1) What do you think the age of consent should be? — Tree Falls

When they're old enough. And if that answer's not good enough, then tell me, if a heap is reduced by a single grain at a time, at what exact point does it cease to be considered a heap?

In the UK, the age of consent is sixteen, and I don't have any major issues with that.

2) Do you think my brother's behavior is wrong? — Tree Falls

In what respect would it be wrong, and why? Is it wrong to break the law? Is it wrong for a male in his forties to have sex with a sixteen-year-old female? Yes, no, and maybe. It's complicated. One should strive to avoid prejudice and oversimplification in such matters. I'm not convinced that you've succeeded in doing so.

3) Should our family friends be told about my brother? — Tree Falls

If it's for the best, then yes. But I'm not convinced that it would be, although I understand your concern and the dilemma which you describe. If I were in your shoes, I would think about how much I trust my brother to do the right thing, and what the consequences could be. Whether the law is right or wrong, breaking it could have serious consequences. My advice would be for you to talk to your brother and emphasise the aforementioned before doing anything rash.

4) If your answer to questions 2 and 3 are yes, what in general am I ethically obligated to do? I am thinking above and beyond notifying our friends. Should I create a website solely devoted to my brother's behavior and engage in SEO so that his name will be a top 10 hit if someone googles him?

I don't relish being Javert in this situation, but it struck me that if I should notify our friends about my brother's behavior, what do I owe everyone else? Our friends' daughter is not intrinsically more valuable in the abstract than any other girl. So if I act to protect her, shouldn't I attempt to protect other girls from my brother since the cost to myself would be minimal? — Tree Falls

You shouldn't act rashly, in a way which may ruin your brother's life, in anticipation of wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing, which might never actualise. You shouldn't try to be some kind of vigilante, unless you have very good reason to do so. Having a criminal record doesn't mean that one ought to lose one's right to privacy within the law. Subsequent to punishment by law, rehabilitation is the end goal.

I don't have evidence that he has sex with girls under 16, — Tree Falls

My questions for the forum:

1) What do you think the age of consent should be?
2) Do you think my brother's behavior is wrong?
3) Should our family friends be told about my brother?
4) If your answer to questions 2 and 3 are yes, what in general am I ethically obligated to do? I am thinking above and beyond notifying our friends. Should I create a website solely devoted to my brother's behavior and engage in SEO so that his name will be a top 10 hit if someone googles him? — Tree Falls

1) In an ideal world the age of consent would be individualised.
2) It's only wrong if his 'partner' is not capable of making an informed choice; or if he uses deceit of any kind, such as lying about feelings, or making promises he has no intention of following through.
3) Only if you are a sneeking little gossip. A person's private life ought to be private. Would you be happy to divulge all your own personal acts of self abuse, or sexual peculiarities? This is YOUR brother is it not? Do you not have a duty of loyalty?
4) I suggest you reflect on the fact that you might be jealous of your brother's sexuality. Either emulate it or admire it. Don't be a sneeky git.

1) What do you think the age of consent should be?
2) Do you think my brother's behavior is wrong?
3) Should our family friends be told about my brother?
4) If your answer to questions 2 and 3 are yes, what in general am I ethically obligated to do? I am thinking above and beyond notifying our friends. Should I create a website solely devoted to my brother's behavior and engage in SEO so that his name will be a top 10 hit if someone googles him?

I don't relish being Javert in this situation, but it struck me that if I should notify our friends about my brother's behavior, what do I owe everyone else? Our friends' daughter is not intrinsically more valuable in the abstract than any other girl. So if I act to protect her, shouldn't I attempt to protect other girls from my brother since the cost to myself would be minimal? — Tree Falls

1) Consent to what, exactly? Usually for sexual intercourse. Interesting that most societies, for very different reasons, hold that young females cannot consent.
2) Yes. It's rape. It may not be defined by statute where he practices, but it's rape none-the-less.
3) In the way of a "word to the wise," yes. If it's my sixteen-year-old, then maybe I kill him. How does everyone feel about it then?
4) The right thing. He's not harmless. And perhaps he's good at denial and rationalization. But here's a clue, got from Scott Peck's People of the Lie: a sign of an evil person is confusion on your part as to how to understand what they're doing and why.

