|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:57 PM June 30th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the morning news. It featured a female prosecutor and a female defense attorney discussing the case. The prosecutor rightly condemned the actions of the teacher and stated that women and men should be held to the same standards. The defense lawyer (apparently a puppet for some feminist special interest group) naturally made excuses, the most prevalent one being:"But men and women are different!"
Everybody is different. Does that mean we should have a different legal standard for each and every person on Earth?
Amperro
Paranoia Is A Virtue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More than likely all she will get is the proverbial, slap on the wrist. I'm just gonna do it the easy way and plagerize my post in "Double Standards on Sexual Relationships"
Here are the statutory rape laws by state.
Missouri
§ 566. 032 (1)
§ 566. 034 (1)
First-degree statutory rape to have sexual intercourse with another person who is less than fourteen years old
Five years to life in prison
Second-degree statutory rape for someone at least age 21 to have sexual intercourse with someone who is less than age 17
Up to seven years in prison
Now for the Teacher that had sex with the 14 yr old in a portable classroom and the backseat of her suv while a 15 yr old drove. Notice She had sex with him atleast 2 times.
Florida
§ 794. 05
Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors if someone age 24 or older engages in sexual activity with someone age 16 or 17.
How old was he again, 14yrs old
Up to 15 years in prison
I know, someone is going to respond, "but she is 23 yrs old". It shouldnt matter. Bust her butt the same way. Prison time.
But according to the news this is what she is being charged with.
Lafave, of Riverview, is a reading teacher at Greco Middle School in Temple Terrace, a few miles north of Tampa. She was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery and one count of lewd and lascivious exhibition.
Authorities say Lafave, who has been married less than a year, had sex with the student in the back of her sport utility vehicle while the student's 15- year-old cousin drove them around the Ocala area.
Monday's charges are in addition to those from last week's arrest in Temple Terrace, when she was charged with two counts of committing lewd and lascivious battery for allegedly having sex with the teen in a portable classroom at her school. She was out on bond from last week's arrest when she turned herself in Monday.
Lafave's lawyer, John Fitzgibbons, said he was not ready to respond to the allegations.
"There is a presumption of innocence in this country," he said.
Bullcrap, when it comes to the men doing it, we are guilty till proven innocent. LOL what am I talking about, there is no innocent, we are just guilty for being male.
OldManSenile
here is the link to the site where I got the info. It was a basic google search on statutory rape laws by state.
http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/20 03-R-0376.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been going on for a very long time. Untill recently it has been some what kept under the rug. But good old me did it, you guessed it, a basic google search. You would be surprised at what pops up. The hits are astounding. Here are a few addys that high light both male and female teachers, see if you can spot the differences in 1994. These are from 94 to around 99.
http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/80-teachers/
http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/1994_10/graves .htm
http://www.edweek.com/ew/vol-13/40abuse.h13
http://www.fact.on.ca/newpaper/az990212.htm
http://www.post-dazette.com/regionstate/19991031ne wabuse1.asp
Here is the google search I did
"female teachers molesting students"
OldManSenile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:46 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God
§Ex:20:14: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Need I really say more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:43 AM July 1st, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Do these women believe that if they seduce under aged males that they are getting both a boy friend AND a child in a single package????!!??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:27 PM June 30th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
There is an obvious difference between men and women. Men make up 93% of the prison population. That's a huge gender inequity. Given that harsh gender inequity, men should be treated MUCH MORE LENIENTLY than women.
So give this women the full statutory rape sentence. But free a bunch of men, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:38 PM June 30th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Most of Dan's emailers sent him emails that were to this effect, "She sure is good looking. I wish I had a hot looking teacher who molested me when I was 14 years old."
Below is the email that I sent Dan.
Dan:
I am disgusted at the double standards being used to report the story of the female teacher who repeatedly raped her 14 year old male student.
