative erotic story writing, and as such can't be any more unethical than phonesex or bad fanfiction.

Though there is one way to resolve this logic fault- If the US would prosecute an adult for abusing a minor if the the minor calls a phone sex line and they have phone sex, then it'd be logically consistent. Retarded, but consistent.

[Sinewmire]

That's a ridiculous law. At what point does something become 'illegal cybersex'?

I'd imagine at the point where A an adult, encourages B a minor to think about him in a sexual manner, which is what we call grooming. Yes/no?

[Duckie]

So, 'him', then? So what if at no point in these cyberings did they interact as anything other than their WoW avatars, with WoW names (which is how WoW Cybreing almost always works, for providing instant story, some images, and versmillitude- why otherwise have a graphical MMO interface when you could do it over instant messenger). A WoW Character isn't that person. If they are, then a minor cannot write collaborative sexually graphic fiction at all with a major, or even fiction that has erotic themes that could potentially engender sexual thoughts* which is at least logically consistent but absurd because no harm is being done in that case.

Grooming is the crime, not the cybersex, and the conflation of the two is ridiculous. One can have cybersex without grooming a child sex slave.**

*or, to take it to ridiculous heights, even anything which might engender sexual feelings such as anything that the minor finds sexually exciting such as being tied up and held hostage or librarians or oil changings of cars (sexual feelings can also result from admiration of someone's work if they become a fangirl, so we might even want to just disallow interaction to be safe). I don't actually believe that's a reasonable belief even for the people claiming that this is a cut and paste case of child molestation, but it's logically consistent with the above.

** Which is not to say one should be cybering with minors, unless you are in that category of people reasonably allowed to*** have sex with minors (other minors when both are of appropriate minor-sex age, or a reasonably older and perhaps technically adult person who nonetheless is only inches away on the other side of an arbitrary calendar division from being legal to have sex with.) However, I can see no compelling evidence that cybering with a minor is inherently harmful or problematic above and beyond the obvious huge huge huge problem of grooming a child for a relationship that could occur from it (but which is neither a necessary part of cybersex or nor is cybersex a necessary part of that). I am defending collaborative erotic fiction roleplaying, not being mega-fucking creepy. I'd have kicked the dude too if he didn't explain himself fully upon prompting and offer a compelling defense of his motives that made me not think he was doing just what everyone has accused him of doing (in between the hyperbole or poorly thought out choices of statement such as 'rape'). However, I would not have necessarily kicked the girl or disciplined her in the circumstances of mere cybersex roleplaying with no offline relationship or coercion save to inquire and make sure that she is being safe in her entertainment activities. The worst you can do is kick her with little friend-to-friend advice- then she'll just think you're mean and that she's right, no matter whether she was being reasonable and safe or not, which is a pretty good shot of thus setting her in the wrong direction.

*** 'allowed to' as in 'should be allowed to by reasonable laws', not 'allowed to currently in all legal jurisdictions'. Obviously, with exceptions based on local jurisdiction usually for age, nobody is allowed to (though those exceptions are basically my exception conditions above to my knowledge so there's no huge difference).

[Eris]

That's a ridiculous law. At what point does something become 'illegal cybersex'?

I'd imagine at the point where A an adult, encourages B a minor to think about him in a sexual manner, which is what we call grooming. Yes/no?

Frankly, no.

While I think Duckie's points stand on their own, I would point out that you're completely missing her point. Child grooming is decidedly not just when an adult encourages a minor to think of them in a sexual manner. If that were the case, then frankly almost every single actor and actress in the world would be guilty.

Child grooming specifically refers to the act of befriending a child in order to establish a relationship for the purpose of getting them to be more willing to initiate sexual activity. Sure you could use your definition instead, but then it's a trivial thing that no longer should be criminalised, lest we lock up Keira Knightly and Johnny Depp for being deliberate hotties on camera that intentionally get teenagers hot and bothered.

But here? There's no evidence that cybersex in and of itself, which is what Duckie's addressing, is inherently carried out between an adult and minor for these purposes. It is perfectly possible for a 17 year old and a 20 year old to cyber together without ever seriously thinking of once doing anything in person, that is, go about having some sexual activity. This is no more inherently true of someone 28 with someone 15. More creepy perhaps, but again, that's not the point being made.

Is it creepy? Yes. Is it child grooming? There's no evidence of that here. And certainly it doesn't have to be. In essence you're doing the same thing as most everyone else and mistaking online smut writing, an activity that is sexualised but not sexual save insofar as someone might be typing with one hand, for actual fucking, or intent to fuck.

[DudeGuyMan]

Yeah, look...