3) Only if you are a sneeking little gossip. A person's private life ought to be private. Would you be happy to divulge all your own personal acts of self abuse, or sexual peculiarities? This is YOUR brother is it not? Do you not have a duty of loyalty? — charleton

Really? The point is that the brother's practices are not private. And you may have a duty of loyalty, but in terms of love and forgiveness, not in terms of ignoring his actions to the peril of others. And don't forget civil and criminal notions of accessory-before-the-fact.

2) Yes. It's rape. It may not be defined by statute where he practices, but it's rape none-the-less. — tim wood

Hogwash. You don't know enough to know whether or not it was rape. You don't know whether or not there was mutual consent. All we have been told was that his brother was arrested twice overseas, since the age of consent in the area where he lived was 18, and that he received a slap on the wrist both times.

Have you paused to consider why he might have been "let off with a slap on the wrist"? Perhaps there was insufficient evidence, and the case fell apart. It's not even clear if it went to court, let alone whether there was any conviction.

3) In the way of a "word to the wise," yes. If it's my sixteen-year-old, then maybe I kill him. How does everyone feel about it then? — tim wood

It's not your sixteen-year-old, so that's an irrelevance. It's not all about feelings, and in fact feelings should be discouraged to an extent. No law should be founded, or advice given or taken, when the mind is clouded in the mist of passion or fury.

He's not harmless. And perhaps he's good at denial and rationalization. — tim wood

That's not knowledge, that's speculation.

4) The right thing. — tim wood

If concluded from speculation like that above, then your conclusion holds no weight. Making such publications would do the person harm, so you're going to need more than speculation to justify that act.

Really? The point is that the brother's practices are not private. And you may have a duty of loyalty, but in terms of love and forgiveness, not in terms of ignoring his actions to the peril of others. And don't forget civil and criminal notions of accessory-before-the-fact. — tim wood

He's your brother! FFS
You duty to family is higher that the state.
And you have no evidence of illegality as you said.

accessory-before-the-fact. — tim wood

Nonsense terminology. You are not procuring, not even holding the condoms.

1) What do you think the age of consent should be?
2) Do you think my brother's behavior is wrong?
3) Should our family friends be told about my brother?
4) If your answer to questions 2 and 3 are yes, what in general am I ethically obligated to do? I am thinking above and beyond notifying our friends. Should I create a website solely devoted to my brother's behavior and engage in SEO so that his name will be a top 10 hit if someone googles him? — Tree Falls

Some people will see a clear open and shut case: He's 40, he's obviously abusing young women. Report. Punish. Tell everybody.

I do not like that approach.

1, A child physically old enough to perform sexually should be given appropriate information about sex and sexuality. Providing appropriate education doesn't mean they are then fair game for everyone who might want to have sex with them. One of the things that could be damaging about having sex "too soon" is not having a mature and trusted person (beside the sex partner) with whom to process the experience.

2. Sex, in itself, is not a bad thing. It is coercion and psychological manipulation that create problems. For instance, using crude force to make someone have sex with you is wrong, and so is manipulating people into having sex by threatening them: "If you don't have sex with me, I will kill myself." "If you don't have sex with me I'll tell everyone that you are a slut."

I don't know why your brother prefers to have sex with 16 year olds. But then, I don't know why gentlemen prefer blonds, or why some people like cats better than dogs. Is he avoiding a mature relationship with a woman his own age for some reason? And if he is, what on earth could you possibly do about it?

Your parents know about your brother. What can you add to their knowledge?

Why don't you talk to your brother about this?

Really? The point is that the brother's practices are not private. — tim wood

We know very little about his brother's practices. What is in the public domain, like an unspent criminal record, can legally be published, but that doesn't mean that it should be. It's possible that doing so will do more harm than good, and in this case, we simply don't know enough to justify taking that action. If he's so concerned about the daughter of his family's friend, then he should say something to those concerned in private. But making publications online or on social media is a step too far.

