Conference back40::soapbox

    No.

>Does

Do.

NNTTM.

    If you really really really want my opinion on the subject, read
    99.126+ in KDX200::HEAVY_METAL.  

    The fathers shall not be held accountable for the sins of their sons. 
    This is an Old Testament precept.  However, in this case, the daughter
    did not sin...she simply acted as a 14 year old might act.  Choice
    without the maturity or the knowledge of the way this world is.  (This
    by the way makes a great case for parental consents on issues like
    abortion and not just ear piercing.)
    
    In this case, the parents were negligent in their responsibilities as
    parents.  Because of their neglect, the child suffered irreversible
    damage.  Because of their stupidity and lack of wisdom, they lost a
    youthful daughter for the rest of their lives.  As far as punishment
    goes, what does DSS typically mete out as punishment for the crime of
    neglect?
    
    -Jack

    
    gee 'pril. you are so quiet in here, and a caged tiger over there.

    Does this really deserve its own topic?  Isn't there a stupid things
    stupid parents do topic already?  Yes, I think there is by golly.  BTW,
    how oxymoronic KDX200::heavymetal is.  KDX200s are wimpy by any
    standard.  

    
    	KDX200::HEAVY_METAL
                     -
    
    	Get it right, Brian.  8^)
    

    .5 It's my stomping ground.  8)

    
    I prefer the sandbox over here. at least in soapbox, they let me play.

    Maybe KDX200's in general were wimpy, but mine is NOT.  It eats KTMs
    for breakfast.  
    
    jc (Host dood on KDX200)

    
    	I figured you might pop up over here.
    
    	8^)
    

    Woah!  He's fast as lightening.  Shawn, did you put a bug in his ear or
    something?

    
    	Now why would I go and do that?
    

Has he been to 19? Has he taken the test?

    Re: Own topic?  I don't particularly care.
    
    Is the 14 year old girl:
    
    
    A. Victim
    B. At Fault
    
    
    

    she's a victim with faults.

    .16
    
    Should this guy be in prison then?

 In the prison morgue perhaps..

    we are all in prison, one way or the other.
    bars do not make a prison.

    Do folks believe this kind of sex is okay?
    
    

    
    	Consentually?  Yes.
    

    What kind of sex? Kinky sex, or sex between adults and minors?

    .22
    
    Did you read .0?  it went beyond the slave master thingy, to actually
    physical pain.  And you think that even consentually that this would be
    considered normal behavior?
    
    

    
    	Do you know what "consentual" means?
    
    	That should answer all of your questions.
    

    The age factor makes no difference to you either?
    
    

    
    	You didn't specify the age difference in the previous question,
    	so I didn't base my answer on that particular scenario.
    
    	But if I had to, I'm not sure what my answer would be.  My 1st
    	instinct is to still say "Yes, it's OK", but I do believe there
    	is a limit as far as age difference ... although right at the
    	moment I don't know what the maximum difference should be.
    

    Actually age difference is not an accurate measurement.  I actually
    mean a "minor" and an "adult" in this kind of behavior.  2 adults with
    age differences, though might at times seem ridiculous, is still
    adults.

    
    	Is anyone else, like, bothered with, like, the punctuation in
    	the title of the base note?
    
    	It could use a minor modification, for sure.
    

    
    	RE: .28
    
    	So you'd still be against it if the guy/girl were 18 and 17?
    

    i find the title kinky.

    
      Sounds like the sick monster made friends with the parents so's if 
    the girl said anything 'bad' about him they may find it hard to
    believe. He obviously befriended them to fit in and go for the victim 
    full force without possibly getting caught. Apparently when the parents
    consented, he assumed they must be stupid idiots that wouldn't listen
    to the girl once the abuse blossomed as far as it did. Sounds like he
    may have manipulated and was Mr. nice guy until he had them all in his
    POWER.    Sounds like a re-incarnation of my dead god-father.
    
         Rosie

    I'd say that the parents would have to assume responsibility if the
    girl was under 18, consensually or not...
    
    Above 18, it's not necessarily the parents fault [except for my mommy
    treated me bad at 3, so it really is HWER fault]...it still is abuse
    and either way, over or under 18, I'm against what happened in  .0 

    .28
    
    I'm against this type of sex period.  I think its a reflection of deep
    emotional and mental anxieties which could eventually root itself out
    into the open in other ways i.e., violence and crime.
    
    This also shows a complete break down of values.  And when this happens
    it effects not only the bedroom but also the workplace and society in
    general. 
    
    
    

    it was jack who brought up grundel.

    
    	Well, the title has been modified ... but now it appears to be
    	making a definitive statement, indirectly saying that any disc-
    	ussion is meaningless.
    
    	8^)
    

    Yeah, what happened to the question mark?

    
    	Such an inquisitive lass today, April.  8^)
    

	Nancy, I find the 1st part of what you said as being true for some
people. I wouldn't say all, though.

	But the 2nd part really does leave me wondering. I thought it was ok
for two married consenting adults to have sex? Or is it just that you don't
like that type of sex, but it would be ok if two people were married to each
other to do if they were into that. 

	I myself would not want wax dripped on my body. 


Glen

    i myself would like to retain my skin.

    
    	Wasn't it tained correctly the 1st time?
    

    Wax cools off really fast.  Not that I would know from personal
    experience though.

    .0 mentions various behaviors, but not sex. Or is that assumed?

    wax is nothing.  you never dripped wax on yourself
    when you were a kid?

>    wax is nothing.  you never dripped wax on yourself
>    when you were a kid?

  waxing nostalgic, are you?

    Glen,
    
    I don't know how you got what you wrote out of what I wrote, some
    clarification would help me.

 you had to ask, didn't you?

    Glen's just waxing and whining over the situation!

    Uhm yes sex was involved after/during the abuse.

    the title is no longer kinky.

| <<< Note 748.46 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| I don't know how you got what you wrote out of what I wrote, some
| clarification would help me.

	Well, I had thought I read somewhere that sex between married people is
ok. I did not know there were restrictions. So what I asked was:


	1) is it just that you do not want to do things like that?

	2) it is ok for others to do that if they are both married and into it?

	3) there are restrictions on what kind of sex married couples can have


Glen

    Small nit:  Pain is most definitely involved in S&M sex...like
    whipping, etc.

    
    only in California, land of the fruits and nuts...  I am surprised
    Lucky jack hasn't offered his viewpoint.

    "Didn't think you'd die for rape statutory?
     You shouldn't have become a front page story!"

    1) is it just that you do not want to do things like that?
    
    
    No, its not just that I don't want to.
    
    
    2) it is ok for others to do that if they are both married and into it?
    
    
    Tough question Glen.  I think it is aberrant behavior.  But we are
    talking about something that is usually hidden.  I'd like to see this
    type of sexual behavior be against the law.  This 26 year old snapped a
    collar on this girl and with a leash walked her up and down streets.
    
    3) there are restrictions on what kind of sex married couples can have
    
    Perhaps this is answered above.
    
    

    you chose to fool around with waX?
    now you're gonna get the ax!

	Thanks for giving me an idea of where you are coming from. 

	So there are restictions to what kind of sex one can have, even if the
people are married. Interesting.



Glen

    abhorrent.  nnttm.
    
    }}I'd like to see this
    }}type of sexual behavior be against the law.  This 26 year old snapped a
    }}collar on this girl and with a leash walked her up and down streets.
    
    If it was against the law, it wouldn't go away.  I'm sorry for what
    happened to that 14 year old girl...but you cannot legislate consentual
    adult sex.  

    And do we know what kind of girl she was/is?  I wonder what she was
    doing at the same party as this 26 year old dude?

    consentual?  consensual, please.

    The female kind, no doubt.

>             <<< Note 748.58 by SCASS1::BARBER_A "out of my way" >>>

>    abhorrent.  nnttm.

    aberrant's a word too, ya know.

>    ... ...but you cannot legislate consentual
>    adult sex.  

Oh Contrary!~ In NC, as in some other states, certain sexual acts are
legisltate against no matter what the persuasion, type, or number of
people involved. Sodomy is still against the law round these here parts.

It gets a little fuzzzy abuot how they enforce it, though...

TTom

    .58
    
    No it wouldn't go away, however, it could hold a penalty should one be
    reported, tried and convicted.
    
    

    Oral sex is againt the law in Colorado

    It can't be that much better over there, can it?

    Can't do it.

Why not?

    re .65
    
    Do you mean we can't talk about it or we can't do it???
    

    .69 poetic justice. 8)

    Why not?  Cuz it's against the law...'course, I haven't heard of
    anyone being arrested for it either.
    
    RE: .70 
    In Colorado.

    There probably is a $69 fine though.

    
    	Yeah, I'll bet they fine you up the wazoo for doing that stuff.
    

