19 and 16 year old. RCW 9.68A.090

[mistoffolees]

My point is that it will be hard to prove "immoral purposes" for something that is not illegal. It's just not making any sense that a guy can legally have sex with a girl, but can not sext to her.

And you would be wrong. Read the Montoyo appeal information I gave you. Montoyo was convicted (and the conviction was upheld on appeal) for violation of the statute in question here. And not a single thing that Montoyo did was illegal - but the court ruled (affirmed on appeal) that it met the legal standards of 'immoral purposes'.

There is absolutely no justification for your assertion that you can't prove immoral purposes unless something is illegal. Montoyo shoots that argument down - completely.

 

[Alex1176]

And you would be wrong. Read the Montoyo appeal information I gave you. Montoyo was convicted (and the conviction was upheld on appeal) for violation of the statute in question here. And not a single thing that Montoyo did was illegal - but the court ruled (affirmed on appeal) that it met the legal standards of 'immoral purposes'.

There is absolutely no justification for your assertion that you can't prove immoral purposes unless something is illegal. Montoyo shoots that argument down - completely.

I believe that the age of the children played a significant part in this story. The fact is that no one of the children reached the age of consent. And any sexual mess with minors beyond the age of consent is illegal. "Tight hug" can be seen as sexual. When people of the opposite sex (without sexual relationship) hug each other, they usually separate their bottom parts, to prevent contact of genitals.

 

[mistoffolees]

I believe that the age of the children played a significant part in this story. The fact is that no one of the children reached the age of consent. And any sexual mess with minors beyond the age of consent is illegal. "Tight hug" can be seen as sexual. When people of the opposite sex (without sexual relationship) hug each other, they usually separate their bottom parts, to prevent contact of genitals.

Sorry, but Montoyo is clear. Something does not have to be illegal to have immoral purposes. Your simply repeating the same arguments isn't going to change the appeals court decision.