And you may have a duty of loyalty, but in terms of love and forgiveness, not in terms of ignoring his actions to the peril of others. — tim wood

What actions? Why are you speaking in present-tense instead of past-tense? Based on what we've been told, he has been arrested twice on suspicion of criminal sexual activity with a minor. Here in the UK, the alleged incident wouldn't in itself warrant an arrest, since by legal definition there would be no minors involved. Even assuming that these arrests had lead to a criminal prosecution, they would be past crimes, and in another country, with different laws. Does any of this mean that we know that he is an active rapist or something of the kind? No, of course not.

Supposing "Tree Falls" was a professional who had a mandated duty-to-report child abuse, rape, plans for murder, etc. Would loyalty to family trump the law in this case? (Many people who have a duty-to-report make it a practice to caution anyone about to unload confidential or confessional information to be careful, because they are mandated reporters.)

Hogwash. You don't know enough to know whether or not it was rape. You don't know whether or not there was mutual consent. — Sapientia

Let me educate you, in part, as to what rape is. In particular, if the girl is younger than the age of consent, then she cannot give consent: in a nutshell, that's what the age of consent is about. Whether or not she "gives consent" is irrelevant. Ask yourself why, in most cultures and societies, age-of-consent exists. Ask yourself why a middle-age male pursues girls.

3) In the way of a "word to the wise," yes. If it's my sixteen-year-old, then maybe I kill him. How does everyone feel about it then?
— tim wood

It's not your sixteen-year-old, so that's an irrelevance. It's not all about feelings, and in fact feelings should be discouraged to an extent. No law should be founded, or advice given or taken, when the mind is clouded in the mist of passion or fury. — Sapientia

You miss the point. The OP is concerned about what he should do. In my example I merely point out that the world of consequences may be larger than he has considered, and that he is part of that world as well. In short, he is well-advised to consider as much as he can. I'm not defending anything, rather suggesting that when an evil person acts, one consequence is to draw other people into confusion as to what to do, and what might happen, or should happen.

As to it not being my concern because it's not my daughter, are you kidding? How old are you? Have you never heard of community? You might argue about how much of a concern it should be, but an irrelevance? Now there's hogwash.

He's not harmless. And perhaps he's good at denial and rationalization.
— tim wood

That's not knowledge, that's speculation. — Sapientia

Agreed, but likely from the description. Of course we don't know if the OP is simply a creative school exercise.

4) The right thing.
— tim wood
If concluded from speculation like that above, then your conclusion holds no weight. Making such publications would do the person harm, so you're going to need more than speculation to justify that act. — Sapientia

Please make the case where "the right thing" requires particular justification. Please point out where I mentioned publication.

And pay attention to the logic of hypothetical propositions. My "conclusion" is that the OP should do the right thing. The only way it's false is if the it - the conclusion - was got from speculationand he shouldn't do the right thing.

Btw, as to facts, for the purposes of this thread, what the OP states are the "facts."

He's your brother! FFS
You duty to family is higher that the state.
And you have no evidence of illegality as you said. — charleton

What is "FFS"? Duty to family is not the superior duty in all cases. It may be in some cases. In any case, no duty requires anyone to do the wrong thing. I argue that love in spite of..., and forgiveness satisfy completely family loyalty in those cases where action is inappropriate. As to evidence of illegality, the OP makes clear there's history and a predilection. Either may inform obligation, certainly both do.

Btw, Antigone's wasn't a debt to family that was superior; it was a debt to the gods over the state.

I don't have evidence that he has sex with girls under 16, — Tree Falls

My I just draw attention to this sentence, for those moralists hiding their jealousy with scorn.

↪charleton Supposing "Tree Falls" was a professional who had a mandated duty-to-report child abuse, rape, plans for murder, etc. Would loyalty to family trump the law in this case? (Many people who have a duty-to-report make it a practice to caution anyone about to unload confidential or confessional information to be careful, because they are mandated reporters.) — Bitter Crank

I don't have evidence that he has sex with girls under 16, — Tree Falls

I think this just about covers it.

