NYTimes Editorial Sticks Up for Jailed Man

http://www.wilsonappeal.com/petition.php

Adult women are getting PROBATION for sleeping with 13-year-olds, but Genarlow Wilson gets 10 years and must register for life as a sex offender for oral sex with a 15-year-old when he was 17! UNBELIEVABLE! I'm thankful the NY Times is demanding his release. But they never once mention the obvious - outright gender bias.

I signed the petition. DAMN I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT I'M READING.

It was a party where they conspired to get girls drunk and videotape themselves groping and using them.

Being drunk automatically nullifies consent.

When the girl woke up the next morning and realised she'd been made drunk and taken advantage of, she'd called the cops and rightly so.

This is not a case of childhood innocence.

"This is not a case of childhood innocence."

Yeah, and she had to be jailed as well for the same term because alcohol nullified HIS consent for sex.

Ok, first off no one involved was old enough to be drinking in the first place. We all know teenagers drink and most people serve them alcohol in private environments like house parties. That does not make it right but its more or less acceptable to society. So if you want to make a big deal of the drunkenness then blame the person(s) who gave it to them.

Second, I have been pretty drunk at times in my life and I know many people who have as well. Not myself or one person I have ever met of either gender has ever forgotten a sexual act the next day while drunk. She may have regretted it, I know I have gotten drunk and regretted it the next mourning, but there is no way in hell I am buying that she forgot.

By the way, you can't perform oral sex on some one while your passed out. Doesn't work. She gave him a blowjob which means she was awake.

15 year old girls may believe they are 30 and completely invincible but in reality they are ignorant of the consequences of many situations the knowingly get themselves
into. Most are not the paragon of virtue and innocence either.

Just because she was stupid (as was everyone else there) does not mean this young man should be treated as a monster for the rest of his life. Want to lock up people for poor choices? Then she and most other people on Earth need to be sitting in prison cells right along with that young man.

Free him and expunge his records immediately while he still has a chance at a future. Otherwise he has been rendered a wasted life with no hope of ever living a normal existence again. He was 17! Give the kid a chance! He's not a monster hiding in bushes abducting children and eating them.

Where did you get the idea that "being drunk automatically nullifies consent"? That's absolutely false. Drunk people do consensual things all the time and are held accountable. The only way being drunk can nullify consent is when you're so incapacitated that you have no ability to consent, like being passed out. Otherwise, you CAN consent even when drunk. If you get violent or drive a car when drunk, you're accountable because you had the volition to do those actions when you did them. But if you're drunk and pssed out and are placed in the drivers' seat of a moving car, *then* there was no volition. If you voluntarily get drunk and have sex, you consented, period. And it's amazing how fast feminists who insist otherwise turn an about-face when the genders are reversed. They never want to jail a girl for having sex with a drunk guy. But they'll jail a guy any chance they get.

In contemporary times, half of teenagers have experimented with oral sex! Why are we punishing half (the males) of this population when young people choose to engage in sexual activities!? It takes two to tango!

In this particular case, I’m sure no one held a gun to the poor dear’s head and abducted her against her will; she undoubtedly made a choice to go where the “fun and action” was. Introduce alcohol into the situation and good judgment goes out-the-window. Once again, did someone hold a gun to her head and force her to drink? She partook because she wanted to be “cool.”

The following day, when she realized the consequences of “her” choices, someone else (the male) needed to pay and pay dearly. Of course she can not be held responsible for her choices being female!

If a similar situation arises in her future, she retains the option to make better choices. The young man has had this luxury stripped from him for the next ten-years!

In a day and age when Virgins were not a rarity, stealing a young woman’s virginity through an act of rape certainly was considered a major criminal act. After all, the poor dear was saving herself for marriage! With many (if not most) females loosely giving up sex (treating it with the same dignity as they would a candy bar), courts need to differentiate between “rape” and poor choices involving sexual encounters.

Oral Sex Statistics

"When the girl woke up the next morning and realised she'd been made drunk and taken advantage of, she'd called the cops and rightly so."

There were two girls that the camera showed him having sexual contact with. One was 17, the other was 15. The 17-year-old *appeared* drunk and incapacitated, but it wasn't clear, and the jury immediately aquitted him of that charge after viewing the tape. The 15-year-old said she was not drunk and that she did not drink. The camera showed her consensually having oral sex with him. *That* was the basis of his ten year mandatory prison term plus mandatory life registration as a sex offender. That is just totally, absolutely WRONG. It's a DISGRACE to our entire country. Would you jail a 17-year-old girl for ten years for having oral sex with a 15-year-old boy that they both consented to at a party?

The reason for the conviction is that the age of consent is 16 in that state. So he is deemed an adult and she is deemed a minor for purposes of this crime. But the lawmakers didn't bother to minimize the possibility of this kind of result until later when they amended the law. This was a simple thing they could have foreseen if they just cared enough about innocent men to think about it. But instead, they jumped right on board, because feminist were behind it, because the left doesn't care about males, and because the right is so stuck on its "protect women" chivalry that it fails to take even a moment to think about things like this until it's too late. There was no rationality, no voice of men's rights, no serious thought of the consequences, and no sense of fairness.

Even when they later amended it, they didn't make it retroactive, so this innocent guy is stuck for ten years in prison. Meanwhile adult women who sleep with 13-year-olds are getting PROBATION.

Our govenrment did this to him. Our government destroyed this guy's life for no reason. Had he been female, they would NOT have done this.

Now we all can go home and drink our apple cider and enjoy our families. This guy will remain in prison, day after day, for another 7 years, unless he is released. Even if released, he is scarred for life.

I'm seriously biting my tongue on this one.

EYF How is this even a debate? 10 years for a blow job where the girl consented and was only two years his junior? What are they protecting this girl from? What risk does he present to society? If we let him out he will agree to receive consent-blowjobs from women in their early twenties or late teens? No real crime committed, he posses no risks and he is in jail for ten fucking years! Girls simply don’t need protection from wanting to give blow jobs but its quite obvious considering this and that anti-male, anti white, false accusation circus that it’s the men that need protection from the US government and the media. This WOULD have been 100 times bigger than the duke trial if we viewed genders as having equal worth as people, if we as a society weren’t so god dammed brainwashed by feminisms female supremacy. Women good, men bad is allowing so much travesty of justice, how much longer can we just talk and persuade? Things need to change.

Mandatory 10 years @ $25,000 per year =
$250,000 or a quarter of a million tax dollars for a god damned blowjob! And that is not counting the tax dollars lost he would have contributed if he had remained free and worked.

If he just had to have a sexual encounter of that sort the state could have sent him round trip to Amsterdam, Holland to the sex market district for a tiny fraction of that amount and saved the tax slaves a ton of money!

And just why is a 15 yo considered a child in the sad state of Georgia? That is so damned stupid!

I love it when they ignore the law.

(a)(1) A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.

(d) If the victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of sodomy is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall not be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.

Georgia law, cited from http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=6&section=2

10 years for a misdemeanor?