30 days in jail for sex with child

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, 14 year old girls can't consent to sex and are innocents while 14 year old boys who commit crimes are thugs and should be locked away forever. Something doesn't compute here.

Wait, what? How are "14-year-old boys who commit crimes" relevant here in the slightest? Given that the case involves:

1. a 14-year-old girl, who was raped and later killed herself
2. a 49-year-old man, who was a teacher, and the rapist of the 14-year-old girl
3. a judge who (like many) does not seem to understand the concept of consent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, 14 year old girls can't consent to sex and are innocents while 14 year old boys who commit crimes are thugs and should be locked away forever. Something doesn't compute here.

I'm sorry about your underdeveloped brain, PP. That kind of sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concerning archaic views of women and girls, the more things change, the more things stay the same.

I don't think this is the sole issue.

I think this is a result of giving younger and younger kids more legal rights with regards to sexuality. When is the age of consent? When is a young girl allowed to receive birth control, abortions, etc with out any parent knowledge or consent? In some cases, as young as 12 for the latter.

I think that treating children as legal adults when it comes to sex, even in some circumstances, and putting a barrier between responsible parenting and the child, creates a situation where creeps and perverts are able to get away with taking advantage of children.

This is an understanding of consent I have not yet heard before.

I mean, I have heard that wearing a short skirt equals consent. And that being married equals consent. But a 12-year-old girl being able to get contraception without her parents' permission equals consent for all girls everywhere? That one's new.

It is not about consent. It is about placing barriers between a parent and their ability to properly parent a child.

Whatever your views on abortion and birth control, if your 12 or 14 year old child had to get your consent to purchase birth control, or to deal with a host of other issues that are caused by being sexually active, perhaps you would be able protect your child better from predators such as this.

By removing parents from the equation when dealing with children (below the age of consent) you are putting in place barriers to important conversations between parents and their children.

I am not talking specifically about this case, but it could be applied to the judge's warped and evil thinking. If I read the news articles correctly, he basically dismissed this whole tragedy because he felt that the child shared some responsibility and control in the behavior. If we are saying that legally, a child of any age is completely independent and responsible for their her sexuality, regardless of the age and independent of any parent involvement, creeps like this judge can apply it to all issues of the child's sexuality.

I think that below the legal age of consent, in all situations, a child should have no legal independence for any issues surrounding sexuality, be it consent, pregnancy, birth control, or abortion. I think it exploits children and allows them to be victimized when we try to separate out some issues of sexuality from others.

If they are children, they are children. That is a line in the sand and should be in all instances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was no "sex" with a child. This story is about raping a child.

The reason it's being called rape is due to her age. Had she been older it would have been classified as sex between two willing parties.

I do not believe that he raped her.

I was 14 and brushed off plenty of advances from older 40+ men.

At 14 I knew exactly what sex was about and what kind of control I had over men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no "sex" with a child. This story is about raping a child.

The reason it's being called rape is due to her age. Had she been older it would have been classified as sex between two willing parties.

I do not believe that he raped her.

I was 14 and brushed off plenty of advances from older 40+ men.

At 14 I knew exactly what sex was about and what kind of control I had over men.

OK, now we have "statutory rape isn't really rape rape". My bingo card is filling up.

[Anonymous]

If she was so happy about fucking him, why did she kill herself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If we are saying that legally, a child of any age is completely independent and responsible for their her sexuality, regardless of the age and independent of any parent involvement, creeps like this judge can apply it to all issues of the child's sexuality.

But, back here on the real Planet Earth, we are actually not saying this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no "sex" with a child. This story is about raping a child.

The reason it's being called rape is due to her age. Had she been older it would have been classified as sex between two willing parties.

I do not believe that he raped her.

I was 14 and brushed off plenty of advances from older 40+ men.

At 14 I knew exactly what sex was about and what kind of control I had over men.

You are deluded. What the hell do SEX and RAPE have to do with each other?

RAPE is a crime! RAPISTS do not let you 'brush off an advance".

And if you as a 14 year old "knew exactly what sex was about", then I feel sorry for 14 year old you. You missed out on your childhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we are saying that legally, a child of any age is completely independent and responsible for their her sexuality, regardless of the age and independent of any parent involvement, creeps like this judge can apply it to all issues of the child's sexuality.

But, back here on the real Planet Earth, we are actually not saying this.

But clearly the judge is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she was so happy about fucking him, why did she kill herself?