In a case where there was evidence, a professional would be bound to declare a conflict of interest and recuse himself.

As to evidence of illegality, the OP makes clear there's history and a predilection. — tim wood

A predilection to have sex. So what? That's 99% of the male population.

1, A child physically old enough to perform sexually should be given appropriate information about sex and sexuality. Providing appropriate education doesn't mean they are then fair game for everyone who might want to have sex with them. One of the things that could be damaging about having sex "too soon" is not having a mature and trusted person (beside the sex partner) with whom to process the experience. — Bitter Crank

Key here is the "child." In fact many public schools have moved sex education to elementary school. The point of the OP, as I hear it, is that the brother is a bad actor in ways that make him arguably a predator. That, and such things as addiction or outright criminal behaviour, redefine ordinary relationships. Most folks, and perhaps partially to their credit, fail to understand that. The bad guy,is a bad guy. The guy who does bad things, does bad things. It can be dangerous to overlook such things. Either way it's painful. But the bad guy/bad actor is at fault, is responsible. Everyone else, at least at the first cut, is a victim of the badness.

Let me educate you, in part, as to what rape is. In particular, if the girl is younger than the age of consent, then she cannot give consent: in a nutshell, that's what the age of consent is about. — tim wood

Depends on the jurisdiction. In the UK the age of consent is 16 but someone who's 14 or 15 can consent, in which case the crime is "sexual activity with a child".

Also, it seems strange to think that whether or not one is capable of consent depends on the legal age of consent. In Nigeria it's 11 and in Bahrain it's 21. So an 11 year old can consent in Nigeria but a 20 year old can't consent in Bahrain? Seems like mixing up consent as understood from a legal perspective and consent as understood from an everyday perspective.

And UK law doesn't even define an age of consent. It only defines consent as "a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice." It just also happens to be a crime if one person is under the age of 16 (although as mentioned before, not necessarily the crime of rape).

Let me educate you, in part, as to what rape is. In particular, if the girl is younger than the age of consent, then she cannot give consent: in a nutshell, that's what the age of consent is about. Whether or not she "gives consent" is irrelevant. Ask yourself why, in most cultures and societies, age-of-consent exists. Ask yourself why a middle-age male pursues girls. — tim wood

Preaching to the choir is not education, sonny Jim; it's a waste of time. The point that you appear to have missed is obviously whether or not it is factually correct, as opposed to correct in the law of a given nation, that anyone under the age of eighteen cannot give consent.

I understand perfectly well why we must have age-of-consent law (as I stated, I have no major issue with the age of consent law here in the UK, and I would hasten to add that I am of the view that there ought to be a similar law in every nation, which I believe there is) but that is beside the point.

Ask yourself why you make the assumptions you do. Ask yourself why you refer to a female under the age of eighteen as a "girl", when, if sixteen or over, in the UK, by law, she is old enough to consent to sex, consent to medical treatment, get a job, get married, have kids, join the forces, drive a moped, and so on, and, before long, vote in a general election. Does that describe a little girl or a young woman? I would say that it is a more befitting description of the latter.

You miss the point. The OP is concerned about what he should do. In my example I merely point out that the world of consequences may be larger than he has considered, and that he is part of that world as well. In short, he is well-advised to consider as much as he can. I'm not defending anything, rather suggesting that when an evil person acts, one consequence is to draw other people into confusion as to what to do, and what might happen, or should happen. — tim wood

No, I'm not missing the point, actually.

As to it not being my concern because it's not my daughter, are you kidding? How old are you? Have you never heard of community? You might argue about how much of a concern it should be, but an irrelevance? Now there's hogwash. — tim wood

No, I'm not kidding. It's simply and evidently not your daughter in the scenario under discussion. End of. Are you seriously going to reproach me for pointing that out? Okay, so, maybe you'd kill the guy. Maybe I would, too. But that's A) irrelevant and B) a terrible basis for any kind of justice system.

