|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @12:26PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"The girl also could face child pornography charges because reports say she knew that photographs of her having sex with one of the boys would be sold over the Internet and that she would profit from them. Police and prosecutors, however, say that charge is unlikely."
On what grounds is this unlikely!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I could understand this if the girl was 10 years old, but she's the same age as the boys. None of them should be charged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Take the one last year in Pinellas County, where four boys and three girls posed partially nude in pairs and groups, fondling and kissing each others’ body parts, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office.
Six of them, all age 16, were arrested on felony sex charges, but none faced child pornography charges. Prosecutors later dropped the charges against two of them and let the other four enter a diversion program.
A 14-year-old girl who posed in the photographs was not arrested."
Interesting. Four boys, three girls. One is excluded, which leaves four boys and TWO girls. Then, charges are dropped against TWO of them and the other four enter a diversion program. Who wants to bet that the other four were all boys? Can anyone give more information on this case? It sounds like just as big an injustice against boys as the case the article is based on.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I posted my comment to the same theme at pretty much the same time and then wrote a letter to the editor of the paper asking if she had any more information about the second case mentioned in the article.
Here's hoping.
Credendo Vides
(By believing, one sees)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @03:14PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't condone what these boys did for a minute, but the fact that the gilr was a willing participant clearly indicates that she ought to be charged with the same crimes as the boys. I gues the 14th Amendment doesn't apply in Florida. The parents of the boys ought to be raising hell about this. I would.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can anyone be so blind that they fail to see that we live under a very evil gynocracy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @03:32PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
None of these younger people were children. All were at least sexually developed, and all within 3 years of each other.
There was no rape, no violence of any kind involved.
Why put any of these teens on a sex-offender list? Why ruin their lives? For what? What did they do that was so wrong? Ill-advised, sure. Teens do stupid things all the time. Immoral? Maybe , if your religion precludes sex before marriage. But what crime against the state did they commit? Who is the "victim" here?
In the past dad or mom would probably have tanned Junior's and missy's teenaged hindquarters. Perhaps they would have done penance at the local church, missed out on dating for a year or two. And (not always but sometimes) the town might have shamed them. But that would have been the end of it.
Now we are talking about ruining their lives, and possibly treating the boys worse than the girl? Why? For God's sake, WHY?!
It makes me want to kick some nads.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @04:27PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
A very similar scenario occurring last year was documented at www.geocities.com/remarksman.twocities.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @06:33PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, anonymous.
I read the whole thing, all 3 pages. But the part that stuck with me was at the end of the first page. I'd have made Leslie Valedictorian of America too.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have to remember that the making of this video was the idea of the guys, and they were the ones who were going to sell it, and they were the ones who approached the 14 year old with $1000 cash. None of the other guys had to be 'hired'.
So whilst I believe it wouldn't be fair to treat them totally separate, they also didn't play exactly the same role either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't the story say that they all planned on sharing the profits including the girl? If that is so it seems that the business agreement includes the young lady. Charge them all or drop the charges equally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 22, @02:38PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with anyone here who says that the girl should go free just because she "required" a payment of $1000. The bottom line is that she did in fact conspire with the boys to make the video. I repeat, she should be charged with exactly the crimes that the boys are charged with.
FrankH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notwithstanding any particular moral position on the original issue, I find it telling(?) that you hit on the boys for "buying" the services of the girl, where as you could have pointed out that girl seems to have held out for "cash in advance" - security over risk.
One could have made the point that the boys were the risk takers, willing to wait for a bigger potential payoff, while the girl did the typically female thing of going for security.
She received money up front and then was to receive part of the profits as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also wanted to point out that there is nothing that shows the girl had not received advise and counceling from others before she made the agreement.
In other words, you assume she was taken advatage of by the boys simply because the boys were older.
I suggest IMHO that she was given advice by her mother's attourney and she would have split the proffits three ways, mom, lawyer, herself.
In the event that the deal went bad - well then off to court and put the screws to the boys.
She went for the deal because she recieved 1000 cash and did so with absolutely no risk, knowing full well that she or a friend would blow the whistle before the pictures went public.
NOW
I could be just pulling your leg here.
BUT
The left wing gender feminist ideology that has pervaded our courts and government is very well entrenched indeed, and, in as much as we are our own worst enemies, part of men's activism is men's enlightenment and education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did anyone notice the facts of the related story in the article? It had four boys and three girls who did similar things, then:
Six of them, all age 16, were arrested on felony sex charges, but none faced child pornography charges. Prosecutors later dropped the charges against two of them and let the other four enter a diversion program
Let me guess, the six who were arrested were the four boys and two of the girls and then the charges were dropped against the two girls. I wonder if there is a way to research that story and see who was charged and who had the charges dropped.
I agree that none of these kids should have to face criminal charges, but did the article say that they may face charges of prostitution and have to register as sex offenders? (the boys, that is). In what way did the girl NOT perform prostitution if the boys did? You can't have a john without a prostitute.
Credendo Vides
(By believing, one sees)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You can't have a john without a prostitute."
