Teen found after fleeing to hook up with 42-year-old woman he met in Warcraft

Discuss

72 Responses to “Teen found after fleeing to hook up with 42-year-old woman he met in Warcraft”

  1. Anonymous says:

    @scifijazznik i was really close to spitting coffee all over my computer there

  2. John Napsterista says:

    Texas punishing a woman for consensual, legal sex she had abroad -on the basis that she hatched the idea in Texas? Sounds a little like Saudi Arabia punishing a woman for consensual, legal sex she traveled to the United States to have. But then again, the differences between Texas and Saudi Arabia are fast losing ground to the similarities.

    • Architexas says:

      Texas – along with many other states – has laws that make it illegal to travel to another country in order to engage in sexual acts with minors. They’re put in place to prevent people from traveling to places where child prostitution is the norm. And I have a hunch you don’t live in Texas or are too terribly familiar with it to be asserting such ridiculous opinions. Why don’t you just go ahead and Godwin the conversation while you’re at it?

      • donopolis says:

        I live in TX and it is bizarre here. The comparison is a valid one…she left in order to have consensual sex…this is not the same as underage prostitution and should clearly not be treated as such…She also states that she was under the impression that he was 20.

        all things considered, roles reversed a man would have been in sooo much more trouble…and it would be equally wrong.

      • John Napsterista says:

        Texas is seeking to punish someone for conduct –legal, consensual conduct –which they engaged in in another country. While the applicable Texas laws may have been enacted in order to combat child prostitution (a laudable goal) they are not being used in this to case to combat child prostitution. They’re being utilized to punish private conduct which another sovereign state –one which by nearly every societal measure is widely regarded as far more civilized than Texas –has deemed to be fine. So yeah, eff the Texas Moral Police.

      • IronEdithKidd says:

        So Texas is asserting that it’s sovereignty extends to all other nations in the world? And you’re totally OK with that? I double-dog dare you to travel to Amsterdam and blog/tweet about your visit to a hash bar.

        • Anonymous says:

          I was stating a fact about Texas’s laws and why she was arrested, not defending the police’s decision to arrest her. I’m not saying that Texas can or should assert their domain in the rest of the world. They didn’t here, in fact. They arrested the woman when she returned to Texas because she committed a felony. But many states and countries, both on North American soil and elsewhere prosecute their citizens for things that take place abroad, notably for traveling in order to have sex with a minor. American citizens have been extradited from foreign countries where they went in order to engage in sex with minors.

          And yes, I’ve been to Amsterdam, smoked the pot, done the shrooms, talked about it publicly and in print. I’ve also been to Saudi Arabia, so the comparison between the freedoms I enjoy as an American who happens to live in a conservative state – despite my own liberal leanings – struck me as ridiculous, and I voiced my opinion.

          Do I think it’s ridiculous that they arrested her? Yes. I never said I agreed with the arrest.

          • leereyno says:

            My understanding is that Americans who travel abroad to have sex with someone under the age of 16 are subject to federal prosecution. This guy was 16, so the feds aren’t going to be looking at her. I don’t see as how the state of Texas has any standing in this case. This is political posturing, nothing more. A case of arresting someone for doing something that the tyranny of the majority finds objectionable and then crafting a legalistic justification for it after the fact.

    • princeminski says:

      Ooh, good one! (I live in Amarillo, so…well, ’nuff said.)

  3. earthmann says:

    “Would things have been handled differently if genders/ages were reversed?”

    Are we really going to ask this question every time an older female boinks a young male?

    Here is a good general rule: if a male and a female copulate, the male gets a high five.

  4. TheOceaneer says:

    Is it sad and weird that I was angry with the article for not stating what their respective races and classes were?

    I bet she’s a Blood Elf. Those guys are pervs.

  5. Snakefarmer says:

    All I have to say is, I wish online gaming was around when I was 16! All those hours I spent playing video games could have actually led to something.

  6. ronton says:

    I don’t see how Texas can justify arresting her upon her return. As far as I can tell from the story, they did not engage in sex, nor did she kidnap him. Even if she had, it took place in another country.

