Woman charged with raping boy, 14

[Care4all]

Call me physco...uncaring..or whatever you want.

Rapists, Murders, Child Molesters, terrorists, and Spys should be shot dead. They dont need to proceed with any type of legal system. You want this country in a better state...start with clearing out the pieces of shit that infest it.

psycho, uncaring or whatever....!!!!!

Do you know what an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, stands for or means?

you don't kill someone, unless they have killed....

over punishment, is as unjust as under punishment.

care

 

[Rachael]

Im not going to even going into this with you.
Someone who thinks its okay to molest children isnt right.

 

[tigerbob]

Im not going to even going into this with you.
Someone who thinks its okay to molest children isnt right.

You may not want to get into it, but I notice you changed "shot dead" to "kept at Gitmo".

 

[AllieBaba]

ACtually, if you'll read this thread, you'll see that few considers the rape of a boy by a woman in a position of power as an act of violence. Which isn't surprising, given the lack of enthusiasm for digging out the abusers who get young girls who end up in clinics knocked up.

This is what happens when you promote sex among children. You stop protecting them, and you end up with a jaded, degraded society in which anything goes and nobody cares.

Rome is a prime example.

One problem, what you consider "promoting" sex (though I don't know for sure just trying to get an angle) may or may not include education. Sexual education isn't promoting it, as a matter of fact if anything it will frighten more away from it (those disease slides are not pretty) or at the least make educate them enough to make better choices. However, our media does promote sex to children, Maury Povich is one of the biggest offenders by glamourizing and rewarding those young who sleep with a lot of other people. Many other shows do. One reason I like Jerry Springer is it shows these type of people for what they really are ... baffoons, instead of rewarding them in any way they are ridiculed on stage (it's quite funny to). Also look at all the comedies that have been coming to theaters lately ... almost every single one focuses on sex, most make being a virgin or non-sexual look bad, and the highest rating they get is PG-13. Those movies make millions and many parents are taking their kids to them or rent the DVD for the whole family, while good movies like Bedtime Stories, Wall-E, etc. fail when there is no sexual content and are rated G. So, just wondering if you agree here or not.

You are promoting sex among children when you tell them it's a normal thing, that they don't have to tell their parents, and that there are ways to hide the natural consequences of it, with the help of the schools and government.

You are promoting sex among children when you insist that it's "natural" for children to have sex, and there's no way to stop it, and we shouldn't try, and when it happens, we must "respect" the child (a.k.a. "protecting the predatory p.o.s. who got her pregnant) and not ask any questions about why she got pregnant, or who the hell is having sex with her.

You are promoting sex among children when the schools provide them with condoms.

Jerry Springer isn't showing real AMerica. His producers hunt down the most depraved, dysfunctional, lying assholes they can find...then pretend they are representative of conservative or even just blue collar americans. It's a shame you like it so much because it's providing you with a distorted view of what people really are like. Middle class and poverty-level Americans are mostly like me....with some education, well read, intelligent, discerning individuals who can hold their own in any setting among any group of people, and who raise decent hardworking children.

And if you look hard enough, you'll see those programs which are responsible for the sexualization of children come straight out of the liberal stronghold of the entertainment industry, the liberals darlings.

THe thing is, if it's okay to break up homes because a person's religion includes giving consent for underaged women to get married to older men...then it should be okay to raid abortion clinics that give abortions to girls and refuse to report who the fathers are, or even to ask......

In other words. It's okay for unmarried children to have sex, that's given a pass by the government. But it's NOT okay to get permission from your parents and be married if you're under 18.

The understanding is that it's okay for children to have anonymous sex, so long as they get an abortion. But if they dare to get married, they'd better get ready to have their homes raided. That sets kids up for exploitation.

 

[Care4all]

Im not going to even going into this with you.
Someone who thinks its okay to molest children isnt right.

and who said it was ok to molest a 14 yr old boy, NOT ME....

what i said is you don't go and shoot people like her or kill this woman as her punishment....not vigilante style with a gun and not by having our gvt do it....

something like that would NOT be JUST punishment as you deemed.....that's all rachel...

over punishment for a crime, can be an injustice as well....

care

 

[Care4all]

Im not going to even going into this with you.
Someone who thinks its okay to molest children isnt right.

You may not want to get into it, but I notice you changed "shot dead" to "kept at Gitmo".

hmmmmmm, maybe she saw the err in her ways but did not want to admit it?

good i quoted it....