According to women's studies this woman was in a position of power and control over the student and abused it. That makes her a sexual predator, but I never heard that in the MSNBC News coverage on the Abrahms Report, or the word "rape." How sexist can you get? Women indeed have power and control in most educational settings these days, and the administrations of many school, if not most, are top heavy with female administrators so why are we suddenly throwing out the way that sexual harassment laws and rape laws routinely work in schools? This case and this reporting is just one more example of the hateful bigotry and double standards that males face in American society and news media's today.
One of your radical feminist viewers said in an email that only the party that penetrates is a rapist, but that viewpoint is so prejudiced that anyone who holds such an idea should be sent to a political correctness reeducation camp, or a women's studies indoctrination program. Oh wait a minute, I forgot that's where they teach such misandric propaganda.
Sincerely,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:49 AM July 1st, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, people THIS is why if you have kids, you should definately HOME SCHOOL!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
A renegade Indian against feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As long as *some* men make encouraging remarks for the good looking women who do this, such as from this weblog, you are always going to have this tug-of-war. She probably will get a slap on the wrist ...
If not, she will recieve a lot of talk show invites, and quite possibly, tell all in a future book, and then pose for Playboy or some other men's publication. $$$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:13 AM July 1st, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Where is the harm done in this relationship? Did the boy catch an STD? If not, then show me the problem.
As an aside, I am glad that this issue is being discussed since it is a double standard, but if it was a man and girl I'd still ask what the harm done was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:18 AM July 1st, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Statutory rape laws are to protect against potential harm, against adults taking advantage of young people whose bodies, but not minds may be ready for sex. Not every young teen is going to be greatly harmed by sex with an adult, but many will be in one way or another. Most aren't ready for the many potential complications of sex at that age. Some may have it with their peers anyway, wise or not, but it is not for an adult to entice them into this premature step.
She had intercourse with him more than once without a condom. If she had gotten pregnant he would have been liable for child support and tied to her forever.
Adults who want to have sex with those barely into their teens are not likely to be normal, responsible people. They are likely to be targeting such a young person because they are easy to manipulate, particularly because of their innocence. They are either sexual predators or mentally/emotionally unstable people - either of these groups are very likely to mess with the young person's head and heart - either deliberately or because they themselves are messed up.
Another usually overlooked or undervalued aspect is that they are interfering with the young person's natural development and stealing their innocence. This is true even in the best of cases.
--Kenshin--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:12 AM July 1st, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Very good reply, but I differ with your view on a few points.
"adults taking advantage of young people whose bodies, but not minds may be ready for sex."
What is meant by 'ready for sex'. Sex is a penis in a vagina, mouth or anus. I still do not see the harm that could come from this other then STDs, correct me if I am wrong.
"Not every young teen is going to be greatly harmed by sex with an adult, but many will be in one way or another."
Harmed in what way? Harmed how? If we are going to throw people in jail then we better be comcrete in the harm done.
"She had intercourse with him more than once without a condom. If she had gotten pregnant he would have been liable for child support and tied to her forever. "
Clearly the onus is on the adult in a situation like this, and if such a law exists that a child needs to pay for an adult's transgressions then that is as asinine as the current laws revolving around sexuality.
"Adults who want to have sex with those barely into their teens are not likely to be normal, responsible people...They are either sexual predators..."
That is quite a claim. How is wanting sex abnormal, people are sexual creatures or so says the studies and miriad of jokes about people thinking about sex every 30 seconds.
The term sexual predator is biased, esp. in the absence of any credible harm done.
"stealing their innocence"
Why does a person, including a child, engaging in sexual activity steal their 'innocence', (assuming they were innocent to begin with)? This seems a throw back concept to puritan morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I smell a troll, but nonetheless...
For some reason, society has done a good job of identifying the damage done to a teenage girl who is seduced by an older man but has failed to even INVESTIGATE any similar damage done to teenage boys when they are raped by older women. The very fact that this research is missing is misandry. But even so, beyond the obvious biological risks of pregnancy and STDs there remain some known emotional risks, such as a deficiency in the grown boys' ability to establish normal relationships with women later in life.
It seems to me, Anon, that you've lost your moral compass. Are you by any chance a member of NAMBLA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree frank h. When someone asks "what harm is done?" Alfred E Neuman's line: "What me worry?" kicks in.