         Well, finally, a cool topic. I think the head shaving and cutting
    off pieces of skin was going to far, but candle wax and the tying up
    part are a lot of fun. So is electricity. Anyone ever try that? Just
    make sure you're grounded and you don't exceed 1500 volts. Watch out
    for gas-powered generators too. They can be dangerous. 

    It really is a challenge to stay current these days...

    
    Watt?
    

    I am simply reVOLTED at this man's attempt to push is deviant behavior
    on others by stating it is fun.
    
    Harumph...

    I see a battery of puns coming on.

You're a real joule, Nancy...

    Can we go back to topic 69 please?
    :-)

    Who's going to take her ohm tonight?

    This topic is shocking...

whoever gets the erg.

    We'd better cut it out before the mods come and ZAP this topic.
    Douuuughggggh!

    
    I just don't have the power to stop.
    

    Everyone needs an outlet I guess...

    /me laughing hysterically.
    
    BTW, I'd never heard the word joule before... uhm, tell me what is 1
    newton?
    
    

It's a soft cookie with a fig filling.

         I'm not trying to push any sort of behavior on anyone. I was just
    trying to share a few ideas with you. I know some of you are sitting at
    your desks right now, thinking "electricity? What a great idea! Why
    didn't I think of that?!?". Just don't wear any metal jewelry - you're
    sure to get a burn. 

    Do you hook it up to your nipples?
    

    Hey Coop, whatcha doin' in these neck of the woods?
    -ss

         No, no, hook it up to your head for the best results.
    It also works if you attach clips to the skin between your fingers.
    Remember when I spent all that time in the high voltage test area? 
    That was cool, but I would probably have killed myself eventually. DO
    NOT, repeat DO NOT attach clips to your neck in the spinal cord area.
    You go into convulsions. 

    
    
    	ed, seek help. ;*)

         C'mon, lighten up people. This wasn't the greatest topic to start
    with - wouldn't it be a little more entertaining and upbeat if we
    started discussing weird hangups? Everyone has them - most people are
    just too afraid to admit it. 

    This conferenc couldn't handle my fetishes.  And I don't think I want
    to read Glen Silva's wild escapades.
    -ss

    I'll bet you do.

    Well, ya know they got these adult book stores all over town. I
    happened to be browzing through their video library once (honest)
    and lo & behold.
    -ss

    Well aren't we a proud group..
    
    /me showing disdain and disgust

    And furthermore no snarfing in my note. :-)

         Well, it was kind of a depressing note. Who in their right mind is
    going to condone any type of relationship, much less an abusive one,
    between a 26 year old man and a 14 year old girl?  Kinda reminds me of
    the Jerry Springer show. Sure there's 14 year-old's out there that look
    great and are physically mature - but it's just plain illegal. I know
    when I see a 14 year old babe my first reaction is .... whoa - started
    getting carried away. Sorry. 

    .101
    
    Ed has a moral side????

> I am surprised Lucky jack hasn't offered his viewpoint.

I can't be everywhere always, Mark.

Any sort of intimate relationship between a 26 year old and a 14 year old is 
pretty sick, and any parent who would condone same is even sicker.

    Such relationships aren't that uncommon in other cultures though.

    So, Jack, if you can't be everywhere always does that mean you have
    bursts of omnipresence?

>    Such relationships aren't that uncommon in other cultures though.

Well, I've also heard that in other cultures it's acceptable for the
maitre'd in a Chinese restaurant to yell at the help in their native tongue,
but we can't simply let that sort of practice run rampant, now, can we?

>    So, Jack, if you can't be everywhere always does that mean you have
>    bursts of omnipresence?

I wouldn't say that anything about me has been characterized by "bursts" for
quite some time .....

    What about Romeo & Juliet?  They were pretty young, and there's no
    telling what was going with those two behind closed doors.
    -ss

But Romeo & Juliet were contemporaries, which means that they flowed from
Will Shakespeare's pen at approximately the same time.

Unless he used an Eberhard-Faber #2.

R & J had a lot more in common - they _were_ both played by blokes....

\C

    
    Chele, you are correct. Back then males played both sexes in plays.

    Back Then Males.
    
    Isn't that a Billy Joel tune?

    
    Actually, in the Old West, 1860's and beyond, it was very common for
    women to marry by the age of 15-16. The average life span in those
    times was considerably lower than today. If a woman wasn't married by
    20-21, she was considered an "old maid".

    The same still applies is many Asian cultures today.

    How bout this one...
    
    That Diane Desmaisons is a BTUty..(beauty)....awww forget it!

    
    	RE: -1
    
    	Believe me, Jack, I'm sure most of us have forgotten it already.
    

    .0 
    
    What a sick puppy.  Consentual or not (and I find it hard to believe
    that she consented to have her hair shaved and skin burned, FWIW), this
    is abuse, pure and simple.  The girl in only 14 years old, for crying
    out loud.  The lack of response (at least up to note 34 or so, that's
    as far as I've read thus far) troubles me.
    
    If I were the girl's father, I would have to be physically restrained
    in order not to rip this creeps entrails out of his body.  Of course,
    if I were her father, she would not be "seeing" a 26 year old man to
    begin with (unless she did it behind my back), much less be having
    sexual relations with him.
    
    The parents were naive, and the girl was a victim.  This is not rocket
    science.  I don't think that punishing the parents is proper...if they
    love their daughter at all, they must already be punishing themselves
    for allowing her to see this creep at all.  Put the punishment where it
    belongs, squarely on the shoulders on this predatory creature who would
    torture this poor girl.
    
    Let the punishment fit the crime.

    I have visions that these parents were at the Bill Clinton celebration
    when he won the election....
    
    Ddduuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh....don....stop....thinkin bout
    tamarro.....dddddduuuuuuuhhhhhhhh.....
    
    

    .115
    
    Great note, Steve.  Its amazing to me as well the seemingly lack of
    shock/outrage to the facts in this note.
        
    It makes me wonder that with all of the "unveiling" of sexuality in the
    world today, if this is the only way people can be stimulated [through
    deviate behavior].
    
    Sexual expression is merely a revelation of who you are morally,
    emotionally and spiritually.
    
    
    
    

   .117   I have to agree with .101.  It seems like a pretty stupid
	  question to begin with.  Tabloidesque topic, designed to
	  elicit a lot of "oh-my-gawd"s and "isn't-that-disgusting?"s.
	  

    
    	Ed, you might want to extract .101 and .117 and frame them for
    	future reference.  I have a feeling that this is the LAST time
    	that you and Lady Di will ever agree on anything.  I'm actually
    	surprised that it happened even once.
    

    I agree with most of what Steve has to say in .115. THis is one sick
    bastard. He needs stoning and I would be willing, nay eager to cast the
    first last and middle stones. 
    
    This brings up memories for me. My daughter had a child at 16. (She
    doesn't live with me) Her mother never realized she was pregnant. (I
    still don;t understand this) I have a beautiful daughter who is now
    married to a wonderful kind man (not the father) and I have the sweetest 
    most loving granddaughter on the planet. She's 4
    
    While my daughter was not physically tortured, she was technically
    raped. They started when she was 14 and he 18. He's never paid any
    money and only 60 days in jail for bouncing a check to the state (NH).
    I still wish that I had not been restrained from throwing him out the
    third floor window when I had a chance at the meeting betwen him and
    myself and Amy's stepfather. I still want him dead and I still hate
    him, despite the love I have for my dauter and her daughter.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

    
    .120
    
    Is it just me, or were others confused with the wording in this note?

    
    It's just you...
    
    Solution? Read .0, comment and forget about the title...
    
    
    Simple, no?
    

   Mark, it's not just you.

    
    .0 reminded me of a favorite technique on the news magazine programs
    (hosted by guys named "Stone" or some such), in which the program host 
    sets up the hapless viewer for anger/rage/fury, etc. over what's being
    reported. 

    
    Gee... I must be in one of my lucid moments, cause I had no problem
    with the title...
    

>       <<< Note 748.125 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove jerks" >>>

    
>    Gee... I must be in one of my lucid moments, cause I had no problem
>    with the title...

    not that lucid - as Mark's note indicates, he was referring to
    note .120, not the topic title.
    

    Di,
    
    I suppose you could say that I was curious as to what the overall
    attitude of folks in the box would be.  Color me suprised that there
    wasn't a stronger sense of repulsion, but hey I wanted the overall box
    attitude.  I guess I got it.
    
    This story interested me because of what I wrote in .117.  Have we
    taken sex and displayed it so openly that young people today have
    nothing by which to stimulate them and excite them through normal
    behavior?  The thrill is now around violence, pain and at times rape. 
    What kind of "urges" are we fostering in this society with our
    irresponsible value system which lacks any morals?
    
