[RainDog]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you go on holiday with your girlfriend, who is exactly one day younger than you, to California, our most liberal state, and probably our most sexually liberated. The legal age of consent for sex in California is 18, and there is no defense to prosecution based on the relative age of the participants. So, under California law, if you and your girlfriend have sex one minute before midnight on your 18th birthday, while she is still 17, then you have committed a felony and can be sent to prison for several years. Wait one minute before inserting, and it's perfectly legal.

I don't agree with a lot of laws, but laws tend to have bright lines rather than leave their interpretation up to individuals. Sort of like poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong! At MOST you are guilty of a misdemeanor and could recieve at MOST a $2,000 fine. However, it's likely that your punishment would be on the very low side seeing that the particular offense rides the border of this controversial law. And it seems if you're married then feel free to satisfy your underage urges...EGAD!:

261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the
perpetrator, if the person is a minor.

For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person
under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person
who is at least 18 years of age.

(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years
older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than
the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

(d) Any person over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age
is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished
by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an
adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in
violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the
following amounts:

(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).

(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable
for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is
liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000).


This is CA. Most states actually have an age of consent of 16 (much more lenient than the supposedly liberal state you used for an example). There are even a few states that "circumstantially" go as low as 14. And "bright lines" my arse. Most laws are as grey as my great-granmammie's bobby pin laden hair. As for the poker comparison, optimal strategy is more grey than most people contend.

Anyhow, now that I've debunked made up laws, I'd like to say that all this "little kids shouldn't be playing online poker" malarky is 100% unjustified. People ultimately have to lookout for their own well being in these situations. And if a 16-yr old is capable of making big bucks playing online, they have NO moral responsibilty to a bunch of old farts worried that their precious ILLEGAL online gambling enterprise could come to an end. You are both breaking laws; the only difference is that the "minor" is breaking site regulations. This matter is between them and the site. While the site is perfectly justified in taking the cash, they won't necessarily do so as it may or may not be in their best interest.

As for the government, if they are going to end internet gambling in the U.S. there is little to be gained by disencouraging youths on twoplustwo. The gvn'mt will always find examples of the evil inherent in gambling if they decide to pursue its demise on their holy chariot. Unless, of course, the WTO comes to our defense on its own mighty steed.

For the argument that these Poor Poor kids are getting themselves in trouble and us noble poker players have a responsibility to discourage that. Well...Some are, some aren't. Same goes for the 18+ population. By being a winning player (or even a losing one), you have definetly took some irresponsible individual's money and now the poor sap has lost his/her home, car, husband/wife, kids, etc.

People will gamble. If you are going to continue to pursue this as a career or hobby, then you have to get over the Judeo-Christian guilt construct that has been instilled in your society.

I for one agree that most minors may be more likely to lose money than older players, but for that reason I actually want them here. Silly me...

If anyone has a responsibility for these pups it's their parents. Let their parents help them determine the EV of internet poker, the same as alcohol, drugs, sex, and anything else.

But despite my defense of the OP and young players in general, I must contend that the OP is a bit foolish (especially for an AAA level student or whatever) for not researching sites to find those that aren't as likely to request identity proof by fax (such as Prima and Cryptologic sites).

Nuf' said.