Similar logic.
There is no use arguing with a nihilist, by the way, because "anything goes" is the mantra they live by. A hint of that is the remark Anon made toward "puritan morality". Reminds me of an old article written by Gerald L. Rowles: Part [1] [2]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:54 AM July 1st, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Frank.
I know this may be a dumb question, but What is "NAMBLA"?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
A renegade Indian against feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North American Man/Boy Love Association. Those of you who are watching the Catholic priest/ sex abuse controversy will recognize this as having in its membership one Father Geoghan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:36 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"North American Man/Boy Love Association. Those of you who are watching the Catholic priest/ sex abuse controversy will recognize this as having in its membership one Father Geoghan."
For years homosexual advocates lobbied for inclusion of homosexuals in the priesthood, now we have the scandal were 80% of the molestations were homosexual priests molesting boys. The radical feminists love to bash the priesthood for its immorality, but the hypocisy in their bigoted rhetoric is that they and their gay allies are the ones who worked so hard to create the problem, and now are working hard to deny the homosexual aspect of the abuse, blaming the whole thing on the "patriarchal" priesthood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:34 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
>"North American man/boy love association"(!)
Is such an organization actually LEAGLE????!!!???
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the Constitution DOES guarantee the right of free assocation. And you are entitled to espouse just about any view that you want to, so, yeah I guess they would be legal. Of course, carrying out what they believe in would still be illegal, and that's what landed Geoghan in jail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:48 PM July 2nd, 2004 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
Un-believeable!
Sorry folks, I'm for freedom of assembely and all, but in this case these perverts ought to be run out of the country.
YYEEECCCHHH!!!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:35 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"society has done a good job of identifying the damage done to a teenage girl who is seduced by..."
Identify that damage right here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:42 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"remain some known emotional risks, such as a deficiency in the grown boys' ability to establish normal relationships with women later in life. "
You mean the emotional risks involved in having society shame the child, esp. if he or she said he or she enjoyed the relationship? Such reminds of the case of a boy going into 'therapy' that tells him the realationship he had with a custodian at a school was wrong, and that sex is evil and immoral.
As for the inability to establish normal relationships, that again is layed at the doorstep towards these therapists who 'abuse' the child a second time by warping their concept from sex and sexuality being normal to sex and sexuality being abnormal and evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, Anon, I don't like the psychiatric/psychologist community either. But I'm pretty sure that we dislike them for different reasons. I don't like them because they rationalize "mental disorder" as being a justification for immoral or out-of-bounds behavior, behavior that used to be prohibited by morality that was memorialized by religion. There are some limits that need to be recognized by society. Religion seems to work as a tool of subtle enforcement, when people actually pay attention to it. And in my estimation, any adult having sex with any child is outside those limits. I'm not an "expert" and I'm not about to set out on some crusade to find arguments that will convince you, because you will refuse to be convinced no matter how compelling my case. Suffice it to say that feelings emerge with sexual relationships, and adults and children handle them differently, and derive different sets of expectations from them. The trust and affection that comes with sex magnifies that beyond what a non-sexual relationship generates. Children take rejection and withdrawal from relationships far deeper to heart than adults, I suppose because they have had so many fewer of them. This makes them more vulnerable to permanent emotional damage.
Now if you believe that it's okay for an adult and a child to have a sexual relationship, then I repeat: you've obviously lost your moral compass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:22 AM July 2nd, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm not about to set out on some crusade to find arguments that will convince you"
You don't find arguements, you create them. What you find are authoritative sources. The problems of sexuality in society won't be solved unless people are willing to discuss their viewpoints, without rational arguement all you offer is fluff.
"Suffice it to say that feelings emerge with sexual relationships, and adults and children handle them differently...Children take rejection and withdrawal from relationships far deeper to heart than adults..."
Source? You know this how? Since few scientists bother to study this, because just even looking at this topic brings them open to attack, no study has bothered to look which means you offer only your personal opinions as evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude ...if he has to explain to you the basics of relationships, attachment, sexual growth witha partner and then PROVE those concepts exist .... you're either a troll or a sexual predator.