  7. Anonymous says:

    when you lose your virginity at 14, you’re pretty much a man at 16 anyways, so he probably knew what he was in for. I mean he was smart enough to get to toronto

  8. franko says:

    i read this story elsewhere, and i’m surprised nobody has mentioned how overblown this is. for one thing, he didn’t “run away”, and the parents KNEW about this relationship. the woman flew to meet him, he asked his parents if he could go meet her at her hotel, and they said “no,” so he snuck out to meet her anyway. i mean, when i was 16 i would have done the same thing, ffs.

    and i also second the call for wanting to know their race and class. odds on they are hordies. : P

    • Gloria says:

      “i mean, when i was 16 i would have done the same thing, ffs.”

      You know, from an argument POV, that’s not much. Are you the international moral compass? If people hear that franko would have done it when HE was sixteen, would they say “Oh, then that’s different”?

      There are plenty of things I might have done or would have done at that age, but it doesn’t change the fact that I also think I was much more stupid at sixteen.

      • franko says:

        gloria, i wasn’t stating that from a “i’m a moral compass, follow me” sort of standpoint, but EXACTLY from a “i did dumb things when i was 16, this is a dumb thing, too” standpoint.

      • cornballer says:

        “There are plenty of things I might have done or would have done at that age, but it doesn’t change the fact that I also think I was much more stupid at sixteen.”

        And you’re probably smarter now because of those “stupid” decisions you made back then, correct? That’s why there is the saying, “If I knew then, what I know now.” Our life experiences are what make up the life lived thereafter.

        I’m not trying to be snarky, but I think that the kid was a liar and she was fooled. Lesson(s) learned. He can chock that one up as “stupid” and learn that lying is bad and she can learn to have people send her proof of age before flying to another country for sex.

        • Gloria says:

          “And you’re probably smarter now because of those ‘stupid’ decisions you made back then, correct?”

          No … I’m smarter because I was smart enough in the first place to learn from them. Making those decisions, full-stop, does not make me automatically smarter.

          You’re trying to justify what he’s done now by an undetermined pay-off in the future. *Will* he learn from this? Who knows? What if he doesn’t? I’m not relying on *this* outcome either, but I’m pointing out that it’s just as likely as you implying that he’ll learn from it.

          My point is saying you would have done something too at a certain age doesn’t really change the nature of that mistake/accomplishment.

          I could have done all kinds of things at various ages — doesn’t mean they were any less stupid (or conversely, smart). They were stupid when I was 16, they would have been stupid when I was 6, and they will be stupid if I do them when I’m 46. Just because I realize it later doesn’t change the fact.

          Lying to a woman and then disobeying his parents’ wishes to meet with her … it’s sort of a “mistake”, in the sense that he really shouldn’t have done it, but it’s a pretty deliberate one.

  9. Anonymous says:

    For those confused about the age of concent in Canada, I believe it actually depends on what province you are in.

  10. dofnup says:

    This reminds me of the South Park episode where Ike gets involved with his kindergarten teacher, and when Kyle goes to the police, they’re all “Wait, wait, it’s a FEMALE teacher having sex with a MALE student? … niiice!” and they refuse to do anything.

  11. Teller says:

    Of course there’s a difference.
    Dirty old man is a crappy sobriquet and cougar’s pretty cool.

  12. joelfreeman says:

    I don’t care what 42 year old WOW women do as long as it is legal. It’s none of my business. The real story here is why did the newspaper publish a picture of the 16 year old? If he is such an innocent minor why are you punishing him for life by plastering his image all over the media? For what possible reason except to sell a few more ads?

    • Anonymous says:

      A very good question.

      Also, I thought the Texas laws were to prevent people from taking a kid out of Texas and overseas where it is legal to boink them.

      Sadly if this were a 42 year old man and a 16 year old girl it would be a lot more likely that she was never going to see 17.

  13. Gloria says:

    No, the “close-in-age exception” is not like that.

    See Wiki:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Canada

    A youth of twelve or thirteen can consent to sexual activity with an individual no more than two years older than them. A fourteen- or fifteen-year-old can consent to sexual activity with a partner who is no more than five years older than them.