    
    
    

    
    Just because people didn't respond doesn't mean they didn't find it
    disgusting.
    
    Doesn't mean they did, either, but also doesn't mean they didn't.
    

   .129  ayup.

    
    seems these type of notes have been pooping up in the box with more
    frequency. Like deb said, why do I need to comment on all of them,
    or even some of them. 

    popping

    Seems kind of odd to say "I want to kill this guy. Bright blessings."

>   <<< Note 748.133 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Here we are now, in containers" >>>

	<guffaw!>

    
    Geuss knot...
    
    Ow well, bak to the drawring bored...
    

    Let's see, the date up there is 1996, right?
    
    
    Sex between a 14 year old girl (minor) and a 26 year old man (adult)
    is wrong.
    
    I don't care if it's loving, beautiful, "normal" in Nancy's eyes *AND*
    sanctified by a church, it's still wrong.
    
    It's really quite simple.
    Sex between a minor and an adult is wrong.
    
    That's all the details we need to know.  (The bulleted list in the
    basenote - in my opinion - serves no purpose but titilation.)
    
    
    But do continue on about the moral decay of society.  After all,
    there's NAMBLA, all few dozen of them, to worry about.  And now
    we have to worry about the wax drippers of America, *they* are the
    true threat to America.  And the titles to James Bond of course.
    
    
    Finally, on the blame game.
    
    Parents can be deceived.  No doubt they will punish themselves forever.
    Children can make mistakes.  They are responsible for their
    mistakes.
    
    But there is exactly one adult absolutely at fault in this "bizzare
    story".
    
    								-mr. bill
                                  

    .136
    
    It is then your contention that people do not mature at different
    rates?  Who are any of us to assert that the 14-year-old was not in
    fact emotionally an adult?  Establishing an arbitrary chronological age
    is convenient legally but not valid from the psychological standpoint.

|    .136                                   
|
|   It is then your contention that people do not mature at different
    rates?
    
    No.
    
|   Who are any of us to assert that the 14-year-old was not in
|   fact emotionally an adult?
    
    That's not the question, is it?  Who are any of us to assert that a
    14-year-old is *in fact* emotionally an adult.  Forgive my skepticism
    on the wisdom of an adult who wants to sleep with a fourteen year old
    child being convinced by her that she is "emotionally an adult."  It's
    a such a blatant conflict of interest that it's not even close call.
    
|   Establishing an arbitrary chronological age is convenient legally but
|   not valid morally.
    
    Infinately more valid than a "professional computer geek" getting to
    establish that the minor is emancipated.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	I again mention the 18-year old guy and the 17-year old girl.
    
    	Adult and minor, separated by 1 year.  Still wrong?
    

    
    	RE: .138
    
    	And why is an 18-year old automatically "emotionally an adult"?
    

    .129
    
    It wasn't the lack of response but thetype of responses.

    Because when you reach 18 you're so horny you can't stand it any more.

>    <<< Note 748.128 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>   Color me suprised that there
>   wasn't a stronger sense of repulsion, but hey I wanted the overall box
>   attitude.  I guess I got it.

    Doubtful, to say the least.

    >ACISS1::BATTIS "Chicago Bulls-1996 world champs"      4 lines 
        
    >    seems these type of notes have been pooping up in the box with more
    >    frequency. Like deb said, why do I need to comment on all of them,
    >    or even some of them.
    
    Case in point, put it in front of someone's eyes long enough they
    become immune to its moral impact.  I have been absent from the box a
    long time, near a year.  Sorry I don't recall.
    

    .143
    
    Saying the least in your case would be doubtful.

    Trolling for a DUH! tattoo, Nancy? Follow Glen's lead and just do the
    69 snarf thing.

>    <<< Note 748.145 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
    
>    Saying the least in your case would be doubtful.

	I have no idea what that means.  Help me out here, Nancy baby.

    Nancy, have you led a completely sheltered life?  Weren't you aware
    before this that these kinds of things take place?  Why do people try
    to shield themselves from stuff like this?  You, particularly as a
    Christian, should embrace these things, study them in detail so that
    you can be better armed to fight the battle and reestablish our country
    as a God-fearing nation.  

    
      Sorry not to reply, Nancy.  So much depravity, so little time.
    
      Of course, Mr Bill is right.  But Binder and his lackey Shawn
     win the soapbox argument.  Since any rules are ultimately arbitrary
     matters of degree, they argue, you can't have any rules.
    
      Of course, my reply would be, predictably, that OF COURSE rules
     are arbitrary matters of degree.  So what ?  You just vote them
     in.  Notice the guy DID get arrested.  That's because most in our
     society are not mindless libertarians.  But I've lost this argument
     as many times as Mr Bill.  Fortunately, we have the votes.
    
      bb

    
    	"Lackey"??
    
    	Hah!!  I've been on the opposite side of the argument 10x as
    	often as I've been on the same side when it comes to Binder.
    
    	But I have faith that he'll smarten up soon and see the error
    	of his ways.
    

 Z   It's really quite simple.
 Z   Sex between a minor and an adult is wrong.
    
    That's fine.  Keep in mind however that in some cultures, you would be
    considered mean spirited and an extremist.
    
    -Jack

    
    .148
    
    'pril, you brought tears to my eyes darling. I thought I was seeing the
    reincarnation of Mr. Topaz. That was great!!!! high fives to you.

    .139 Not in my eyes.  Just thought I'd actually acknowledge your
    question.

    
    Mark, I think she was serious.
    

    
    you know deb, you may be right.

    I'll leave that to your imagination(s).

    
    as far as i know 'pril, i have only 1 imagination.

    8)  I meant both yours & Debra's.
    
    What do you think?

    
    I think you must have an awful time wearing sunglasses with no nose.
                        

    
    I think it was funny as hell. whether you meant it or not. it was
    something along the lines of a topaz putdown. I miss his noting
    style, he was a classic.

| <<< Note 748.159 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Heartless Jade" >>>


| I think you must have an awful time wearing sunglasses with no nose.

	Deb, they sell them with their own nose, I believe. 

     Z   It's really quite simple.
     Z   Sex between a minor and an adult is wrong.
    
    >> That's fine.  Keep in mind however that in some cultures, you would
    >> be considered mean spirited and an extremist.
    
    In some counties, you'd be considered unsociable.  

    Well, I do find all the shock and amazement on Nancy's part frankly 
    shocking and amazing.  I started imagining what my fanatical zealot of 
    an ex-husband would say about the situation.  "If you do not know your 
    enemy, how do you expect to win?  Kill, kill, KILL in the name of GOD!!
    Why are Christians weak minded followers these days?  If I'm okay and
    you're okay, then explain THIS!! {holds up a picture of Jesus on the
    cross}  Go out and reclaim this land!  Show no mercy for sinners!!"
    
    etc...      

re: .149 (bb)

First godless commies, now "mindless libertarians."

I've noticed you use "libertarian" as a dirty word; if you
don't like it, you put the "libertarian" label on it.  Most
of your Republican friends do that with "liberal", and it's
just as annoying.

Please consider stopping.  If you'd like to disagree on positions
or ideas, let's do it like adults.  Calling names is just, well,
it ain't "family  values."

     - Yer libertarian pal who never put a collar on anybody,
    \john

    
    'pril comes out of the shadows......... or someone broke into her
    account.

    Nope, it's me...in the flesh BAYBAY!!!

    
    
    And she's got her broad-brush in hand!!!
    

    {looks at her right hand, then her left}
    
    I do?  Where?  

    I am not below a 69.

    
    	And I presume you're not above a 69, correct?
    
    	So you must be right in the middle of 1.
    

    
      Well, Harney, I'm sorry if I got it wrong.  I'll call you a
     "godless libertarian" from now on.  The others "mindless liberals" ?
    
      Sounds like the guy in .0 would be an excellent running mate
     for Browne.  After all, society has no right to any standards
     unless the teenybopper complains, huh ?
    
      bb

    Please take it to one of the umpteen politics topics.

>       <<< Note 748.167 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove jerks" >>>

>    And she's got her broad-brush in hand!!!

    What makes you say that (aside from the fact that it's one of
    your favorite catch-phrases)?
    

    Tattoo?  Come on Levesque I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
    
    April, dear demented liberal that you are, I am not sheltered.  Of
    course I knew this kind of stuff happens.  That doesn't make my disgust
    and shock at it happening between a 14 yr old and a 26 yr old with
    Daddy's naievity [sp] okay for intimacy without sex [till she's 18] any
    less. 
    
    If it does for you, well April, let's be proud and begin a new Pride
    March for Deviates.
    
    

    Di,
    
    You got a problem with me?  Why not spit it out once and for all?
    