Either way. Get lost.
We're Men's and Father's Rights activists. We've seen your kind before and survived worse.
You're an amateur. You want SOMEONE here to say something that could be misconstrued and then you'll take it and "cut and paste" it to some board saying: "SEE! SEE! They FINALLY broke down and admitted that sex between a child and adult is ok ..."
Sheesh, we HUMOR you because all of us like debate. But, again, you're trying to perpetrate a fraud coming to this board. And we've DOZENS (if not hundreds if you've been here long enough).
It reminds me of the crooks that get caught who can't figure out HOW the cops figured out their bullshit so quickly. They (like you will) deny deny deny their motivation, all the while talking to a person who SPOTS criminals and knows their methods.
And everyone here, by survival instinct learned from being an MRA see's what you're trying to do.
You failed. Lame try.
Got another quarter...?
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:43 AM July 2nd, 2004 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
"...if he has to explain to you the basics of relationships, attachment, sexual growth witha partner and then PROVE those concepts exist .... you're either a troll or a sexual predator."
Thanks Steven,
America's children are preciuous and deserve protection from sexual predators like the female teacher, and any others like her.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amen. And if you are going to get hysterical about girls being victimized then it is only fair that the same hysteria be applied to the boys. At this point it is all too apparent that it is only girls who are hyper-protected. How much more blatant can sexism be?
Do we have True Equality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What you find are authoritative sources."
I'm an authoritative source unto myself. I've been on this planet fifty years, am a parent of three, a husband, and an activist. I'm educated and reasonably well-read, and have studied religion and belief systems enough to leave, and then return to Christianity, though I'm not what you'd call an evangelist. My opinions are derived not from what feels good for me but what I read about and what I've seen in practical life. I'm satisfied with my own authority, and if you're not then that's your problem, not mine.
"The problems of sexuality in society won't be solved unless people are willing to discuss their viewpoints..."
I just gave you my viewpoint, and what you want me to do is justify my veiwpoint based on the viewpoints of others, who ultimately, are not any more qualified than I to offer them.
Now you give me a source. In fact, because your viewpoint is so far from the mainstream of accepted morality, you better give me at least three sources. You apparently have a viewpoint that encourages, or at least permits, a sexual relationship between an adult and a child. You seem to believe that this is reasonable and even healthy. How do you know this? How do you KNOW that there is no damage done in such a relationship? How do you know that any smaller sets of cases, possibly successful, transfer to the population at large?
Or are you just advocating social experimentation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you read The Skeptic by Russ Madden because you are using the same vilifying tactics to seek the "truth".
@@@@@@
An excerpt:
"He passionately insists that all he wants is "the truth"...then he rejects the possibility that the truth even exists, or if he is willing to grant that it does exist, he dismisses the notion that it can be known. After all, he says, one's senses cannot be trusted. They distort what is out there. One can never directly know existence. Reality itself can never be discovered. An approximation is all that can ever be achieved. Since one can never know everything about reality, then, of course, nothing which one knows can be valid or certain. ("I know that nothing can be known," the skeptic says, somehow wishing to exempt himself from his own philosophy. But his very statement is self-refuting and thereby invalid.)
These descendants of Plato hide behind the mirror of reason yet refuse to face it directly. To do so would be to reveal the exact nature of their error, a betrayal and an evasion far worse than that of those self-avowed mystics who forthrightly proclaim that reason is impotent, that only faith can reveal the true essence of existence. Like Kant who penned A Critique of Pure Reason in an attempt to "save" reason but in the process undercut its very meaning and foundations, the skeptic disguises his abandonment of reason by giving lip service to rationality then doing his utmost to deny the validity of perception, identity, logic, and existence.