 

[Agnapostate]

As I've said before, teenaged boys love the chance to do a lot of stupid, self-destructive crap. That doesn't make it any less stupid and self-destructive, nor does it make them any less children in need of adult protection from their own childishness and idiocy and from the sick, predatory adults who want to take advantage of it.

Actually, you haven't given us any meaningful evidence that indicates that youth as a whole should be permitted to control their own lives and physical sovereignty in any realm whatsoever.

 

[Rachael]

TIGERBOB: I changed it because even though this is a forum for people stating there opnions and such, i think there is a line you shoulnt pass with what you say...i passed that line...then corrected it, to the next best thing(as not to totally offend anyone)

 

[Agnapostate]

No one would be offended by that except catzmeow, because she uses data from pro-pedophilia sources.

 

[Rachael]

CARE4ALL: The same statement applies to you as well ^^^^^^

 

[LiveUninhibited]

So people really think a 14-year-old is a "child"... That doesn't seem realistic. Granted some 14-year-olds act/look more mature than others. 14-year-olds were young adults in most ancient societies. Mary when she had Jesus, Romeo and Juliet, most people when they got married, at around that age or slightly younger.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well, we obviously can't establish anything on those grounds alone, since that might be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and we need to differentiate between "is" and "ought." But I certainly agree that the artificial extension of childhood that exists in modern society has caused numerous developmental problems among the population, and I believe a case regarding the counterproductive nature of particularly severe age restrictions can be made.

 

[Diuretic]

You know blokes know about bloke sexuality. If blokes are really honest with themselves they'll admit that a 14 year old lad getting laid by an older woman is a perennial young man's fantasy. The women posting here may tend to see things from a different perspective, from a protective maternal perspective perhaps. But the testosterone side of the argument sees it as a lad losing his virginity to an older, more experienced woman. Exploitation? Not a bit of it. He didn't have to get his dick out and throw his leg over did he? No. He was like a rat up a drainpipe, that's how it goes for males. So let's strip this of cant, at least from the bloke's side.

 

[KittenKoder]

ACtually, if you'll read this thread, you'll see that few considers the rape of a boy by a woman in a position of power as an act of violence. Which isn't surprising, given the lack of enthusiasm for digging out the abusers who get young girls who end up in clinics knocked up.

This is what happens when you promote sex among children. You stop protecting them, and you end up with a jaded, degraded society in which anything goes and nobody cares.

Rome is a prime example.

One problem, what you consider "promoting" sex (though I don't know for sure just trying to get an angle) may or may not include education. Sexual education isn't promoting it, as a matter of fact if anything it will frighten more away from it (those disease slides are not pretty) or at the least make educate them enough to make better choices. However, our media does promote sex to children, Maury Povich is one of the biggest offenders by glamourizing and rewarding those young who sleep with a lot of other people. Many other shows do. One reason I like Jerry Springer is it shows these type of people for what they really are ... baffoons, instead of rewarding them in any way they are ridiculed on stage (it's quite funny to). Also look at all the comedies that have been coming to theaters lately ... almost every single one focuses on sex, most make being a virgin or non-sexual look bad, and the highest rating they get is PG-13. Those movies make millions and many parents are taking their kids to them or rent the DVD for the whole family, while good movies like Bedtime Stories, Wall-E, etc. fail when there is no sexual content and are rated G. So, just wondering if you agree here or not.

You are promoting sex among children when you tell them it's a normal thing, that they don't have to tell their parents, and that there are ways to hide the natural consequences of it, with the help of the schools and government.

You are promoting sex among children when you insist that it's "natural" for children to have sex, and there's no way to stop it, and we shouldn't try, and when it happens, we must "respect" the child (a.k.a. "protecting the predatory p.o.s. who got her pregnant) and not ask any questions about why she got pregnant, or who the hell is having sex with her.

You are promoting sex among children when the schools provide them with condoms.

Jerry Springer isn't showing real AMerica. His producers hunt down the most depraved, dysfunctional, lying assholes they can find...then pretend they are representative of conservative or even just blue collar americans. It's a shame you like it so much because it's providing you with a distorted view of what people really are like. Middle class and poverty-level Americans are mostly like me....with some education, well read, intelligent, discerning individuals who can hold their own in any setting among any group of people, and who raise decent hardworking children.

And if you look hard enough, you'll see those programs which are responsible for the sexualization of children come straight out of the liberal stronghold of the entertainment industry, the liberals darlings.

THe thing is, if it's okay to break up homes because a person's religion includes giving consent for underaged women to get married to older men...then it should be okay to raid abortion clinics that give abortions to girls and refuse to report who the fathers are, or even to ask......