    

  STEP RIGHT UP, FOLKS!!  Get yer mindless libertarians and demented
  liberals HERE!  

    
    	Hoo boy!!  Here we go!!
    
    	Hey, who has the popcorn?  Jim or Brian?
    
    	Edith, get me a beer.
    

    
      Actually, it isn't very creative.  What good is the hot wax
     if you also set her skin on fire ?  Judged as "6 sadistic things
     to do to a 14 year old girl", you'd give .0 below average.
    
      bb

>    <<< Note 748.175 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    Di,
    
>    You got a problem with me?  Why not spit it out once and for all?
    

	pppp....pppp....ppptui.  

        What on earth do you mean?  I don't have "a problem" with _you_
	any more than I have "a problem" with any other 'boxer.  I
	question this topic, is that okay?

    Shows what you know about Christianity.  Christians are not to wince at
    battles regarding morality or values.  If you wish to insult me that is
    fine, but when you begin to make fun of my beliefs thems fighting
    words.  Christians tend to get themselves in a place of desiring
    acceptance by those who oppose them [such as yourself] and ridicule
    them.  My only concern is that you know regardless of the battle, I do
    not have any feeling of resentment towards you.  But I do have to stand
    up for my beliefs.
    
    

    .181
    
    /me wiping off my terminal.
    
    Well I tell you something Di, it sure seems that your sarcasm and
    insults fly my way on a regular basis regardless of topic.
    

	Nancy, I said I thought this was a tabloidesque topic and a
	stupid question.  I'm not the only one (nor the first one)
	to have said that.  Sorry if you don't like hearing it, but
	it has nothing to do with targeting you personally.  If I 
	don't happen to agree with some of your views, big deal.  That's
	just the way the cookie crumbles.  

    }}April, dear demented liberal that you are, I am not sheltered.  Of
    }}course I knew this kind of stuff happens.  That doesn't make my disgust
    }}and shock at it happening between a 14 yr old and a 26 yr old with
    }}Daddy's naievity [sp] okay for intimacy without sex [till she's 18] any
    }}less. 
    
    Any less than what?  Please finish this thought.  Any less than it
    would be between two consenting adults, I'd wager.  You are so typical
    of today's "untouchable" Christians.  You thrive on stuff like this to
    shock you so that you can remember what a good and righteous
    unadulturated human being you are. 
    
    It's funny you call me a liberal seeing as how you don't know anything 
    about me.  If I am a demented liberal, you must be a prudish 
    conservative, unable to see the world as it really is.  Hey, this is
    fun!!!
    
    }}If it does for you, well April, let's be proud and begin a new Pride
    }}March for Deviates.
    
    Pride March for Deviates?   Give me a break.  I've obviously hit a
    nerve with you and you're lashing out.  I don't necessarily agree with
    the lifestyles some of these demon-deviate people lead, but I don't sit
    in judgement of them either.
    

    

    
    
    >	don't happen to agree with some of your views, big deal.  That's
    >	just the way the cookie crumbles.  
    
    	Oreo letting off a little steam here?
    

Nancy,

Not very Val Diff of you...

daryll

    }}Shows what you know about Christianity.  Christians are not to wince at
    }}battles regarding morality or values.  
    
    You've been doing nothing BUT wincing on this one, Nance.
    
    }}If you wish to insult me that is
    }}fine, but when you begin to make fun of my beliefs thems fighting
    }}words.  
    
    How have I insulted you?  I haven't.  I'm not making fun of your
    beliefs either.  I share some of the same beliefs, believe it or not. 
    You asked for peoples opinions, and you can't handle it.
    
    }}Christians tend to get themselves in a place of desiring
    }}acceptance by those who oppose them [such as yourself] and ridicule
    }}them.  
    
    There you go again pitting us against eachother.  What is with you? 
    Just because I share a different opinion due to having different life
    experiences doesn't make me your enemy.  If you think I'm ridiculing
    you, you must expect to be ridiculed and view every opposing viewpoint
    as ridicule then.
    
    }}My only concern is that you know regardless of the battle, I do
    }}not have any feeling of resentment towards you.  But I do have to stand
    }}up for my beliefs.
    
    I respect that.  I would expect that.

    Now she's labeling people and picking fights.  That's not too
    Christian-like, Nancy dear.

    .187
    
    Explain... defending my beliefs not devaluing someone elses.

    .188
    
    Get off your high-horse April you started with a note of complete
    condescension.
    
    

    Really, where?  You are not prepared.

    Why are notes popping up out of time sequence?

         re.182
    
         Oh, no! Attack of the bible thumper! Go preach your supposedly
    "Christian" words in your church! Go spout your propoganda in the
    religion conference: we hear far too much of that crap in here. This is
    not the place for you to declare a holy war.

>    Pride March for Deviates?   Give me a break.  
    
    <sounds of me nailing my fingers to the table>
    
>    I've obviously hit a
>    nerve with you and you're lashing out.  I don't necessarily agree with
>    the lifestyles some of these demon-deviate people lead, but I don't sit
                                  --------------------
>    in judgement of them either.
    
    
    You just did.  Pretty tough to disagree with a lifestyle/behavior and 
    yet remain completely neutral, eh?  Sometimes you just gotta call a spade 
    a spade.
    
    
    -steve

    .194
    
    :-) :-) and just when I thought there was semblance of morality in you.
    tsk tsk

It was a joke Nancy, ah say a joke...

(what is the name of that rooster in those WB cartoons anyway?)

daryll

    .194
    
    Take a lude... 
    
    (yes, I'm joking! this topic is getting too heated...lighten up,
    people)

    Ed:
    
    I'm not going to fall into your trap.  Suffice to say, this is Soapbox. 
    Soapbox implies that we can stand on our Soapbox and piss and moan
    about anything we wish.  
    
    You were wrong in your allegations last week regarding the legalities
    of (whatever we talked about), and once again you are incorrect.  What
    are we going to do with you?

>        <<< Note 748.199 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

>    Soapbox implies that we can stand on our Soapbox and piss and moan
>    about anything we wish.  

    Yes.  For instance, he's currently moaning about bible thumpers. ;>

         What, you have to be a Christian to have morals? If you all have
    the right to piss and moan about anything you want, then so do I. 

    Steve, I was doing that for her benefit, through her eyes if you will. 

    Nancy:
    
    Perhaps this may shed some light.  A few days ago, we here in Boston
    found a Torsoe of a Swedish young lady in a local dumpster.  Our
    society has reached the point of desensitization in these matters.  It
    isn't really a matter of finding disdain in these things...but our
    beloved media has helped create a somewhat callous society...myself
    included.  We have become somewhat like the perberial flock of Zebra
    standing around watching two lions eat one of our compadres.
    
    Another thing, California, in my opinion, never ceases to surprise me. 
    It is a state full of very strange individuals.  My personal belief,
    were it not for the fact they'd be the forth largest industrial nation
    in the world if they stood as a seperate entity, is to give California
    back to Mexico.  California has alot of dysfunctional problems and alot
    of dysfunctional people.  Let the Mexicans deal with it!  
    
    -Jack

  ZZ   Yes.  For instance, he's currently moaning about bible thumpers. ;>
    
    Oh, absolutely...I celebrate Ed's right here.  I'm merely telling Ed he
    is pissing in the wind by doing so! :-0 :-)

    .202
    
    So, you don't agree that there are demon-deviates then?

    No, Steve.  I threw the word demon in there for effect plain and
    simple.  Evil is everywhere, I have come to realize that.

          This topic is a perfect example of the way our society is
    becoming desensitized. Instead of trying to argue the ethics and morals
    of the situation, it is just an excuse for everyone to appear self
    righteous. Do we really want Soapbox to turn into the Jerry Springer
    show? We need controversial subjects that spark real debates instead of
    topics straight out of "The National Enquirer".

    >My personal belief, were it not for the fact they'd be the forth largest 
    >industrial nation in the world if they stood as a seperate entity, is to 
    >give California back to Mexico.  California has alot of dysfunctional 
    >problems and alot of dysfunctional people.  Let the Mexicans deal with it!
    
    
    So Jack, why do you think that this state, made up of all these
    "dysfunctional people", is so successful??

    This is such a fun topic to read.....
    Keep it comin'
    -ss_the_cheerleader

 Z   So Jack, why do you think that this state, made up of all these
 Z       "dysfunctional people", is so successful??
    
    Easy Tom...many of these people are intellectually bright.  The problem
    is a large percentage of them are social retards.  Not sure how much
    more clear I can make it!
    