Every answer given to the questions the skeptic asks increases the level of his vociferous condemnation of any attempt to reveal basic principles. Though he supposedly seeks answers, he rejects you precisely because you have answers. For him to ackowledge that you know something with certainty about reality, to acknowledge that such truth is even possible would destroy the illusion which maintains his precarious self-image as "a foe of dogmatism" and of "closed-mindedness." A recognition of the possibility that knowledge is, indeed, possible would reveal that his philosophy is self-contradictory and barren. It would shout that his Trojan Horse attempt to storm the ramparts of reason is doomed to failure; that his inability to deal with the uncompromising demands of reality is merely a reflection of the hollowness of the philosophy by which he tries to live. But the skeptic cannot hide from reality, cannot evade existence forever; the existence which he may concede is there, but which he stoutly maintains is "irrelevant" to the "practical" problems on which he insists on focussing."
@@@@@
You are predictable and have no intention of wanting answers, except those that fit your moral paradigm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:00 PM July 2nd, 2004 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
To the "Anonymous" poster.
Did you not see my earlier post that said; By LAW sex without CONSENT IS RAPE.?
And that ANY child, female OR MALE under the age of 18 is BELOW the age of consent! In other words (and I'm suprised I even have to explain it) The child CAN NOT give consent! THEREFORE sex with a child below the age of 18 is RAPE!
NOW do you understand?
You can flame me if you want to, but it is the LAW that is saying this, not just me and the other posters, the LAW! A law that most sensible people know to be fair and Just.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, it's been a coupla day now and no reply. It's interesting to see what happens when you challenge the 'challengers' to bring their own facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If she had gotten pregnant he would have been liable for child support and tied to her forever."
Clearly the onus is on the adult in a situation like this, and if such a law exists that a child needs to pay for an adult's transgressions....
Yes, boys who are raped do have to pay child support to the perps. This has happened a number of times recently. Here's one:
http://www.freep.com/news/locmac/case21_20040221.h tm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take issue with what harm could possibly be done other than STDS.
While I agree with most that the prosecution of adults should be minimal if there is consent the sad fact remains is "Consent...Consent" when the person is highly troubled? This case happened about 25 miles away from me and while I have no ties to it, I can see why prosecutors go absolutely fanatical about prosecution when it does. The link below is to a very sad story that didn't have to turn out this way.
http://www.injersey.com/news/werner/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:03 AM July 2nd, 2004 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
"or anus. I still do not see the harm that could come from this other then STDs, correct me if I am wrong."
You're wrong. Personally I find what you say repulsive, but beyond that it is sexually unsafe in any manner. THERE IS NO GAURANTEED SAFE WAY TO DO THAT, IT'S UNHEALTHY.
"Why does a person, including a child, engaging in sexual activity steal their 'innocence', (assuming they were innocent to begin with)? This seems a throw back concept to puritan morality."
Sicko, it's because their children and have the right to exist as innocent children free of sexual predators who want to destroy their innocence until they've reached an adult age where they are legally, sexually and mentally mature. Duh!
On the other hand didn't nature create sex for procreation and wouldn't that make any other type of behavior an abnormality (to the degree it deviates) according to nature's laws?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:24 AM July 2nd, 2004 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
"Sicko, it's because their children and have the right to exist as innocent children free of sexual predators who want to destroy their innocence until they've reached an adult age where they are legally, sexually and mentally mature. Duh!"
Agreed. The ANON poster who is making pedophile friendly posts should have his/her posts deleted. Possibly, he/she is a troll. Supporting child abuse is a feature of feminism (eg Germaine Greer), and is NOT on the Mens Rights agenda.
Hotspur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHAT HARM!!!!??????ARE YOU JOKING????
If the 14yo got this rapist pregnant the state could go after HIM for child support!
If you think I am kidding check out the Choice 4 Men website article at:
http://www.nas.com/c4m/email_archive/3/msg00539.ht ml
There are other recent cases where the underaged father, who was raped btw, was still ordered to pay child support.