Agreed, but likely from the description. Of course we don't know if the OP is simply a creative school exercise. — tim wood

The description? Are you even trying to be impartial? What exactly are you including in your assessment? Because I'm not going to treat suspicions and speculation from this one guy in the same way as what he's told us about the facts.

Please make the case where "the right thing" requires particular justification. Please point out where I mentioned publication. — tim wood

Facepalm. Obviously I'm calling into question whether it's the right thing, not arguing that the right thing is the wrong thing, which would of course be self-defeating.

You didn't mention publication, but you didn't need to. The original poster implicitly raised the issue of publication when he mentioned making a website in his fourth point, and you responded to his fourth point by saying that it's the right thing. Now, if you didn't agree with that particular part, then it was your responsibility to have made that clear.

And pay attention to the logic of hypothetical propositions. My "conclusion" is that the OP should do the right thing. The only way it's false is if the it - the conclusion - was got from speculationand he shouldn't do the right thing. — tim wood

You said, "The right thing", in response to the original poster's fourth point, so I took you to be referring to the original poster's fourth point as the right thing. You didn't say, "Just do the right thing, whatever that may be!". If my interpretation was wrong, then you should have been clearer.

To be clear, my criticism was that if your conclusion that his fourth point amounts to doing the right thing, and if this is because of what we have agreed is speculation, then that is no grounds to rightly conclude that it's the right thing.

Alternatively, if you only meant to say, "Do the right thing!", then that's a vacuous comment, as that's precisely what the discussion's about.

Btw, as to facts, for the purposes of this thread, what the OP states are the "facts." — tim wood

No, that's not how it works, as some of what he states is quite clearly in the form of an opinion, suspicion, speculation; and some of what he states is in the form of someone reporting facts. This is a very important distinction. He doesn't have to explicitly state "this is a fact and that is a fact", but it is down to us to rightly make that interpretive distinction.

Telling the girl's parents your brother is a perv is the responsible thing to do if you really believe it's likely he's going to try to have sex with her. I'm not sure you do, but you'll have to weigh the evidence for yourself.

Broadcasting to the world that your brother is a dangerous sexual predator strikes me as reckless vigilantism. Your evidence is too limited for that, and if you do learn of specific violations, you need to go to law enforcement, not your keyboard.

As to evidence of illegality, the OP makes clear there's history and a predilection. — tim wood

This is very superficial and misleading. Here's a thought experiment for you: imagine that his brother had had sex with two females under the age of eighteen, as the original poster has suggested, but it took place in the UK. Now imagine that they were sixteen or over, which is quite possible - and remember, there's no evidence that his brother has slept with anyone under the age of sixteen. Hey presto! No illegality, unless further details implicate him in some sort of crime. So, why's it wrong? Is it wrong because it was in another country? Then why isn't it wrong here? Or, is it wrong here as well, despite not being against the law? Then, on what basis is it wrong? And, with this specific case in mind, if a sexual predilection is within the law, is it wrong?

Telling the girl's parents your brother is a perv is the responsible thing to do if you really believe it's likely he's going to try to have sex with her. I'm not sure you do, but you'll have to weigh the evidence for yourself.

Broadcasting to the world that your brother is a dangerous sexual predator strikes me as reckless vigilantism. Your evidence is too limited for that, and if you do learn of specific violations, you need to go to law enforcement, not your keyboard. — Hanover

(Y)

The point of the OP, as I hear it, is that the brother is a bad actor in ways that make him arguably a predator. That, and such things as addiction or outright criminal behaviour, redefine ordinary relationships. Most folks, and perhaps partially to their credit, fail to understand that. The bad guy,is a bad guy. The guy who does bad things, does bad things. It can be dangerous to overlook such things. Either way it's painful. But the bad guy/bad actor is at fault, is responsible. Everyone else, at least at the first cut, is a victim of the badness. — tim wood

The point of the above reply, as I hear it, is: "I've heard that this guy's a bad guy, so I'm going to assume that he's a bad guy. Guilty before proven innocent. Go ahead and warn people about this bad guy. That's the right thing to do because he's a bad guy and he'll probably try to rape your teenage girl."