    -Jack

    Yeehaw, I'm having fun on this bucking bronco! [imagine me with hat in
    hand waving in the air, not quite thrown off the bull yet] :-) :-) :-)
    
    .202 pathetic excuse. :-)

    This liberal doesn't care if the sex wasn't kinky.  A 28-year-old has
    NO business screwing around with a 14-year-old.  As far as I am
    concerned it was child abuse, pure and simple.  I don't think much of
    parents who fail to protect a young teen from predators like this
    either.  
    
    meg

         It's easy to say you shouldn't mess around with 14 year olds, but
    then again you should see some of the 14 year old babes out there. They
    look like they're twenty.

     Remember when Nikki Taylor first came out. She was only 14 or 15 and I
    must say she looked like a knockout. 
    -ss

    They never looked like that when I was 14.
    
    I am amazed at the outfits and make up. Makes them look 5 years older.

    Maybe we should outlaw anyone under 18 from buying cosmetics.
    -ss

         Yeah, our culture makes these 14 year old kids look like total
    babes and then they call us deviants for leering at them. Something
    sick is going on here.

    Ed, what was that you were telling me earlier about "if it has a
    playing field...."? What was that?
    -ss

    Well, I've been driving by the same high school every day for the last
    10 years and the fashion show has done nothing but escalate.

         You cruise the high schools too? Welcome to the club. 

A 14 year old is a child 
- physically capable of sexual intercourse, 
- physically capable of driving a car/bus/train/aircraft
- physically capable of casting a vote
- physically capable of performing surgery.

It does not mean that ANY of the above should be performed by a child.  They 
do not have the knowledge, judgement, maturity or wisdom to perform these 
actions.   Some adults don't either.

The adults, and I include the parents here, are almost totally responsible, 
because the CHILD does not have the discernment to say YES. 
The child SHOULD have the discernment to say NO.

\Chele

    .211 feeble attempt.  8)
    
    fwiw, Nancy, I'm completely torn right now.  
    
    I try to consider myself a Christian, but when I see how most 
    "Christians" act, which is flamingly hypocrytical, self-righteous, 
    biggotted, obnoxious, jump-on-the-bandwagon, everything's perfect, 
    shove-it-down-your-throat, acknowledge-Him-with-their-lips-but-deny-
    Him-with-their-lifestyle, I get so disheartened and pissed off.  My
    husband was a prime example.  The man is supposed to be the spiritual
    leader, right?  Hah!  All he did was almost-nearly-completely destroy
    what little faith I had built up in the short time we were married. 
    Sorry if I targeted you to express my anger towards (him and) the bulk of
    truly clueless Christians out there...truth is, I guess I need some
    guidance and agape.  Forgive me?  I know you do, and I know He does.
    
    'pril (p.s. Ed, shut up)

         My feelings are truly hurt. And here I was all set to offer you
    membership in the United Church of Satan. 

         But we're getting off the subject.  I think any society that tries
    to make adults out of children is partially responsible for the
    consequences. 

    It's nice to see that some of your neurons haven't completely
    depolarized.

   I am curious about the reaction to the hot wax.  I was under the
    impression that a significant number of women _pay_ to have this done to
     them.  

kb

    
      Lessee, the 'Box guide to sadistic things to do to a young woman
     who asks to be hurt...
    
      * Install Win95 on her system.  Tell her it's plug 'n play.
      * Play her ALL of Shawn's CD collection.  Even Yankevic.  Even ABBA.
      * Give her notes the customary moderator treatment.
      * Get her a used Ford, and cancel her AAA membership.
      * Fill her portfolio with DEC stock, for growth.
      * Serve her a "martini" made with vodka, with an olive two sizes
       too big for Miz_Deb's ring gauge.
      * Feed her exclusively on Battis-vending-machine breakfasts.
    
      ...  bb
    

    
    you know Bill, I have to disagree here. Vending machine food is good
    for you. It builds character, I mean, just look at me. The proof is
    in the pudding, so to speak.
    
    Mark

    >The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
    
    His point exactly.

    
    It has been of my experiences in regard to "good Christians", that they
    tend to be the most bigoted, righteous dudes and dudettes around. They
    like to cloak themselves in their very own coat of values. The ironic
    thing about these very people, is that they rarely practice what they
    preach, and are amongst the first to cast aspersions about other
    people who don't share their ideology. I tend to ignore and dismiss
    these people out of hand. Maybe if they practiced what they preached
    more, I might have a different opinion of them. 
    
    Well, enough of my spouting. Time for a vending machine cheeseburger,
    anyone else?

    .206
    
    That wasn't the word I was zeroing in on.  

    >Tattoo?  Come on Levesque I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
    
     This whole comprehension thing seems to be a bit much for you, doesn't
    it?

>      * Serve her a "martini" made with vodka, with an olive two sizes
>       too big for Miz_Deb's ring gauge.

With a mint toothpick.

    
    you're a cruel man Gerald Sacks, a cruel man.

    
    well deb, speaking of rampant, are you busy tonight?

    
>    It has been of my experiences in regard to "good Christians", that they
>    tend to be the most bigoted, righteous dudes and dudettes around. They
>    like to cloak themselves in their very own coat of values. The ironic
>    thing about these very people, is that they rarely practice what they
>    preach, and are amongst the first to cast aspersions about other
>    people who don't share their ideology. I tend to ignore and dismiss
>    these people out of hand. Maybe if they practiced what they preached
>    more, I might have a different opinion of them. 
    


     nowhere is it said that Christians will be perfect people.  We are
     still human, attempting in this life to live a Godly life.  It is not
     easy as those who are Christians continue to live in the same world non
     christians do.  While we have been "born again" to a new life in Christ,
     we are faced with temptations, we do make mistakes and at times offend
     people in our zeal to proclaim to them the true joy it is to know that
     our past and future sins are forgiven, and to have the assurance of
     eternal life.

     I have spoken many times in here of my disgust for those who's zeal
     is offensive and bigoted and who distort God's word and use it as
     a club bonk people over the head.
       
     Of course, I'm sure you know, that there are hypocrites everywhere you
     go..Christianity has no monopoly on hypocracy.



     Jim

    
    gee deb, thanks a lot. delete your reply and make my note look stupid.
    er, not that I need any help with that, mind you.

    
    >> Not sure how much more clear I can make it!
    
    well, you could start by making sense, but we know that isn't about to
    happen...
    
    
    :>
    
    

Abba has a CD?

8-track is more likely...

Art

| <<< Note 748.236 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>


| Of course, I'm sure you know, that there are hypocrites everywhere you
| go..Christianity has no monopoly on hypocracy.


	Very true!

	Their greatest hits cd... I have it! Go figure!

    I believe that there are many marks to measure a man's integrity and
    character.  One of these marks of course is to be assured and self
    confident in your belief system...be it agnostic, satanist, atheist,
    Christian, whatever...
    
    There are many in this forum I have the highest regard for...people
    whose belief system is diametrically opposed to mine.  I have no
    problem being referred to as a crackpot for believing in a God...I
    thrive on discussion like this.  
    
    What I do have a problem with is when somebody, in this case our
    beloved Mr. Edward Walker, coming in with this belly aching, whining,
    blah blah blah nyah nyah nyah, rub your sobbing eyes like a
    preadolescent youth who not only seems to lack the desire to attain
    knowledge, but makes his lack of knowledge obvious be attempting to
    stifle those annoying thumpers in a forum such as this.  I agree 100%
    that some of these replies belong in the appropriate strings...I have
    no problem with that.  But what Mr. Edward has shown me is that he is
    either a frightened little bunny sitting in his cube...fearing the
    barbs against his faith system, or something happened to him in his
    development years that really turned him off...which is why I asked him
    to be a man and share these facts with us instead of blah blah blahing
    in Soapbox.
    
    Crap or get off the pot Edward.  The world is continuing ahead and your 
    ranting isn't going to solve your problem.  Do something about it like
    the Nero's and the Hitlers of the world did.
    
    -Jack

    
    	ABBA has at least 10 CD's out ... probably their entire disc-
    	ography by now.  And a box set with 4 CD's in it.
    

    >fwiw, Nancy, I'm completely torn right now.  
    
    April,  I am very impressed with your honesty.  It takes a lot of
    maturity to write the things you have written here.  Some may find this
    to be a bit sappy, but I have to tell you, you're expression of hurt,
    anger, frustration really touched my heart.
    
    I know anger and hate so well.  I lived hate until I found Christ, but
    now I have residual anger towards God for all the hurts of my past.  I
    don't know if you know, but I have made it a matter of public record in
    the Christian notesfile and here about my abusive childhood.  I spent a
    good number of my years as a Christian being angry this God who saved
    me.  And feeling torn between whether or not He really existed or just
    was something I needed to ease my emotional and physical pains.
    