This was a weird situation that I felt merited soliciting input, but I'll say right now that the facts as I'm aware of them don't come close to meriting life-destroying consequences for the dude. Obviously all bets would be off if it turned out that they were plotting to run away to Mexico together, but as I understand things it was just stupid-ass WoW cyber. Insert redundant disclaimer here that I don't support grown men cybering tenth-graders, but I wouldn't obliterate a person's life over it.

And I can sort of empathize with the girl. To the adults you're just a kid, and to the majority of your peers you're some sort of alien who talks about books they've never heard of. You've already knocked boots with someone in real life at least once without wrecking your life, so what's a little internet bullshit? An unwise decision, but not one I'd base a character judgement upon.

[Todeswind]

So, 'him', then? So what if at no point in these cyberings did they interact as anything other than their WoW avatars, with WoW names (which is how WoW Cybreing almost always works, for providing instant story, some images, and versmillitude- why otherwise have a graphical MMO interface when you could do it over instant messenger). A WoW Character isn't that person. If they are, then a minor cannot write collaborative sexually graphic fiction at all with a major, or even fiction that has erotic themes that could potentially engender sexual thoughts* which is at least logically consistent but absurd because no harm is being done in that case.

Grooming is the crime, not the cybersex, and the conflation of the two is ridiculous. One can have cybersex without grooming a child sex slave.**

I agree provided he didn't know that the girl was 15. If he did then it was unquestionably grooming, engaging in cyber sex with someone you know to be a minor is about as much literal grooming as it is possible to get. It isn't simply like grooming it literally is grooming under the letter of the law.

*or, to take it to ridiculous heights, even anything which might engender sexual feelings such as anything that the minor finds sexually exciting such as being tied up and held hostage or librarians or oil changings of cars (sexual feelings can also result from admiration of someone's work if they become a fangirl, so we might even want to just disallow interaction to be safe). I don't actually believe that's a reasonable belief even for the people claiming that this is a cut and paste case of child molestation, but it's logically consistent with the above.

That's a straw-man argument at best.

** Which is not to say one should be cybering with minors, unless you are in that category of people reasonably allowed to*** have sex with minors (other minors when both are of appropriate minor-sex age, or a reasonably older and perhaps technically adult person who nonetheless is only inches away on the other side of an arbitrary calendar division from being legal to have sex with.) However, I can see no compelling evidence that cybering with a minor is inherently harmful or problematic above and beyond the obvious huge huge huge problem of grooming a child for a relationship that could occur from it (but which is neither a necessary part of cybersex or nor is cybersex a necessary part of that). I am defending collaborative erotic fiction roleplaying, not being mega-fucking creepy. I'd have kicked the dude too if he didn't explain himself fully upon prompting and offer a compelling defense of his motives that made me not think he was doing just what everyone has accused him of doing (in between the hyperbole or poorly thought out choices of statement such as 'rape'). However, I would not have necessarily kicked the girl or disciplined her in the circumstances of mere cybersex roleplaying with no offline relationship or coercion save to inquire and make sure that she is being safe in her entertainment activities. The worst you can do is kick her with little friend-to-friend advice- then she'll just think you're mean and that she's right, no matter whether she was being reasonable and safe or not, which is a pretty good shot of thus setting her in the wrong direction.

*** 'allowed to' as in 'should be allowed to by reasonable laws', not 'allowed to currently in all legal jurisdictions'. Obviously, with exceptions based on local jurisdiction usually for age, nobody is allowed to (though those exceptions are basically my exception conditions above to my knowledge so there's no huge difference).

That you felt a need to write two disclaimers to distance yourself from the act of engaging in cyber sex with a minor is a measure of how utterly creepy the act of engaging in cyber sex with a minor is if you are aware they are underage. I'm actually not arguing one way or the other on the morality, the morality doesn't matter. It's illegal under US law at both state and federal levels. It's more than enough for an account ban of anyone aware of it.

[Simon_Jester]

Todeswind?

Seriously, I do think you should consider the question of whether the punishment fits the crime here. The punishment for basically any crime involving sex and minors is pretty much "you might as well kill yourself now because your life is not going to be worth living;" are the actions of this man such that they merit such a punishment?

Also if there is a crime at all- the one that seems to fit is "grooming," and the US definition of 'grooming' basically boils down to trying to convince a minor to engage in some activity that would be a sex crime. So there's a real question of whether what happened here is illegal, even though it's creepy.