    Funny — even the Department of Justice hasn’t updated their Age of Consent FAQ from 2005. Good job.

    GUYS! Google responsibly!

  14. Anonymous says:

    yes.

    this has been another edition of short answers to obvious questions.

  15. Anonymous says:

    I don’t know what the legal age of consent is in Ontario, but if 16 is it then there isn’t anything to say here. I’m not sure what “escape in her rental car” means exactly. Was he attempting to leave home? If so then that is something that should be addressed far more than their sexual relationship.

    Where I come from a 16 year old having sex is what we call “High School.” The fact that he found a 42 year old woman to have it with is the only thing that is in any way exceptional about this situation. Had she been 25 years younger then this wouldn’t even be news. Show me a 16 and 17 year old who are having sex and I’ll show you a couple of average teenagers. I’m 38 and that is how things were when I was that age. I doubt things have changed since then.

  16. Brainspore says:

    I liked “Harold and Maude” but that would have been a downright creepy movie if the genders/ages had been reversed. What’s the legal age of consent in Canada?

  17. Anonymous says:

    “Would things have been handled differently if genders/ages were reversed?”

    Is the Pope German?

  18. Thalia says:

    The US Code is not gender specific: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2423.htm

    To quote:

    (b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.— A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

    (f) Definition.— As used in this section, the term “illicit sexual conduct” means
    (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or

    109A, to be a completist: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_109A.html

    Weirdly, 109A is 16 and under. So it is not clear.

    • tizroc says:

      Thalia, No one is saying the LAW discriminates. Everyone so far has said that the moray and folkways of the society choose to enforce the law/or minimize the punishment based upon sexual distinctions based on those social principles.

      In other words, they aren’t saying that the law beats the men down. They are saying that the people in the law enforcement and judicial system are beating the men down disproportionately to the punishment that a woman would receive in the same position. As someone said earlier, it is the dirty old men are creepy sexual abusers but cougars are cool. There isn’t a consistent application of the law across the sexual spectrum.

  19. mgfarrelly says:

    If this was a 42 year old man and a 16 year old girl there’d be all kind of flying news graphic, hyperbolic language and calls for stringent new laws to ban World of Warcraft to protect “THE CHILDREN!”

    Sounds like the cops are handling it with sense and decency. Sad that that is a notable thing.

  20. slywy says:

    Sleeping in Seattle was creepy, not cute, for that very reason (minus the age issue).

  21. slywy says:

    Sleepless in Seattle, of course.

  22. Nadreck says:

    Hmm, so Mom went Jurisdiction Shopping!

    Anyway, of course it should be treated differently if it was a girl. Girls are delicate, fragile, hot-house orchids whose brains will explode (kinda like all those computers that Captain Kirk paradoxes to death) if exposed to sex. Guys are just Hound Dogs. Both Feminists and Fundamentalists are agreed on this Received Truth. (Well, recently anyway. In Victorian times the Fundies used to believe the exact opposite: unlike today’s New Wave Traditionalists.)

    If some churl should attempt to contradict, or even investigate, this with boring studies (perhaps even leading to shudder facts), well, they’ll just be told to “Shut the F**k up” and have their grants removed by unanimous consensus across the political spectrum. The current vacuum in knowledge of human sexual behaviour is just too exploitable a commodity for any faction to risk a threat to it.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Follow-up story posted today states that the woman was arrested when she went back to the U.S.

    (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/texas-woman-arrested-in-ontario-internet-luring-case/article1420501/)

  24. Rune says:

    Uh, the situation is being handled a little different in Texas: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6800582.html

  25. mbaren says:

    The age of consent in Ontario is 16. It’s all creepy and such, but legal, at least in Canada.

