Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
I understand your point. It boils down to "if you have any doubt, refuse." Means you have to say "no" because you are unsure, or if you think they have a reasonable chance to be too "potted" to make a clear decision.

That's ethics, not law. You are supposed to refrain if the other person is not capable of participating in the tango/no tango decision equitably.
When can one ever be 100% sure? I can not tell the difference between someone who is 15 and even 18 with 100% accuracy (not relevant to me as due to me age 25 would be the absolute floor) and if you're 18 that is important. Since the answer to the question "how old are you?" is not enough this approach is going to be flawed.

It was not just ethics, it was also law - participating is one facet with the other ones being the ability of the other party to cry "rape" and you can say no it wasn't... and that's about it.

Given the risk can be a 14 year prison sentence along with all the fun that involves, even a very low risk is one people would like to mitigate.

To prevent teenage pregnancies contraception can be given out to very young teenagers. This pragmatic approach has proven to be much better than a "morally this shouldn't be required". I would like something equally pragmatic in these cases - personally I'd like clubs when they say 18+ to have the legal blowback if under 18s are in there - then they'd properly check IDs rather than letting in any female who is half dressed.