[Todeswind]

OP's question was what he, as a guild leader would be obligated to do. In my option because the letter of the law on this one is very broad the Guild is obligated to at least boot both of them. I am not advocating sending in the cops for something this apparently minor. I was uncomfortable when I had to bust people for public urination in PA back when I was working as a Campus Security specifically because if I caught them for that they were risking sex offender charges if my supervisor decided to turn them over to the Borough Cops. I agree that his was a minor offense but I'm not sure if the FBI would agree and I'm tempted to say they wouldn't. However the people who enforce the laws enforce the letter of the law, not the spirit of it but that is neither here nor there.

Lets say theoretically someone who knows about it were someone to get a bug up their ass about the subject (say an angry guild member leaving as lord knows that happens once a week) who decides to report it and that his "jackass guild members allowed it to happen." Leaving the FBI out of it entirely if blizzard GMs get involved they won't even bother to figure out the "he said she said" part, they'll beat everyone who looks at them sideways with the banstick just to avoid anyone getting a remote connection between their games and pedophiles however remote it might be. Bearing that in mind it is wise to to distance yourself and your guild from this as much as is possible because however minor it was, a crime was arguably committed under US law.

[Duckie]

I agree provided he didn't know that the girl was 15. If he did then it was unquestionably grooming, engaging in cyber sex with someone you know to be a minor is about as much literal grooming as it is possible to get. It isn't simply like grooming it literally is grooming under the letter of the law.

Why? Again, define exactly what cybersex is and how it differs from online roleplaying in a game that includes sex, or in a game with erotic themes, or anything. Define how it's necessarily grooming.

That's a straw-man argument at best.

Yes, which is why I didn't use it- charity, and because I know you aren't that stupid. It's still logically consistent with the idea that fostering any sexual feelings in a child is grooming. You're the one who has to restrict the definition more.

That you felt a need to write two disclaimers to distance yourself from the act of engaging in cyber sex with a minor is a measure of how utterly creepy the act of engaging in cyber sex with a minor is if you are aware they are underage. I'm actually not arguing one way or the other on the morality, the morality doesn't matter. It's illegal under US law at both state and federal levels. It's more than enough for an account ban of anyone aware of it.

No, the fact that I wrote two 'disclaimers' (actually, just parenthetical notations that wouldn't fit) is because otherwise the words "LOL PEDO" would be the kneejerk moral guardians response that anything other than internet toughguy 'LOCK THEM IN TEH JAIL AND RAEP THEM" or milquetoast "maybe he doesn't need to be jailed and raeped and/or executed if it's not true" would provoke.

If it's illegal under US law then that's retarded and the fault of US law, not mine. You've yet to prove that cybersex with a minor automatically demands child grooming (as in convincing them to have a real life sexual relationship or real life sex with you), or what 'cybersex' actually is and what seperates it from regular and thematically mature roleplaying.

Sex with Children is illegal because they can't consent. Cybersex is no more sex than Phone sex. Writing fiction, regardless of its smutty content, is legal to engage in regardless of how much it squicks you. There is no requirement to consent to erotic fiction writing and if it's illegal then you're going to have to explain better than some handwaving about "exposing children to a positive, fun depiction of sex is automatically attempting to insert your penis into their face" and "the US government is retardedly specific about what children are allowed to do and see so I can be too". (it's also a sex offender offense to urinate in public if a child sees, regardless of your knowledge, as you say, which means we can't trust the US government's definition of Child Grooming any more than we can trust its statements on the addictiveness of marijuana)

[Duckie]

Though, again, "Cybersex is no more sex than Phone Sex" still means we can restrict minors from doing it (though I'd argue we have no need to except to teach proper safety procedures and that phone sex in particular is stupid and expensive so don't do it). But we don't punish a minor or adult legally judicially if a minor illegally calls a phone sex line despite the '18+' requirements for it. If we do then that's dumb as well, like I said. I have no clue if the US is that hilariously victorian-minded.

Hell, repeated Phone Sex with a person you know is a minor is quite clearly more child grooming and unethical than Cybersex. I actually feel it's a problem to my argument to keep using it, because Cybersex is far less related to your personal existence in real life so there's a possibility it has nothing to do with connecting to that person in real life. But nobody would have any clue what I'm talking about exactly if I say "Roleplaying With Erotic Themes" so we'll go with it.

And, yes, do I have reservations about this particular guy? Maybe this case. But the blanket assertations being dropped in this thread are ridiculous. And do I have any reservations about the girl? Only that she might be roleplaying in an unsafe way that either makes her partners misunderstand her intentions, or that she actually is misguided and needs to be taught the difference between online fun and real life relationships.