    However, this is only part of the story, as the woman was arrested upon her return to Texas: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/746685–texas-woman-who-had-tryst-with-barrie-teen-arrested-in-houston?bn=1

  26. RedMonkey says:

    First age of consent is 16 here, which frankly is pretty sensible if I remember my youth correctly;

    Second, it was considered creepy, but not illegal;

    Third, she was arrested upon returning to Houston for luring a minor (the age of consent in Texas is 17).
    see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/texas-woman-arrested-in-ontario-internet-luring-case/article1420501/

  27. Joe in Australia says:

    Lots of countries have laws designed to prevent “sex tourism”. It typically involves older men traveling to countries where they can find child prostitutes, but I can’t see how you could distinguish this case without making those laws ineffective. I can just imagine some pervert saying “Yes, s/he was quite young, but we met online and fell in love …”

  28. ash1300 says:

    The legal age of consent in Canada is 16.

    Or at least I think it is. There was a bill working its way through Parlaiment that raised it from 14 to 16, which I believe has become law.

    I have a lawyer friend who always used to reply “14″ when some one came up to him and said “I have a legal question for you.”

  29. Anonymous says:

    yes.
    Response would have been different if gender were reversed – as it well should.
    The opposite would have been very alarming indeed.

    Some gender differences ARE innate and don’t really want to fit into the system of gender equality we strive for as a society.

    Sexual attitudes morph and change over time – and that’s a good thing. So do traditional gender roles – but only to a degree. We constantly refine what is allowed/disallowed in gender roles. Young boys (or males in general) actively seeking sexual opportunities is not yet frowned upon in our society.

  30. Thalia says:

    Age of consent in Ontario is 14, unless there is a relationship of trust or dependency. So this was legal. Whether or not it was creepy depends entirely on your personal perspective.

  31. Ashke says:

    The age of consent is 16 in Canada, so I very much doubt law enforcement would have handled it differently if it had been a 16 year old girl. There’s a little wiggle room when it comes to “exploitive” relationships, but it’s pretty clear cut.

  32. benher says:

    I’m sorry, I just don’t feel even the slightest iota of outrage.

    When I was a 16 year old lad (insert age joke here) this was my perpetual fantasy. Hell, it was the dream of every male in my high school class.

    18 isn’t some magical adult age (most kids are driving, smoking, and boinking by then) any more than 21 is some magical alcohol responsibility age.

  33. Anonymous says:

    HMM….so if she HADN’T returned to her children in Texas she wouldn’t have been arrested.

  34. abstract_reg says:

    Ok, I’m young and was 16 when the new laws came in to effect. 16 is the age of consent in this case. The legal age of consent if 14 but that only works if both are minors. If one is an adult, that is 18 and up, then the legal age goes to 16. They changed it because parents were charging 14 year old boys for “statutory raping” their daughters.

    • Avram / Moderator says:

      So from what you’re telling us, abstract_reg, if a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old start dating in Canada, their sex life starts out as legal, becomes illegal the next year (when they’re 15 and 18), and then is legal again the year after that (16 and 19).

      • Nadreck says:

        Thats right! It doesn’t have to make sense because it’s the law. The Porn laws here make no sense either as it’s illegal to depict legal activities.

      • abstract_reg says:

        Yes. (But the police probably wouldn’t do anything about it in that year. And there is a good chance a judge would just laugh and throw out the case.)

  35. RedShirt77 says:

    As long as we are all in agreement.

  36. scifijazznik says:

    Does anyone know the age of consent in Canada?

  37. Xopher says:

    Boys don’t get pregnant. Girls do. That’s the only thing that would rationally justify treating the cases differently depending on which sex is older.

    It’s clear, however, that the pregnancy issue is NOT the basis on which the cases are treated differently: a teenage boy with an older woman is high-fived, but a teenage boy with an older man is a poor helpless victim, and the man a horrible predator.

    I’d like to point out that the age difference is not the relevant factor here. The absolute age of the younger person is the key. 14 and 44? Punish the 44. 20 and 50? Mind your own damn business.

    • Brainspore says:

      Pregnancy is one reason our societal standards are a little lopsided but another factor is the physical inequality of the sexes. An average 42-year-old man could easily overpower most 16-year-old girls, but few 42-year-old women could force a healthy 16-year-old boy to have sex against his will. This makes the issue of “consent” less ambiguous.