God, if I ever end up in court for any reason, I hope someone like you is not on the jury.

Hey presto! No illegality, — Sapientia

Hey Mr. (Ms?) Wisdom: try reading the OP. Two arrests. Apparently no prison, but after the second arrest, apparently bad to stay. Twenty years sleeping with girls. Who knows, maybe a real woman once in a while. If you're arguing that 16-19 is an adult in any other sense than legal ability to consent in some jurisdictions, then I have to imagine you have experience either only with older people or only with younger people, because apparently you don't seems to realize they're different. A sexually experienced (100+) middle aged man who targets 16-19-year-olds is like a ranked professional boxer who fights high schools boys. Fair fight? Admirable? Healthy and beneficial to all concerned? Or just maybe something wrong. The brother and the family think something is wrong. Why second guess them? And like most nice people, they're not entirely sure what to do. We who know something about all of this can tell them. We tell them, "You're a victim. Your confusion is understandable. One sign of an evil person is that he creates confusion. Your difficulty in determining what's best to do is a sign of confusion. Keep in mind the bad actor creates the mess, not you. The bad actor/bad action can and often does redefine the relationship. Try to understand the new relationship as best you can - get professional help. Try to figure out as best you can the right thing to do. Again, professional help is good. Then act. If it's the right thing, it will be all right, notwithstanding what your brother thinks."

Everything else is rationalization, confusion, misdirection, failure of understanding/comprehension. At least the brother and the family, so far, have a fair grasp on what's happening.

The point of the above reply, as I hear it, is: "I've heard that this guy's a bad guy, so I'm going to assume that he's a bad guy. Guilty before proven innocent. Go ahead and warn people about this bad guy. That's the right thing to do because he's a bad guy and he'll probably try to rape your teenage girl."

God, if I ever end up in court for any reason, I hope someone like you is not on the jury. — Sapientia

You really don't get the point! Present circumstance is not a court. There is no guilt or innocence. And you apparently don't know the difference between supposing a man capable of being a bad actor, and his actually being one. We suppose him capable of being a bad actor. We suppose him capable for cause, and for cause we suppose he actually is one. All this in service of offering some clarity to a brother who lacks it.

And were you a defendant and I a juror, you'd be glad to have me, because I'd acquit unless the charge was proved. Your presumption of innocence would be safe with me, because I understand what it means.

I appreciate the comments. It certainly helps to get outside perspective on something that I can't share with friends. My long time partner knows, but I need more outside perspective to make sure that I am thinking clearly about this issue.

As a hypothetical, if my brother were a pedophile, arrested and slapped on the wrist in a foreign country, I would already have the website up publishing his name. Family loyalty is just balderdash when a family member is doing something terribly wrong. My brother is not a pedophile thank goodness, so (fortunately) it is not as easy for me to decide what to do.

I think a lot hinges on how much damage (if any) one thinks a mid-40s man who pursues 16-19 year old girls is causing. I am much more aligned with Tim Wood's way of thinking:

A sexually experienced (100+) middle aged man who targets 16-19-year-olds is like a ranked professional boxer who fights high schools boys. Fair fight? Admirable? Healthy and beneficial to all concerned? Or just maybe something wrong. — tim wood

Of course, that's my own and Tim's perspective and I don't expect everyone to share it. But if I only broadcast the facts (my brother sleeps with 16-19 year olds) and let people decide whether they approve, disapprove or are indifferent, I am not destroying his life if people don't care. My brother thinks he does nothing wrong. He says that his friends in the foreign country wouldn't think it a big deal if he had a 16 year old girl friend. If no one but a few people care, then publishing this information would be as harmless as publishing that someone drinks during a prohibition. (An imperfect analogy, but my point is that if few people care, then there is no social sanction and my brother can continue on with his ways.) And if people do care and don't want that behavior within their community and my brother's life is severely limited by publishing his history, then isn't that something good?

The question that I have is whether just because something is legal, should there be no social sanction? Should a mid-40s male pursuing 16 year old girls be tolerated within a community, even if legal? I think not, but perhaps in 100 years, such behavior won't even raise an eyebrow.