    For me, I've come to a place of KNOWING, He loves me.  I cannot express
    my heart well enough to explain how He's answered prayer for someone
    who has shaken her fist at God and screamed I hate you.  I cannot
    express my heart well enough to tell you what it feels like to have my
    Father in Heaven comfort me within my soul, when I've been bruised
    inside at the deepest level of my heart.  But I Know He is there and
    that He loves me and that even though I cannot give back to Him the
    perfect love that He gives me, I can often feel His loving hand holding
    mine.  
        
    >husband was a prime example.  The man is supposed to be the spiritual
    >leader, right?  Hah!  All he did was almost-nearly-completely destroy
    >what little faith I had built up in the short time we were married. 
    
    April, not knowing your full circumstances, I cannot comment much about
    this accept to acknowledge your hurt.  I can truly feel this as I've
    shared with so many Christian women their lives of spritual/emotional
    torment from men who call themselves Christian.  In the past I've
    written much about the roles of women and men in Christianity and how
    wonderfully perfect they truly are when lived properly.  I know its not
    popular to be a Christian woman in today's society.  We are considered
    drones to the world, but I can tell you there is a peace about my
    womanhood, that almost makes me giggle inside just thinking about it. 
    I love being a woman in every sense of the word, wife, mother,
    seductress to my husband, successful in my job, there just isn't any
    part of it that I can complain about.  Through Christ I am confident. 
    I can tell you there isn't a man on the earth who could do this for me.
    :-)  I've probably said more than I needed to on this...but I admit I'm
    zealous about fulfillment as a Christian Woman.
    
    >Sorry if I targeted you to express my anger towards (him and) the bulk
    >of truly clueless Christians out there...truth is, I guess I need some
    >guidance and agape.  Forgive me?  I know you do, and I know He does.
    
    I'm glad you know this because its true.  After all that I have done in
    my life I can tell you I live in a very fragile glass house.
    
    Thank you for writing these things.
    
    Nancy

    Levesque:
    
    If I don't get your reference to tatoos and you can't explain it, I
    suppose attacking my comprehension skills would be expected.
    
    Thanks, I understand, don't think twice about it.
    
    :-)

Ya figger someone would mention ABBA in a_abusive sex topic.

    
    looks like I picked a bad day to give up drinking.

    .247
    
    Every day is a good day to give up drinking.  

    
    looks like I picked a bad day to give up amphetamines.

    If you stopped drinking you could stop apmphetamines...don't those have
    to be washed down with sumpin? :-)

 Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue

    .244  No, thank you!!                     
    
    Wow, this has been like, highly theraputic.  8)

    reply .242
    
         Whoa, now I'm being compared to Hitler. Get real, JMARTIN. This is 
    America. I don't have to have any sort of belief system, and I have
    every right to get angry when someone tries to force their beliefs on
    me. Now if you'll stop the sermon and get back to discussion of the
    topic, I'm sure everyone would be grateful. 
    

   .253  Jack has to compare someone to Hitler in, oh, every third
	 reply or so.  It's like, you know, a habit or something.

    He also claimed to be Cornholio.

    .252
    
    So, do I say you're not welcome? or do I say you're welcome? :-)
    
    And that will be $250K per hour, please. :-) :-)

   Z     Whoa, now I'm being compared to Hitler. Get real, JMARTIN. This is 
   Z     America. I don't have to have any sort of belief system, and I have
   Z     every right to get angry when someone tries to force their beliefs on
   Z     me. 
    
    You misunderstand sir Edward.  I wasn't comparing you to Hitler. 
    Hitler was probably the most influencial man that lived in the 20th
    century...no question about it.  This is why I mentioned both he and
    Nero as they influenced much of the direction their countries went in.
    The message I gave to you sir Edward is...you simply lack the balls
    right now to do anything about your demise.  You piss and moan about 
    things but you're most likely one of these meely mouthed types who
    scream and yell...kind of like a bullies snitch, without adding any
    real content or meaning to the dialog at hand.  You have no
    balls...that was the message I was trying to give.  Hitler may have
    been a monster, but he had more balls than you'll ever have.   So
    please, don't put Hitler in a lower category than yourself.  He was a
    doer while you are just...well, just a whiner.
    
    As far as forcing my beliefs upon you, my God man do I have to
    patronize you like Willard Scott patronizes all those simply beautiful
    100 year olds every morning.  You remind me of this woman I used to
    know named Mrs Dougherty.  Mrs. Dougherty simply loves Ted Kennedy. 
    She thinks emotionally rather than intellectually or with reason.  You
    Sir Edward...are a boob.  I never forced my beliefs upon you.  In fact
    you will find any thumping I do here is in relation to another asking a
    question.  But ya see, you didn't take that into consideration because
    you are thinking like a BAG of emotions.  Use your head man!
    
    As far as you believing in God or not believing in God, I never took
    that choice away from you...I wouldn't even presume to have that power. 
    Only God can change your heart just as he's changing mine.  For you to
    get pissed off so easily tells me you have some insecurities.  Grow
    up...search for truth and be a man.  Eat Wheaties...anything!
    
    -Jack

         What was that bit about my demise? And being in a lower catagory
    than Hitler? I have my faults, but I've never been guilty of genocide! 
    And as for finding the "truth", I found out as much as I care to know a
    long time ago. Tell you what, let's stop cluttering up the conference
    with this feud. I'll back off with the anti-Christian remarks if you'll
    lay off the tirades. You should have noticed a few notes back that I
    was attempting to steer the subject back to the topic of this note. 

        I believe that Albert Einstein was the most influential person that
    ever lived in the 20th century. Call me wacky.

    u r all wrong...the media has let us know that BILL CLINTON is the most
    influential person of the 20th Century and Hillary will lead us into
    the 21st century...haven't u all been paying attention or what?
    
    :-)

    Dear Wacky:
    
    Albert Einstein influenced much of the new age.  However, Adolph Hitler 
    is certainly more prolific to the minds of the average citizen.
    
    -Jack

    prolific in what sense?

  .263  busier than a one-armed paper hanger, maybe.

Agagagagagag!

    To the average non educated American, the Theory of Relativity has less
    meaning than the way Adolph Hitler effected the world.
    
    -Jack

    the word prolific should never be used to describe
    that austrian bumb.

>        <<< Note 748.266 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

> the way Adolph Hitler effected the world.

	So now you're comparing Hitler to God?  Or the Big Bang?
	Gee.

    No, I'm comparing the American population to the uneducated!

   case in point, then.

    
    	And, Jack, Diane is suggesting that you might have used the
    	wrong *ffect word.
    

Yeah, that sentence was ffect up.

    uhhh....sorry
    
    It is really a shame the way Adolph Hitler infected our world!
    
    THANK YOU!!!

  .274  8-[

    
    Jack, whatever drugs you're doing, keep them up. I can almost follow
    your rantings.

 abusive sex between 14 & 26 year old OK? people! Abusive sex between 14 
 & 26 year old OK?

    I KNOW I KNOW....defected?

         re.277
    
         Allright, to sum up, abusive sex between a fourteen year old and a
    26 year old is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! Abusive sex with an unwilling
    partner is always wrong, whatever their age. Regular sex with a 14 year
    old... well, you know it's wrong but it feels sooo right. 

    
    	Ed, isn't it about time for you to go cruising through the high
    	school parking lots to find a date for Friday night?
    

         Say, that's a good idea. The high schools are closed for the
    summer, but the malls are always a good place to start. I'll be camping
    all weekend, though. I have learned that beer, guns, and women just
    don't mix. Someone is bound to get hurt - probably me. 

         Anyone out there have daughters in the 14-17 year age bracket?
    Anyone?!? 

    Ed,
    A 37 yr old has no business with a 14-17.  And if you call my little
    sister one more time I'm calling the cops.
    -ss

         I just wanted to be friends. C'mon, she's safe - she doesn't turn
    14 for another 9 months. 

    Ed you are out of luck with mine.  they are 22, 10, and 3 and all have
    high enough self-esteem to not need another "daddy."
    
    meg

    22, 10, 3?  So they average 11.6 -- close enough!  :-)
    
    So Ed, if you have trouble getting people to part with their own
    14-year-olds, have you ever considered manufacturing a couple of your
    own?  There's a whole town in upstate Maine that was populated that
    way...  :-)

| <<< Note 748.268 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| So now you're comparing Hitler to God?  Or the Big Bang?


	Big Bang....that's Adam and Eve, right?

    >	Big Bang....that's Adam and Eve, right?
    
     I'm surprised you didn't play the Adam and Steve line, Glen.

<---that would have been the Big Pop!

    How about non-abusive sex between 14 and 26 yr olds?

         Discussion over. We all agree that it's a great idea. End of
    story. 

    U.S. NewsWeek June, 1996 Issue
    
    How to Teach Your Child Morals..
    
    One of the lines that caught me as I glanced through this article was a
    discussion on shaming a child i.e., the dunce cap in the corner of the
    classroom type scenario..
    