[Todeswind]

I agree provided he didn't know that the girl was 15. If he did then it was unquestionably grooming, engaging in cyber sex with someone you know to be a minor is about as much literal grooming as it is possible to get. It isn't simply like grooming it literally is grooming under the letter of the law.

Why? Again, define exactly what cybersex is and how it differs from online roleplaying in a game that includes sex, or in a game with erotic themes, or anything. Define how it's necessarily grooming.

[/quote]

Yes games do include sexual themes but that would be ignoring the fact that it's illegal to sell those games to minors in the USA (yeah that law never gets enforced I'll admit) The sex in those games is, ostensibly, not supposed to be in the hands of anyone younger than 18-21.

Ignoring that the biggest difference is that there isn't someone on the other side of your conversation trying to elicit sexual responses from you. Its the difference between having a conversation and the phone and having phone sex. There isn't a way to have phone sex and remove the sexual component. If he knew the other person was under age it is the literal definition of grooming.

EDIT: You would have to prove "intent" to prove grooming but Blizzard wouldn't wait for that to saddle anyone associated with the issue with a ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming

On a side note apparently the UK is even more harsh on this issue than the US, who knew?

That you felt a need to write two disclaimers to distance yourself from the act of engaging in cyber sex with a minor is a measure of how utterly creepy the act of engaging in cyber sex with a minor is if you are aware they are underage. I'm actually not arguing one way or the other on the morality, the morality doesn't matter. It's illegal under US law at both state and federal levels. It's more than enough for an account ban of anyone aware of it.

No, the fact that I wrote two 'disclaimers' (actually, just parenthetical notations that wouldn't fit) is because otherwise the words "LOL PEDO" would be the kneejerk moral guardians response that anything other than internet toughguy 'LOCK THEM IN TEH JAIL AND RAEP THEM" or milquetoast "maybe he doesn't need to be jailed and raeped and/or executed if it's not true" would provoke.

If it's illegal under US law then that's retarded and the fault of US law, not mine. You've yet to prove that cybersex with a minor automatically demands child grooming (as in convincing them to have real life sex with you, because cybersex IS NOT SEX), or what 'cybersex' actually is and what seperates it from regular and thematically mature roleplaying.

[/quote]

By putting in the two disclaimers you did exactly what I advised the OP to do, distance himself from the situation because peoples reactions to even minor perceptions of pedophilia are reactionary. That's all I'm suggesting he do.

I don't have to prove it makes sense for it to be potentially disastrous for everyone involved. Laws that don't make sense can get you tossed in jail just as fast as ones that do make sense. I'm stating the letter of the law, not what is philosophically correct. The two are not always the same in the USA. Under current US law I wouldn't be surprised if "mature roleplaying" where they were engaging in "theoretical sex" with each other would be considered "grooming" under US law if they can provide some sort record of it (video*, chat long, etc. really anything they can call up later) and the other players are over age.

*I realize the actual situation had no video

[Eris]

The reading comprehension is not strong with this one.

Yes games do include sexual themes but that would be ignoring the fact that it's illegal to sell those games to minors in the USA (yeah that law never gets enforced I'll admit) The sex in those games is, ostensibly, not supposed to be in the hands of anyone younger than 18-21.

Duckie meant here not games of the computer or similar kind, but rather freeform erotic roleplay, of the pen and paper RP kind. I would have thought this obvious from context, given that she's talking about cybering and all. There are no illegal sales involved. Now I'm not positive it's legal for a kid to talk with explicit language, but I'm fairly confident that it is not. Elsewise there would be a lot of 16 year olds in hot water for saying, "Man, I'd totally stick my dick in her pussy." And they do, even to adults.

Now, there are some differences between that and cybering, but my point is that sexual language itself is not prohibited to the best of my knowledge. Now, they are different forms of make believe. But, the burden is on you to prove that this constitutes something illegal. More on that later.

Ignoring that the biggest difference is that there isn't someone on the other side of your conversation trying to elicit sexual responses from you. Its the difference between having a conversation and the phone and having phone sex. There isn't a way to have phone sex and remove the sexual component. If he knew the other person was under age it is the literal definition of grooming.

This is really funny. You post a wikipedia link to child grooming, and what does it say? It says that the definition is "befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, in order to lower the child's inhibitions in preparation for sexual activity with the child, or exploitation." Not "trying to elicit sexual responses." Your own link refutes your point.

Or, mostly does. In those jurisdictions where cybering with a child by an adult is illegal, then perhaps. Although then it's not necessarily child grooming, but just the crime of cybering with a child. But this isn't universally the case, and furthermore has little bearing on the morality or acceptability of it, which is what Duckie is arguing. We know that the law is backassward, and Duckie has already noted that she is thinking about a hypothetical state where the laws are reasonable.