Oh didn't you know? The prostitutes are victims the real criminals are the consumers.
But then, let's face it, in radical leftwing ideology consumers are considered bottom feaders anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @09:39PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Donald,
The prostitutes are the real victims, most often addicted to drugs or alcohol or the victims of childhood sexual abuse and often, both.
You better believe the Johns are the criminals and it's about time they were treated as such.
Consumers hold all the power. How many thousands of Johns are there for every prostitute?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The prostitutes are the real victims, most often addicted to drugs or alcohol or the victims of childhood sexual abuse and often, both.
You better believe the Johns are the criminals and it's about time they were treated as such. "
That's like saying drug dealers are the victims and junkies are the criminals. All these supposed "victims" need to start taking responsibility for their own lives. Your mistakes are nobody's fault but your own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @10:02PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Drug addicts make a choice to abuse drugs and to persist in their abuse. Prostitutes have career choices, although perhaps the alternatives do not have the same income potential. Alcoholics also have a choice to get help. Agreed, all of these folks have their setbacks. But blaming men for the existence of prostitutes is nothing but pure misandry. The sex trade is not much different than most other markets. There's no market without two critical items: demand AND supply. How many johns would there be if there were no prostitutes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @10:09PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
The prostitutes are the real victims, most often addicted to drugs or alcohol or the victims of childhood sexual abuse and often, both.
This simply isn't so. The majority of prostitutes are not "drug addicted street walkers." In fact, financially, most are reasonably well-off. Many own houses. Many have families. They are not victims. The victim concept comes primarily from feminists who want to control what women do with their own bodies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The victim concept comes primarily from feminists who want to control what women do with their own bodies.
Isn't it ironic that a movement who wanted to liberate women's bodies is now cracking down on what said bodies are doing? Hypocrites, hypocrites, almost every human being is a hypocrite in one way or another.
Oh, and charge none or charge them all, that's my opinion. The girl's no victim, she's a co-conspirator.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 22, @12:23AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"The majority of prostitutes are not "drug addicted street walkers." In fact, financially, most are reasonably well-off. Many own houses."
"In fact"? In what fact do you mean? That's a bit of a joke isn't it?
Could you give me examples of all these women who've become successful working as whores? I don't mean Madams, I mean workers/whores.
In answer to the other Mr Anon: MANY females who have been sexually abused as children, sometimes for many years, become addicted to drugs to numb their pain. When you consider that illegal drugs are expensive, it should be obvious to anyone with a decent amount of common sense that these same females would prostitute themselves to obtain drugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"When you consider that illegal drugs are expensive, it should be obvious to anyone with a decent amount of common sense that these same females would prostitute themselves to obtain drugs."
Well, if this is your argument, why are you against prostitution at all? (I'm assuming you are, because you say the johns should be held responsible, which implies that you believe a wrong has been committed.) Your argument above advocates the de-criminalization of prostitution, not a projection or shift of responsibility. For example, you state that (many) women prostitute themselves to obtain drug money. Well, if you get rid of the demand, you leave the women with less means to achieve her ends. This augments the prostitute's problems. You can't use this argument as justification to release prostitutes of responsibility AND subsequently project that responsibility to the johns. It is a disingenuous argument. It solves nothing; rather, it compounds an already sophisticated problem. Apparently, it seems that common sense is a vice, not a virtue, as it precludes logical reasoning.
As another poster already pointed out, saying prostitutes are the victims is like saying drug dealers are the victims of junkies. It is ridiculous to claim such is the case.
Oh, BTW, how does releasing women (in this case, prostitutes) of all responsiblity empower them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In fact"? In what fact do you mean? That's a bit of a joke isn't it?
Could you give me examples of all these women who've become successful working as whores? I don't mean Madams, I mean workers/whores.
In answer to the other Mr Anon: MANY females who have been sexually abused as children, sometimes for many years, become addicted to drugs to numb their pain.
Well, while we're concerning ourselves with facts, just how many women who were sexually abused as children become addicted to drugs to numb their pain? I know feminists aren't too bothered about facts and statistics because they have a nasty habit of contradicting feminist ideology, but I'd like to know how many is this 'MANY' you refer to. And if women who are prostitutes because they need the money to buy drugs to dampen childhood pains should be seen as victims, shouldn't we extend that consideration to anyone who does anything to get money to buy drugs to dampen pain? What's so special about women and their pains that they need all this exclusive consideration?
On the subject of the boy/girl thing, I can only agree with everyone else who has said that either they should all be charged or none should be charged. It's disgusting to see boys treated like crooks while girls who were freely part of the same activity are let off. It reminds me those stories that crop up in the news from time to time of an underage boy and girl having sex, and there's talk of charging HIM with statutory rape. It's interesting how fems crow about girls being two years ahead of boys in terms of maturity, but when a 14-year old boy and a 14-year old girl have sex the burden of responsibility falls entirely on his shoulders.
It is my sincere hope that there will come a day when everyone is incredulous that people ever put up with this kind of crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Could you give me examples of all these women who've become successful working as whores? I don't mean Madams, I mean workers/whores. "
Can you give us some facts to support your position, or would that put you in a difficult position.
