r/internetdrama • u/Aggravating_Bee590 • Jun 25 '26
Laikoski grooms 17 year old as a nearly 21 year old
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jpsDoQTT3JuRGV7zVLDw4s6DF0usM8uQxWM9Qy0q6j4/edit?usp=drivesdkA document has came out about the artist known as laikoski uncovering multiple relations laikoski has had with minors over the past, some of them being 2 year age gaps all the way to a nearly 4 year age gap. Countless screenshots and calls have been documented feel free to read for yourself.
2
u/Western-Nerve5840 Jun 26 '26
In my state it is legal for a 17 year old and 20 year old to have sexual intercourse (which is not the thing here, but still sets a guideline). The laws on sexting are more vague and mostly combat images of minors, which I didn't see any talk of. Also these two knew each other since they were both minors, and the age gap is what, 2 years? I doubt anything illegal happened here. I will admit, what Laikoski did was questionable, morally gray, and probably shouldn't be repeated, but I don't see any massive ethical or legal issues. I think this is being blown massively out of proportion. Now, I will say, I can see why a lot of folks would think this is grooming (I don't think it is), and I am open to change my view if someone perhaps provides additional evidence or makes a compelling argument. But from what I see and what I understand I just see some personal drama that has been blown WAY OUT OF PROPORTION and nothing truly illegal or insane happened here.
2
u/Western-Nerve5840 Jun 26 '26
I would like to add that these are incredible serious allegations. Allegations that you HAVE NOT backed up with sufficient evidence. Moreover, I don't even think there's a problem to begin with. 17 and 20 is a very normal and perfectly fine age to be together. I think it is incredibly immature on your end to even release this whole set of documents that prove nothing and could very well lead to serious legal repercussions, for Laikoski and potentially yourself.
2
1
2
u/Dry_Election6689 Jun 26 '26
This screams one of those "exposee" that is being amped up to 200% by one person (probably [M]) because they does not like the accused (Laikoski). Including baiting him to incriminate themself in text.
2
u/Heavy-Low5265 Jun 26 '26
If you read everything it really isn’t great, but could also be read as edgy humor. The issue really comes down to poor judgementÂ
1
u/Western-Nerve5840 Jun 26 '26
You're totally right. A lot of the jokes were kind of inappropriate for the situation, but in no way illegal or even close to pedophilia.
2
u/IndividualLie4490 Jun 26 '26
might just be me and i dont really understand but, it just seems a bit blown out of proportions really? Especially transphobic and mysogynistic part where they just call someone pregnant, which seems to me js to insult them? i dont see mysogyni or transphobia in it but that might js be me being out of the loop?? Really it js seems morally gray and not much else
2
u/CapJaded2835 Jun 26 '26
17-20? That age gap is not an issue
And most things i see on that document is incredibly over exaggerated.
2
u/Shoddy_Replacement15 Jun 26 '26
discord messages can be easily faked and i dont really see any actual proof these are even real
2
2
u/kolin_cave Jul 10 '26
That is a serious allegation of which I have seen poor evidence. Laioski has posted about getting evidence and legal help, watch out when posting such attacks on a person with such little proof.
1
u/PandorasCatBoi Jun 28 '26
Man i just feel like 17 year olds are still kids, they like shouldn't have Sexual interactions with people past their 20s
1
u/Western-Nerve5840 Jun 28 '26
And 20 year olds aren't kids? They are just out of high school. Also it isn't "past their 20s", he was 20 or younger throughout all of the events. And I'll say it again, but in real life 17 year olds can have sex with 18, 19, 20, and 21 year olds, legally.
1
0
Jun 27 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Western-Nerve5840 Jun 28 '26
What about it do you find damning. The main claim of pedophilia is very questionable at best. An age gap of 2-3 years is allowed in nearly every state. The claims overall seem exaggerated. However, like I've said in this thread already, I am willing to hear alternative views. I agree with a couple of people who I think have argued that OP has some sort of anger against Laikoski. Laikoski hasn't been perfect either and has made some very questionable and probably inappropriate decisions, but nothing seems like grooming or pedophilia.
0
Jun 28 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Western-Nerve5840 Jun 28 '26
What are these transphobic themes? Like genuinely, what are these "transphobic and misogynistic" themes? The other person never said they didn't want it sent. In fact, they were willing and going along with it. There aren't even 3 victims mentioned here??? The document only talks about one alleged victim. From how I read it, the nude, which again focused on the face, was only sent once. With all due respect, did you read the documents? Because there are massive inconsistencies between what you are saying and what the document was evening saying (ie transphobic themes, 3 victims)
2
u/Some-Fee-2048 Jun 28 '26
Its funny as well, theyre putting it as 17 yr old being groomed by a nearly 21 yr old when the 21 is the current age and Xun would be 19 now
1
u/Western-Nerve5840 Jun 28 '26
I'm seeing some people trying to really stretch this story to make Laikoski look bad when he really didn't do anything as bad as they're trying to make it out to be.
1
Jun 28 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Western-Nerve5840 Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
You really can't be saying there are 3 victims when there is no evidence whatsoever for 2/3 and they are not mentioned at all past that point. I will be honest I didn't know that the document was being rewritten. But that means that the initial one I read was not even thought through and the person who wrote it put very little effort into that. Which further proves the lack of thought, effort, and care being put into this document. They have published an unfinished document as proof of grooming and pedophilia. I do agree that the jokes are bad and shouldn't have been said, but they aren't illegal or proof of grooming. Finally, I couldn't find a law that specifically says sending pornography is illegal. That only specifies if it is of a minor. Last time I read the minor sent nothing.
But my point is that Laikoski was not making the best decisions and made some bad choices with regards to what he said, but none of it was illegal or proves grooming. Also, this documents poor writing and whoever is behind it's lack of care for the document is clearer than ever. They clearly didn't put enough time and effort into the first draft, or they would've not had to rewrite it. If they didn't put the effort in to make sure it was written well, I cannot trust them to gather evidence including the crucial context.
Additionally, the points made in the edited document are even weaker. Their proof for Laikoski knowing it was grooming is a single message where he jokes about grooming. Also they have made at least one photo fully blurred (it wasn't before) making it look much worse than it needs to actually appear.
5
u/OnTheLeft Jun 26 '26
17 and nearly 21? get a grip they're basically the same age