Furthermore, if you're arguing about the legality, why are you just spouting off your mouth about what "must be" or "obviously is" grooming? Go find the law in question and quote it for us. Put up or shut up. I dare you to go through US legal code, the actual legal code or reputable summaries of it not just wikipedia, and show me where it says this is child grooming. I'm not convinced you can do that.

EDIT: You would have to prove "intent" to prove grooming but Blizzard wouldn't wait for that to saddle anyone associated with the issue with a ban.

So what? What do Blizzard's policies have anything to do with what Duckie is talking about, that is, the acceptability of minor-adult cyber sessions? This is at best tangential to her point.

Honestly, this keeps happening. You talk about concerning yourself just about the law, although doing a poor job of it, but if so, why are you arguing with duckie? She has explicitly concerned herself, primarily, with the fact that the law in this context is ridiculous, not with the minutiae of whether or not it's illegal. If you, as you say, are genuinely interested only in what the law says, then the conversation is going like this:

Duckie: This law is stupid. It should be changed, if it's allowing this kind of thing.
Todeswind: But it's illegal!
Duckie: What? I'm saying that it's not a good law, for reason A, B, and C.
Todeswind: But here's why it's illegal!

At best, you're talking past each other.

That you felt a need to write two disclaimers to distance yourself from the act of engaging in cyber sex with a minor is a measure of how utterly creepy the act of engaging in cyber sex with a minor is if you are aware they are underage. I'm actually not arguing one way or the other on the morality, the morality doesn't matter. It's illegal under US law at both state and federal levels. It's more than enough for an account ban of anyone aware of it.

You're poorly generalising. She's distancing herself because (a) she (rightly) thinks that people are going to be all over her cases for the merest whiff of defending a paedophile (although here it'd be an ephebophile, but oh well), and (b) she already said that in this case she thinks it's creepy, what with the 28&15 year olds. She also explicitly said there was minor-adult cybersex she found not creepy in the slightest. Like her example of the two people straddling the 17/18 divide.

And if morality doesn't matter, again, why are you arguing with her? That's always what she was talking about, and flagged it as so, if not as explicitly as I might have. I still think it was clear enough from context that the burden of not being a twit lies on those reading her posts.

And again, show me how it's illegal. And specifically, what parts of this are illegal, and refer to both state and federal codes now that you've gone that far. And don't say just child grooming, since it's not clear that is what went on here. Show me that it was illegal for them to cyber. Or if you want to use child grooming still, show precisely how this counts, referring to the relevant legal definitions, not your intuition or wikipedia.

I don't have to prove it makes sense for it to be potentially disastrous for everyone involved. Laws that don't make sense can get you tossed in jail just as fast as ones that do make sense. I'm stating the letter of the law, not what is philosophically correct. The two are not always the same in the USA. Under current US law I wouldn't be surprised if "mature roleplaying" where they were engaging in "theoretical sex" with each other would be considered "grooming" under US law if they can provide some sort record of it (video*, chat long, etc. really anything they can call up later) and the other players are over age.

*I realize the actual situation had no video

So, I agree that laws don't have to make sense to apply. Fortunate for Duckie that she was talking about the appropriateness of the laws, and in some cases the advisability of whether or not people like those in the OP should actually cyber. Why are you arguing with her again?

And wait, you are making all these claims about child grooming without knowing whether or not erotic RP counts as sexual activity or not, legally? You mean you were just making stuff up based on your intuitions all this time? Colour me shocked.

[Todeswind]

if you're arguing about the legality, why are you just spouting off your mouth about what "must be" or "obviously is" grooming? Go find the law in question and quote it for us. Put up or shut up. I dare you to go through US legal code, the actual legal code or reputable summaries of it not just wikipedia, and show me where it says this is child grooming. I'm not convinced you can do that.

Fair Enough.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

§ 3509. Child victims’ and child witnesses’ rights

....
(8) the term “sexual abuse” includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in sexually explicit conduct, or the rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children;

(9) the term “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including sexual contact in the manner of genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal contact, whether between persons of the same or of opposite sex; sexual contact means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire of any person;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person or animal; or
(E) sadistic or masochistic abuse;....

It is considered sexual abuse for any adult to knowingly allow a minor to participate in any act that "assists the other person to engage in sexually explicit conduct" which includes "masturbation," presumably both of them could claim not to have masturbated but you'll pardon me if that stretches credulity.

EDIT: Still looking for the Internet Luring and Grooming Laws, the legal terms must be slightly different.