Umm because of all the publicity this brought to her community and school. People teasing her and calling her a slut. Stares and talking behind her back. She didn't kill herself because they had sex ...its because of the fallout from the sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If we are saying that legally, a child of any age is completely independent and responsible for their her sexuality, regardless of the age and independent of any parent involvement, creeps like this judge can apply it to all issues of the child's sexuality.

But, back here on the real Planet Earth, we are actually not saying this.

But clearly the judge is.

PP's statement was an if...then... statement. If x is true, then y is true. It doesn't work the other way around (i.e., y is true, therefore x is true).

So: yes, the judge is saying this -- because he doesn't understand the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no "sex" with a child. This story is about raping a child.

The reason it's being called rape is due to her age. Had she been older it would have been classified as sex between two willing parties.

I do not believe that he raped her.

I was 14 and brushed off plenty of advances from older 40+ men.

At 14 I knew exactly what sex was about and what kind of control I had over men.

People like you make it possible for nasty pedos to do what they do. Congrats on pushing all the blame to a 14 year old child. I bet you're the type of woman that
wouldn't leave your husband if you found out he sexed up your own daughter.

Pedophiles look for kids who are naive that they can take advantage of. He found his target and went for it.

At the end of the day, he knew better. He knew what he was doing was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no "sex" with a child. This story is about raping a child.

The reason it's being called rape is due to her age. Had she been older it would have been classified as sex between two willing parties.

I do not believe that he raped her.

I was 14 and brushed off plenty of advances from older 40+ men.

At 14 I knew exactly what sex was about and what kind of control I had over men.

People like you make it possible for nasty pedos to do what they do. Congrats on pushing all the blame to a 14 year old child. I bet you're the type of woman that
wouldn't leave your husband if you found out he sexed up your own daughter.

Pedophiles look for kids who are naive that they can take advantage of. He found his target and went for it.

At the end of the day, he knew better. He knew what he was doing was wrong.

You're right. I wouldn't leave him. I would do something much worse and end up in jail for the rest of my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was so happy about fucking him, why did she kill herself?

Umm because of all the publicity this brought to her community and school. People teasing her and calling her a slut. Stares and talking behind her back. She didn't kill herself because they had sex ...its because of the fallout from the sex.

wow, thanks clairvoyant poster! how long have you been able to read dead teenagers minds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concerning archaic views of women and girls, the more things change, the more things stay the same.

I don't think this is the sole issue.

I think this is a result of giving younger and younger kids more legal rights with regards to sexuality. When is the age of consent? When is a young girl allowed to receive birth control, abortions, etc with out any parent knowledge or consent? In some cases, as young as 12 for the latter.

I think that treating children as legal adults when it comes to sex, even in some circumstances, and putting a barrier between responsible parenting and the child, creates a situation where creeps and perverts are able to get away with taking advantage of children.

This is an understanding of consent I have not yet heard before.

I mean, I have heard that wearing a short skirt equals consent. And that being married equals consent. But a 12-year-old girl being able to get contraception without her parents' permission equals consent for all girls everywhere? That one's new.

It is not about consent. It is about placing barriers between a parent and their ability to properly parent a child.

Whatever your views on abortion and birth control, if your 12 or 14 year old child had to get your consent to purchase birth control, or to deal with a host of other issues that are caused by being sexually active, perhaps you would be able protect your child better from predators such as this.

By removing parents from the equation when dealing with children (below the age of consent) you are putting in place barriers to important conversations between parents and their children.

I am not talking specifically about this case, but it could be applied to the judge's warped and evil thinking. If I read the news articles correctly, he basically dismissed this whole tragedy because he felt that the child shared some responsibility and control in the behavior. If we are saying that legally, a child of any age is completely independent and responsible for their her sexuality, regardless of the age and independent of any parent involvement, creeps like this judge can apply it to all issues of the child's sexuality.

I think that below the legal age of consent, in all situations, a child should have no legal independence for any issues surrounding sexuality, be it consent, pregnancy, birth control, or abortion. I think it exploits children and allows them to be victimized when we try to separate out some issues of sexuality from others.

If they are children, they are children. That is a line in the sand and should be in all instances.

No on is saying that any child is completely independent and responsible for their own sexuality. You are confusing the issues.

We are discussing whether a child can consent to having sexual contact. Specifically, whether a child can consent to intercourse. The law says they cannot. Whatever other things a child may or may not be able to do independently is NOT RELEVANT.

Trying to justify the judge's perverse thinking by in essence, thinking like he does - that there can be ANY grey area in having sexual contact with a child is just.... sick. You really seem sick to me.