The Case of: Scott HAMM v. OFFICE OF CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
98-228 ___ S.W.2d ___
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered February 18, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haha. Yes, she is a looker. The problem with it though is that despite our fantasy lives, 14 is too young for anyone to be having sex, esp. with a significantly older person. Also, she was a teacher. She had a position over him that could affect his future. While I don't doubt he was willing, he was also too young to decide whether or not the situation he was in was one he wanted to get into. This is not so much about whether or not he would have fun binking her-- obviously, he would. This was about whether the two parties were on the same "moral plane" of decision-making and relational context. They weren't, and that's the problem. This is why it's wrong for adults to have sex with minors and also why teachers shouldn't be having affairs with students and vice versa. Getting off in and of itself has nothing to do with it.
Still, I would diddle her in a second myself. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:59 AM July 1st, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the point should be made that, sex with out consent is rape.
And since this boy is UNDER the age of consent then it IS, indeed rape. The law is pretty clear on that.
(exept it seems to get rather blurry when a female perp is involved)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
A renegade Indian against feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:44 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"This was about whether the two parties were on the same "moral plane" of decision-making and relational context. "
I have no clue what that means.
I'd have guessed that the arguement for why putting a penis into a vagina is wrong would be better ingrained in society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry... "moral plane" has nothing to do with anything like morality as such. I am using the phrase in the social contract sense. For example, I can't contract with a minor for any reason because we are not on the same moral plane as far as the law is concerned: minors are not allowed to enter into contracts because it is assumed that they are 1. not capable or fully capable of understanding the ramifications of doing so (many adults are not, either) and 2. they have other parties interested in their agreements for many reasons (ie, parents).
Having sex with a minor is doing roughly the same thing-- involving them in an act the full implications of which they proabably don't fully understand, and their parents have an interest in seeing them not become parents themseleves or get STDs, etc. In short, not only do you take advantage of someone who is horny and/or naive, but you are also violating the "social contract" by doing so.
This is why arguments that try to dismiss adult/minor sex because the minor enjoyed it are utterly irrelevent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:02 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
"Still, I would diddle her in a second myself. :)
"
I wouldn`t.If she`s so starved for attention that she needs a 14-year old what else would she do for attention?Light her own gas on the corner of 6th and Main?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still, I would diddle her in a second myself.
I’d be tempted but I think I’ve developed the self-discipline to avoid it.
The worst mistake of my life was acting on those impulses with the wrong woman. And with someone as kooky and unstable as this psycho I’d recommend remaining at a safe distance (like a distance measured in miles).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Look at this! http://www.media43.com/demo3.html
Disguting. She struts around like a little princess at a wedding God knows who paid for for her and less than a year later she is milking a 14-YO boy's bone on a regular basis, living off her hubby's salaray and credit. She went to be a teacher why-- so she could commit stat. rape??
Guys, if you ever enteratain the ridiculous fantasy of a Snow-white princess-fairy-tale wedding and happily-ever after, just come back to see this video, then read the police reports. That'll keep you from making a big old mistake!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:31 PM July 2nd, 2004 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
I was at www.foxnews.com reading another story,and up in the section where they have links to other stories,it said "Extra Credit" and they wanted you to look at "sexy" photos this woman had taken of her and put in a magazine.
So even Fox News is making her out to be some kind of sex symbol.
The media are all the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:32 PM July 2nd, 2004 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
"So even Fox News is making her out to be some kind of sex symbol."
Did you ever notice at Fox news that a highly credible female reporter got a face lift when she came over from another channel. They have wrinkled up old guys all over the place, but the female reporters are all very easy on the eyes. Chivalrous, double standards? Ahhhhhhhh, could be.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:55 PM July 2nd, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
"Did you ever notice at Fox news that a highly credible female reporter got a face lift when she came over from another channel."
Greta Van "if it wasn`t for Laci Peterson I wouldn`t have a show" Susteren?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:26 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I heard tonight she is facing being charged with 5 counts that could result in convictions of 15 years each.
Personally, I'll believe that when I see it.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:39 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
She'll probably get probation or some kind of light community service, I'll guess.
Either way it will be likely that she will get a much lighter sentence than ANY MAN convicted of the same offence.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:23 AM July 2nd, 2004 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Im guessing:2 days of probation and a $4.75 fine.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
