MrsKCastle I never said there were no differences between the situations but the central decision is the same: the decision to engage in sexual activity with a stranger without being completely sure this person is over the legal age. In both cases it was reasonable to believe the young people were over 16 but the argument being put forward by some is that reasonable belief isn't sufficient.
Of course having sex is more serious than kissing but both would be crimes if it turned out the younger person was under 16. So either both situations involve "negligence" about ascertaining age or neither does.
No doubt the man in this case would also have stopped instantly if he had found out how young the girl really was but he didn't find out. Arguably he took more care to ascertain her age than in the "kissing" example. He thought he was a 19 year old having consenting sex with a 16 year old. As far as he knew, or could reasonably be expected to know, he was doing nothing remotely wrong, let alone illegal.
You might think people should be required to ID anyone they date but as it stands they're NOT required to do so and it's completely unfair to say that this one man, uniquely, should have done something no one else is expected to do. Casual sex is not a crime, nor even morally wrong to many people (probably most people by now?) You might disapprove of a small age gap of 16/19 but, again, there's nothing legally wrong with that, nor morally wrong to many (most?) people.
Seriously, the message we should be taking from this case is 'Don't have sex with someone without being sure that they're old enough to consent'.
Yes, but HOW would you go about being sure? Even if you made ID a legal requirement it's easy enough to obtain fakes. So many under 18s already have them in order to buy alcohol and get into venues. If they needed it for sex too they'd all have a fake ID before you could say boo.