    Not a perfect... but darn near close..
    
    "Psychologists no longer believe that shaming a child causes
    psychological neurosis.  It is now believed that shame when properly
    used is an effected tool towards encouraging moral behavior."
    
    Close enough.
    
    

    Children today have NO morals. There are far too many vices learned
    from the freaks on Springer & Tempest. Kids today make me ill. It`s
    mostly the parents fault I think.
    

    re.286
    
         How do you "manufacture" a 14 year old? Go find a geneticist? 

    
    
    	I manufactured a couple of kids. It was kinda fun too.
    
    

         You can't "manufacture" 14 year olds, unless there's a new secret
    method I haven't heard of yet. Besides, I would rather cut off my right
    arm with a power saw than have any kids. 

    
    	I can arrange the power saw thing.
    
    
    jim (who thought just like you when he was 18)

     I MADE ONE MYSELF LAST SUMMER. DESPITE THE CONSTANT ELETRICAL SHOCK
    THEY WORK JUST FINE.
    
    

         What the @#$&? Where did you come from, and what are you talking
    about? I thought I told you to stay out of here. 

    
    
    	be nice now...
    
    

    I find sex between a 26-yer-old and a 14-yer-old to be sexual abuse on
    a child, no matter what the kinkiness or lack thereof is.  

    SORRY ED, JUST REARING MY UGLY HEAD. EVER SINCE YOU LEFT ME I HAVEN'T
    BEEN THE SAME.
    

         Go put it in the singles note, "Sparky"! No one wants to hear you
    whine in here. Now either get on with the discussion or get out of
    "Soapbox"! I'm surprised you even figured out how to note. Not bad, for
    someone who is illiterate.
    

    ::epperson
    
    Who is Springer & Tempest?

         Jerry Springer? Never heard of him? Some sleazy talk show host.
    There's about a thousand Springers and Tempests out there in tv land
    right now. Do not, repeat, DO NOT, let your young children watch these
    shows. It will give them a warped view of society. Luckily, most
    stations will show these slimeballs only late at night, and some
    stations have banned them altogather. 

    It's very insulting to watch. I can't believe people can just bear
    their souls like that.
    -ss

         Yeah, but sometimes they feature strippers.

    Yeah, you got a point there.
    

         Now if they only featured 14 year old strippers, THAT would be
    cool. 

         I wish you people would get off this subject. Some of us find it
    very offensive. My culture condones marriages between people of
    differing ages. My wife, for example, was only twelve when we were
    legally married six years ago. She has proven responsible enough to
    raise our five children and run the affairs of our villiage. 

    TFB,
    
    In this I have a cultural bias and feel the same way about this as I do
    about infibulation and widow burning.  
    
    

        This practice is hundreds of years old in my country. In fact, my
    grandmother is only thirty years older than I am. We do not practice
    widow burning - second marriages are against the law, however. 

         I must correct my last statement - second marriages are against
    the law for women only. Men may marry as often as they want, and may
    have as many wives as they wish. Marriages between relatives are not
    uncommon either. 

         Reading through the earlier notes, I learned that you have three
    daughters. In my country, this would make you a wealthy woman. Perhaps
    you would consider trading the ten year old girl for three goats and my
    finest pig.

ahhhh, but Springer has some of the best talk show host credentials
around... he was a congressman or something in his past life...

perfect.

| <<< Note 748.299 by MFGFIN::E_WALKER "I (rake) my (hamster)" >>>

| What the @#$&? Where did you come from, and what are you talking
| about? I thought I told you to stay out of here.

	Like anyone ever listens to you....

Odd.

Tillberg doesn't sound like the sort of surname that would originate
in a 3rd world nation.

Do you suppose our collective legs are being pulled, here?

    
    well jack, these "newbies" are suddenly coming out of the woodwork.
    Maybe if we called Orkin, they could cut us a good deal on removing
    them. oh wait, GQ will do it for us cheaper.

Jack, how many pigs and goats are your daughters worth?  They're getting kinda
long in the tooth, no?

    
    	Not sure who this ::TILLBERG is, or whether he's serious or
    	not, but I for 1 am rather amused by his latest postings.
    

Reminds me of a not very funny skit on a not very funny children's show on
Nickelodeon that I somehow keep ending up sitting through.

>           <<< Note 748.320 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Catch you later!!" >>>

	ditto.  

    Reminds me of the Blues Brothers scene in the posh resto.  "The weemin!
    How much for the Weemin?!?  How much for the leetle girl?"  
    
    

    scandanavian goatsuckers are known for their humor.

    Anything like the giant, South American Goatsucker aka the potoo?  

    THEMAX::EPPERSON "I (castrate) my (self)"             4 lines  
    2-JUL-1996 19:26
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Z       Children today have NO morals. There are far too many vices learned
 Z       from the freaks on Springer & Tempest. Kids today make me ill. It`s
 Z       mostly the parents fault I think.
    
    I would say that Epperson shows alot of balz for writing this after the
    garbage he wrote over a week ago.

    Meg:
    
    Congratulations, you just proved that morality is subjective.  Which of
    course supports my point that abortion is a legal right and not a human
    right.
    
    -Jack

    > Children today have NO morals. There are far too many vices learned
    > from the freaks on Springer & Tempest. Kids today make me ill. It`s
    > mostly the parents fault I think.
    
    What a terrible attitude!  And what a crock!  Totally untrue.  Of
    course if you wear that attitude when you're around kids, you would
    have to expect an appropriate reaction from them...
    
    >"I (castrate) my (self)"
    
    Given your attitude toward kids, sounds like a reasonable idea.  :-)

    My son Matthew [13] is taking Karate at an adult educational school. 
    The PAL association is teaching it.  In the evening there are many
    other classes and exercise classes being held at the same time.
    
    A boy around 14 - 15 years old, typical looking punk with a hard look
    about him was sitting outside the classroom up against the wall
    drinking a soda.
    
    My husband [which was and is to be again] was practicing batting under
    a tree with my youngest son.  He was using the baseball on the end of
    the rope and this young boy was watching them.  
    
    I walked over to where they were when this boy looked up at me and
    said, "Hey is that your son?"  And a conversation ensued.  We left
    fairly quickly as the Karate class was over, but I walked over to the
    kid and told him it was really nice talking to him.
    
    I was impressed for several reasons, but I think what impressed me the
    most was how deceiving his appearance was.  It made me wonder how many
    boys cop an attitude/appearance out of fear of gangs or violence?
    
    
    

     Maynard Woman Charged In Child Rape

     By Associated Press, 07/05/96

     MAYNARD, Mass. (AP) - A Maynard woman has been charged with child rape
     after allegedly having sex with a 13-year-old boy.

     Prosecutors said 38-year-old Kathleen Kennedy was charged after a
     neighbor allegedly saw her having sex with the boy. The neighbor had
     been looking through a window of Kennedy's home after knocking on the
     door and receiving no answer.

     The boy told officials he had sex with Kennedy several times between
     May 30 and June 9.

     A Middlesex grand jury indicted her on eight counts of rape of a child
     and four counts of indecent assault and battery of a child under 14.

     The Boston Herald reported that the boy was staying in Kennedy's home
     so he could finish the seventh grade without changing schools; his
     family had moved to Lynn.

     The mother of three, who is divorced, is scheduled to be arraigned
     Monday.

     AP-DS-07-05-96 0902EDT

    gosh, and to think when i was 13......

    I'll bet that boy wishes nobody had caught them.

    Am I just real sheltered, but how does a woman get to rape a man or boy. I
    guess it probably is possible, but what did she do, tie him down or
    something?
    
    The kid probably thought it was his lucky day, until his neighbour got
    involved.

At the boy's age of 13, it's statutory rape by definition. I tend to agree
with the sentiments already expressed regarding the boy's probable feelings
on the matter, though.

    Jack;
    
    is that from first-hand knowledge, or what?

    Her name is Kennedy?

   re: .335

   Just don't take it to the next level.

   -- Sam

    
    
>    Her name is Kennedy?
    
    
    	BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!! 
    
    

>     The Boston Herald reported that the boy was staying in Kennedy's home
>     so he could finish the seventh grade without changing schools; his
>     family had moved to Lynn.

Maynard, Maynard, city of sin...

    they showed the neighborhood where kennedy lives, and it's in the less
    than nice area around the corner from the post office.  between there
    and the restaurant 'grappa'.  kinda funky to know where this is...
    
    

    >is that from first-hand knowledge, or what?
    
    Maybe that's why he spades his dogface...  :-)
    

Maynard, Maynard, city of sin.
You don't come out like you went in.

    
Marilyn Chambers, woman of sin.
You don't come out like you went in.
    

re .342:

See .339.