I think there is a bit of confusion from others (such as Hanover) about my dilemma. If my brother did sleep with a 14 year old girl, I would go to the police and I wouldn't be asking for perspective from this forum. So to clarify my dilemma, suppose the age of my friend's daughter were 16. Should I then tell my friend about my brother's preference for girls that age? And crucially, if you think I should tell my friend, then why shouldn't I broadcast my brother's sexual choices to the world? My friend's 16 year old daughter is not inherently more valuable than other 16 year old girls.

The difficulty I have is that in the above situation, I would be inclined to tell my friend about my brother if his daughter were 16 but I am much LESS inclined to make a website broadcasting to the world my brother's sexual preference for 16-19 year olds. But I am not sure whether there is a principled or reasoned difference between my two inclinations.

if the girl is younger than the age of consent, then she cannot give consent — tim wood

And cannabis is worse than alcohol and should be illegal because it's an illegal drug. Law is not moral, and the age of consent only matters to whether one can give a consent that matters legally speaking.

So to clarify my dilemma, suppose the age of my friend's daughter were 16. Should I then tell my friend about my brother's preference for girls that age? — Tree Falls

Yes.

And crucially, if you think I should tell my friend, then why shouldn't I broadcast my brother's sexual choices to the world? — Tree Falls

I understand the degree of responsibility you feel in protecting your friends daughter from knowledge that you have come to understand and the view of the law in which he was given a slap on the wrist. I know as a Mom you wouldn't need to get but one sentence into what you are expressing before all ties would be quietly severed with your brother and my respect for your choice to tell me would be golden. As a parent I can understand your concern and would Thank you for the heads up. I would also let your brother know that I said as such and let him deal with the consequences of not seeing anything wrong with a 16 yr old being hit on by a 40 yr old man. Let him see the reality of what other people actually think. Let the father or mother of the 16 yr old talk to your brother about his interests, you know, adult to adult.

My friend's 16 year old daughter is not inherently more valuable than other 16 year old girls. — Tree Falls

No one is suggesting that but as Hanover said if you have the proof then you take it to the law. If your brother makes a simple and common mistake in believing the word of a young lady who might say she was 19 when she was really 15. That mistake would cost him legally but more importantly and maybe something you should make your brother aware of is that 'common sense' is not lost on the convicted inmates within a prison who become aware of what some would consider a pedophile within their community.

As a parent I can understand your concern and would Thank you for the heads up. I would also let your brother know that I said as such and let him deal with the consequences of not seeing anything wrong with a 16 yr old being hit on by a 40 yr old man. Let him see the reality of what other people actually think. Let the father or mother of the 16 yr old talk to your brother about his interests, you know, adult to adult. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Thank you for your perspective. I totally get where you are coming from. But I think you are not facing directly my dilemma in the above quote. You, as a mom, would be thankful that I warned you. But don't you think moms everywhere would be thankful that I put up a website warning them against my brother?

So should I or shouldn't I put up a website telling the world that my brother likes to sleep with 16-19 year old girls? If not, why not?

So should I or shouldn't I put up a website telling the world that my brother likes to sleep with 16-19 year old girls? If not, why not? — Tree Falls

You seem to be having a problem with "proportionate response". If you think you are morally obligated to inform the parents of the 14 year old that your brother might attempt to have sex with her, then do so. Putting up a web site describing your brother may lead to unforeseen and/or undesirable consequences over which you will have no control.

It's a family matter, not the whole world's concern. Keep it within the family.

BTW, how old are you? Straight or gay? Older or younger than your brother? Just wondering what your relationship with your brother is like, outside of this particular age of consent issue.

Here's another perspective. Many 16-19 year old girls like to have sex. Who's to say that the experience these girls had with your brother wasn't overwhelmingly a positive one. Have you spoken to any of them or have any reason to believe that your brothers actions have caused them harm? If not isn't it somewhat condescending for you to assume that they don't have minds of their own or can make decisions for themselves.