In other words. It's okay for unmarried children to have sex, that's given a pass by the government. But it's NOT okay to get permission from your parents and be married if you're under 18.

The understanding is that it's okay for children to have anonymous sex, so long as they get an abortion. But if they dare to get married, they'd better get ready to have their homes raided. That sets kids up for exploitation.

First, never said Jerry's guests speak for all of the US, but the difference is he doesn't glamorize sex like the others, instead you see the ugly side.

Sex is normal, and natural. Sexual organs have the same sensitivity from birth, the problem is that not explaining why "it feels good" to the child will result in them trying to find out for themselves ... resulting in bad situations. The problem is that there are only two extremes being looked at, and extremes are NEVER good as shown in history. Completely ignoring the fact that children can and often do enjoy sex only harms them, because then they will seek answers from the wrong people (often resulting in making it too easy for pedophiles to find prey). However, if you teach them about it, tell them the consequences and risks, they will be less likely to seek answers from the wrong person. Any parent unwilling to discuss sex with their child is setting that child up to be taken advantage of. This is what pedophiles and rapists of all walks want because it makes them easy targets. Fact is, you can't take advantage of someone who is educated as easily as someone who doesn't even know what's going on.

 

[Agnapostate]

You know blokes know about bloke sexuality. If blokes are really honest with themselves they'll admit that a 14 year old lad getting laid by an older woman is a perennial young man's fantasy. The women posting here may tend to see things from a different perspective, from a protective maternal perspective perhaps. But the testosterone side of the argument sees it as a lad losing his virginity to an older, more experienced woman. Exploitation? Not a bit of it. He didn't have to get his dick out and throw his leg over did he? No. He was like a rat up a drainpipe, that's how it goes for males. So let's strip this of cant, at least from the bloke's side.

The thing I find most ironic about this entire exchange is that one of our maternal agitators has alleged that youth cannot offer valid commentary on the issue of granting civil rights and liberties to their own class because they lack an entirely informed perspective...because of their youth. If she alleges this to be true, it's amusing that she would fail to acknowledge equivalent blind spots when approaching a sexual matter from a woman's perspective, since evolutionary theory would inform us that females are simply predisposed to view sexuality through a more "emotional" lens.

 

[KittenKoder]

You know blokes know about bloke sexuality. If blokes are really honest with themselves they'll admit that a 14 year old lad getting laid by an older woman is a perennial young man's fantasy. The women posting here may tend to see things from a different perspective, from a protective maternal perspective perhaps. But the testosterone side of the argument sees it as a lad losing his virginity to an older, more experienced woman. Exploitation? Not a bit of it. He didn't have to get his dick out and throw his leg over did he? No. He was like a rat up a drainpipe, that's how it goes for males. So let's strip this of cant, at least from the bloke's side.

The thing I find most ironic about this entire exchange is that one of our maternal agitators has alleged that youth cannot offer valid commentary on the issue of granting civil rights and liberties to their own class because they lack an entirely informed perspective...because of their youth. If she alleges this to be true, it's amusing that she would fail to acknowledge equivalent blind spots when approaching a sexual matter from a woman's perspective, since evolutionary theory would inform us that females are simply predisposed to view sexuality through a more "emotional" lens.

Actually ... it's more likely that because of being damaged by people making sex into an obligation that women are now more capable of seeing it with a better perspective.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually ... it's more likely that because of being damaged by people making sex into an obligation that women are now more capable of seeing it with a better perspective.

It's an obligation? Damnit I missed that bloody memo too

 

[Agnapostate]

Actually ... it's more likely that because of being damaged by people making sex into an obligation that women are now more capable of seeing it with a better perspective.

That's rather vague. Could you elaborate?

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually ... it's more likely that because of being damaged by people making sex into an obligation that women are now more capable of seeing it with a better perspective.

It's an obligation? Damnit I missed that bloody memo too

Kinda my point, it's not suppose to be, but many people think it is and this makes some (like me) not even like the act at all, others just get clearer ideas of what sex is. The few who never expected it are actually the better ones ...

 

[Diuretic]

It's a minefield for a bloke. If he isn't slobbering all over here he's not interested or gay (all together now, "not that there's anything wrong with that" ). If he is slobbering all over her he's an oversexed grub (probably not far from the truth). It takes some of us a while to learn that gentle seduction begins with an offer of coffee (or tea) in the morning and continues until "later that night."

That reminds me, the definition of foreplay in Australia.

"You awake love?"