When we disagree with you we need facts, when you attack us, facts are irrelevant. No wonder you post without your name.
"...
it should be obvious to anyone with a decent amount of common sense that these same females would prostitute themselves to obtain drugs
..."
Well common sense isn't good for much of anything.
It was only common sense that the world was flat.
It was only common sense that women couldn't be trusted with the vote.
It was only common sense that marijuana leads to hard drugs.
It is only common sense the if you go outside in the cold with wet hair you will get a cold.
It is only common sense that common sense does not require any meaningful thought.
That is why we have education. Education elevates us beyond unreliable heavily biased mostly superstitious common sense.
Ask yourself what kind of man purchases the services of a prostitute.
Maybe someone who has to support his children, and can't use drugs no numb "his" pain, and has the decency not to get sex from some women by deceitful means.
Maybe someone who wants a sexual experience but cannot obtain it from his wife for medical reasons, but, with her consent, can have sex as long as their is no risk of falling in love or palimony liability with his partner.
Maybe men who prefer their careers to a family and who travel most of the time.
Maybe men who cannot form intimate relationships for long enough to get to sex.
Maybe men who are just not good material for intimate relationships, and admit it freely, yet they wish to avail themselves of the sexual services of a consenting adult in return for payment.
Your assertions about prostitution are rather narrow minded, possibly pathological, and ignore the plight of millions who work in (what you might call) legitimate trades, for peanuts, and in terrible conditions, so you can buy your clothes, your shoes, your TV, your fruits and vegetables, and other niceties for next to nothing.
I'm reminded of an argument I had with a professor of Sociology from Sir Wilfred Laurier University, he was shooting off at the mouth about this injustice and that injustice. He then started to complain about not being able to get a good pair of boots. I said that he could go to a shoe-maker and have them made to order. He said, oh no that would be too expensive.
I laughed, and replied that he had a big mouth for some-one who couldn't afford to pay a Canadian worker enough to make a decent living by paying a decent price for shoes but had no problem wearing clothes made by legalized slaves in China, Taiwan, and Korea.
He went all red and shut his mouth.
I'm trying to communicate with you, because you need to think about why you believe the nonsense that you spout here on this web site (courtesy of the sponsors and their commitment to free speech and a just cause). You are under a misapprehension of what is really happening in the world, and you will find yourself a victim of your ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have never had any experience with prostitutes. I can only respond from what I have come to believe from other experiences and learning.
It is one thing to say that prostitutes tend to have certain attributes in common that are found among large numbers in many countries. It is then quite another thing to claim or conclude that these attributes are in fact thee cause or a cause of becoming a prostitute.
Sickle-cell anemia is a good comparison. The disease occurs primarily in people of African descent but may affect people in the Middle East and Mediterranean area. Not all the people in this group have this disease so there must be some other factor that causes the disease. In this repsect you would be wrong to point at anyone from such a background and say that they are going to be victims of Sickle-cell anemia because they are from that backgound. Like wise you cannot prove or even establish reliable evidence that would allow you to look at a group of the people you describe above and predict with any accuracy who among them will become prostitutes and who will not.
You yourself admit, tacitly, that there is something else going on when you qualify your assertion "The prostitutes are the real victims , most often addicted to drugs or alcohol or the victims of childhood sexual abuse and often , both". If you had the clinically sound peer reviewed data that legitimately leads to such conclusions I doubt there would be room for discussion.
People do things quite regularly or in fact for a livelihood that many others would find repugnant, sacrilegious, horrifying, or simply evil. Soldiers, Lawyers, Butchers, Executioners, Undertakers, Abortionists, Politicians, homosexual or lesbian lovers, Life Insurance Agents, Used and New Car dealers, door-to-door salesmen all irk different people at different times for different reasons. It would be as inappropriate to use the word crime or victim here as it is in a host of still other activities some would find repugnant, sacrilegious, horrifying, or simply evil.
There is a wide demographic with clients spanning all ages (even older children), religions, races and both sexes as well as service providers of all ages(even older children), religions, races and both sexes. What ever else prostitution is or may be, it is also a service found around the world in all civilized (highly organized) cultures despite and in concurrence with all manner of religions and educational institutions, and all manner of governments and economies. The working conditions are as varied for this enterprise as they are for any other enterprise.
Broken people and a horrible child-hoods abound and are found in far more people than the comparatively small demographic represented by the prostitution market sector.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone, just ignore trolls from now on. I've been visiting this site for almost half a year, and I've never heard any of those trolls (assuming they're more than one person) state a single fact. All their information comes from gender feminist organizations whose sole purpose is to spread anti-male propaganda so women will seem to be "better people." And if any trolls are reading this, these facts are proven every day on this site, and it's incomprehensible to me that you're still blind to it.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All their information comes from gender feminist organizations whose sole purpose is to spread anti-male propaganda so women will seem to be "better people."
And the irony is, they seem to be WORSE people.
Ignore the trolls! Debate is healthy, while crushing other people with your opinions isn't.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