  38. Anonymous says:

    “A case of arresting someone for doing something that the tyranny of the majority finds objectionable”

    That is the definition of “the law”, in case you’re just realising it now.

  39. odejoy says:

    This is the part I don’t understand:

    As reported in [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/texas-woman-arrested-in-ontario-internet-luring-case/article1420501/ ]

    “Barrie police say the teenager was unharmed and was later returned to his parents, and while Ms. Price was questioned, she was released after they concluded she hadn’t broken any Canadian law.”

    …….

    So, she did not break any law in the country in which the said crime was committed. So how come this is still a crime?

    It sounds to me the same as Saudi Arabia lashing a man who goes there, for having drunk beer while the said man was in the USA.

    If no crime was committed as per the rules in the jurisdiction where it was committed, then why is it “legally” or “logically” still a crime.

    Hell, for all we know, the parents of that teen are not pressing any charges either. It is only the self-righteous Texass morons who are turning it into a crime… WTF?

    Someone care to school me on this?

  40. dainel says:

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6800582.html

    she tried the same thing last year, and the parents warned her that he was too young. I guess she didn’t wait long enough. Try again next year.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Hey – Somehow I sense a marketing opportunity here.

    This is proof that playing really geeky computer games can get you laid!

  42. Anonymous says:

    It seems quite normal, in today’s society that he should do that. And he was 16, after all, hardly a child.

  43. Anonymous says:

    a note about the charges….
    She is not being charged for what happened in Canada.

    She is being charged for the crime she committed in Texas.

    She solicited sex from a minor. She could be arrested and convicted without ever going to Canada or meeting the kid in person. The offense was the sexually explicit chats.

    She was released because the police believed the story about her thinking he was 20, not 16. This means it was not a crime on her part.

    An attempt to commit a criminal act is many times punishable as the same or a lesser crime even if it is not completed.

    The authorities in Texas handled this legally and responsibly.

  44. blueelm says:

    Yes. It is creepy. The lady sounds insane. But if that’s the age of consent there then it is not illegal.

    Personally, yes, I find it completely weird and gross. I hope her family is dealing with it well enough.

  45. Anonymous says:

    addition to my previous comments regarding her crime…..

    Regarding the law about travelling for illicit sex…

    Note that the US law only applies to the US (states, territories, and sea ways). They do not pursue charges against anyone outside their jurisdiction. Even those that visit 7 y/o Thai children. There are organizations that do however work with other countries to help combat sexual issues considered illegal (ie: Thailand).

  46. Anonymous says:

    #12 has it right so far as age of consent is concerned

  47. phlavor says:

    It would have been handled differently in Florida. I used to look at the registered sex offender maps quite a bit as I had a son there whose mother moved around a lot. I was surprised that more than a quarter were women and almost all of them were consensual sex with a minor charges.

  48. Shane says:

    chortle @ scifijazznik

    xeni, you (and a couple other posters) are 100% correct. Reverse the genders and the older man is, and deservedly so, in for a world of hurt.

    All you have to do is examine any of the teacher/rapist cases where the 25/30/40 year old female teacher has relations w/ their 8th grade male student and the subsequent light (if any) sentences to see the huge gulf in social standards.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, but this is a little different. Not that I am defending it, but it is different. In the case of the teacher/student relationships, a teacher is in a position of authority over the minor student. That’s an entirely different kettle of fish from what we have here. I still don’t think that any 42 year old/16 year old pairing is going to work out, simply because of the maturity levels involved. A 16 year old boy/girl has not developed enough to enter into the kind of relationship a 42 year old person would want to have.

      Another thought is that before the industrial age, people thought nothing of pairing a 30-40 year old man with a 15 year old girl. Interesting how times change, isn’t it?

  49. Nadreck says:

    I wonder how it would have been covered if he’d been sneaking out to see his 42 year-old gay on-line lover?

  50. mccrum says:

    Older female or older male, it’s equally creepy. At age 42, I have to wonder if she has a kid who’s 16 or even older. One has to think that would have weirded her out at some point.

Leave a Reply