     Older woman, young boy: Rape case looked at differently by some

     By Karen Avenoso, Globe Staff, 07/09/96

     When a 37-year-old Maynard woman was charged with having sex with a
     13-year-old boy, many people who knew them were appalled. But others
     shrugged it off as an all-American rite of passage: A teen-age boy
     gains sexual experience with an older woman, much like in the film
     "Summer of '42."

     The woman, Kathleen Kennedy, has been charged with statutory rape and
     indecent assault and battery. She pleaded not guilty at her arraignment
     yesterday.

     ``I'm sure the boy wanted this,'' Melanie Falck, 27, a former neighbor,
     said yesterday. ``He knew what was going on. He could tell people,
     `Hey, I had sex with an actual woman.'''

     Other neighbors said they could not imagine Kennedy - described
     repeatedly as a loyal friend and loving mother - doing anything to harm
     a child intentionally.

     ``She's just a little immature, not violent or anything like that,''
     said neighbor Betty Berk, 58, a retired nurse.

     Psychologists and social workers say those reactions reflect an age-old
     double standard: Men who have sex with children are criminals; boys who
     have sex with women are lucky.

     The prosecutor in the case, Middlesex County District Attorney Thomas
     F. Reilly, noted the potential for myth-making when a boy is raped by a
     woman old enough to be his mother. Several times at yesterday's
     arraignment, he stressed that the court should treat Kennedy ``the same
     as if she were a male.''

     ``In this case, if you reversed either person's gender, you'd get
     shock, anger and dismay,'' said Thom Harrigan, a Newton psychotherapist
     who works with male survivors of sexual abuse. ``There's a reluctance
     in our society to see women as powerful enough to influence men and in
     cases like this, we have a tendency to see 13-year-old boys as little
     men.''

     As other psychologists explained, sex with any female - particularly a
     mature, experienced one - is perceived as good fortune for a boy.
     Intercourse is rarely considered unwanted.

     ``The reaction in these cases is usually winking and nodding and saying
     boys will be boys and that this is all part of the learning
     experience,'' said Martha Coakley, chief of the child abuse prosecution
     unit in the Middlesex district attorney's office.

     Beyond Kennedy's Maynard neighborhood, people familiar with the case
     had similar reactions to the relationship between a teen-age boy and an
     adult woman.

     ``It's definitely rape, but we all kind of accept it because of the way
     society says boys should be sexually active at a young age,'' said Dell
     Joseph, 22, of Mattapan.

     Mark Waring, 30, of Hyde Park, said that for an adolescent boy ``it's
     like a dream to have sex with an older woman. But it's still illegal.''

     Attitudes like those, Coakley said, may cause cases of rape involving
     women and boys to go unreported. She said she has prosecuted only one
     such case in the last five years.

     Kennedy is ``a 37-year-old mother; she should know better,'' said Julie
     Folan, 27, of Dorchester. ``How would she feel if it was her son with
     her best friend?''

     When a boy does say he has been raped, both his peers and his elders
     may express disbelief, psychologists said. Traditionally viewed as
     strong and self-sufficient, males are expected to escape any situation
     they find unpleasant.

     In the Kennedy case, the boy did not report any trouble to his family.
     Then last month, a neighbor told police she had seen Kennedy having sex
     with him. But the boy remains reluctant to discuss any details with his
     family, said Faith Baker, a family friend who lives near his family in
     Lynn.

     ``It's very hard for males to come forward because they feel ashamed at
     admitting they've been victimized,'' Coakley said.

     In contrast, girls who are victims of sex abuse are more often greeted
     with sympathetic outrage, psychologists said.

     ``We come from a Victorian and a sexist heritage which treats female
     sexuality as though it can be spoiled,'' said David Finkelhor,
     co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New
     Hampshire. ``The other issue is that because girls can get pregnant,
     the consequences of their sexual involvement are much greater.''

     Attitudes toward Kennedy reflect a different sort of sexism,
     psychologists said. When a stereotypically maternal figure seduces a
     child, society may cast her aggression as no more than poor judgment
     and not harmful. Several studies, in fact, show that sexual abuse
     committed by women is less damaging emotionally than that committed by
     men, in part because women are less likely to use force, Finkelhor
     said.

     Still, clinicians who deal with boys who are victims of sexual abuse
     said they do suffer, especially if they repress a humiliating
     experience and tell themselves they should have enjoyed it.

     ``Whether it's a boy or a girl, the fact remains that it's
     exploitation,'' said Robert Kinscherff, a psychologist who evaluates
     sexually abused children for Boston's Juvenile Court. ``An adult is
     taking advantage of a younger person's lack of sophistication and
     maturity.''

     This story ran on page 15 of the Boston Globe on 07/09/96.

Picture of Kathleen Kennedy at

http://www.boston.com/globe/images/inset/kathleenkennedy.jpg

    
    Howard Winston Carr III spent yesterday "entertaining" his audience at
    how lucky the little boy was.
    
    Pathetic.
    
    								-mr. bill

   .347  yeah, that was bad even for him.

    
    on a side note to this case, kennedy's children have been placed in
    state custody (or something like that)...why weren't they placed with
    the father?? afterall, he is suing for custody...
    
    

    It seems a lot of people have an opinion on this, but has anyone
    actually thought of the boys opinion. I know a lot of males, who would say,
    "Good on you man!!".
    
    If the boy was so upset about it, why has he not expressed this
    already. The important thing to remember is that he was not the person
    who brought it up, it was a nosy neighbour who was peeking through a
    window. Sure, if he was too scared to bring it up, then why not say
    anything now, as half the world knows about it. But you will notice he
    has not, and does that not make you wonder why?
    
    BTW. I have seen the picture of her as metioned a few notes back, If I
    was a 13yr old kid in the same position, I doubt I would have done any
    different.

>                     <<< Note 748.350 by KERNEL::FREKES >>>

> The important thing to remember is that he was not the person
> who brought it up.

	No, you're wrong.  The important thing to remember is that 
	he's 13.

    >>BTW. I have seen the picture of her as metioned a few notes back, If I
    >>was a 13yr old kid in the same position, I doubt I would have done 
    >>any different.
    
    well, after seeing her in court in the new clips last nite, i'd say she
    is less than attractive.  of course, that is just my opinion, and i
    have no idea what the ideal woman of a 13-year old looks like...but i
    wouldn't think she'd be it...
    
    

The picture shows her good side, and she's covering up her big mouth and
double chin.

	I agree with raq....

	This whole thing is really weird. It IS the old thing a woman would be
considered raped, and a man is ok (as said a few notes back). But Di has it
right, he is only 13. 

	If it were a 13 and a 16 year old, people would not be AS upset. But in
this case we have an adult here. She should know better. If she doesn't, she
has to pay the price. And while I'm sure she isn't happy about it, that's too
bad. 



Glen

    .352
    
    The point .350 makes is that our post-Victorian society still has a
    double standard.  A 13-year-old boy is widely considered to have been
    fortunate if he should somehow manage to score sex with a female, and
    even more so if she's an adult who can, presumably, show him the ropes. 
    This sort of thing is often thought to be a rite of passage for boys.
    
    In the '50s and '60s, you could see this double standard even in the
    popular songs of the day; Dion's "The Wanderer" and Ricky Nelson's
    "Traveling Man" extolled the virtues of a guy's having lots of girls,
    but Dion also sang "Runaround Sue," which warns boys to stay away from
    a girl who has lots of guys.
    
    The essential point, which .350 misses, is what would you say if the
    genders of the participants were reversed?

>	If it were a 13 and a 16 year old, people would not be AS upset. But in
>this case we have an adult here. She should know better.

Not only is she an adult, she was acting in loco parentis.  An article in the
Globe the other day quoted someone as saying he's not even a mature 13-year-old.

    >>The essential point, which .350 misses, is what would you say 
    >>if the genders of the participants were reversed?
    
    in both case, it is wrong, and the 'adult' should punished...whether
    or not the teen was willing.
    
    

>he's not even a mature 13-year-old.

How is this measured?

    by the inch? 

    TTWA:
    
    Why is it that anybody with the name "Kennedy" has a difficult time
    controlling themselves?  Is it environmental of genetic?

    >in both case, it is wrong, and the 'adult' should punished...whether
    >or not the teen was willing.
    
    I disagree. 13 year olds may be immature, but they are not stupid. They
    are also at the age when sexual activity is desired by themselves (and
    by themselves  :)). Rape is forced sexual contact. If this 13 year old
    was forced, OK. It doesn't appear that he was. If I remember being that
    age, and I'm not sure that I can remember that far back, I would have
    wanted what this boy wanted and would have been delighted with the
    results.

What if the kid propositioned her and she agreed?

Not impossible. She was a friend of his mother's. He knew her. Maybe they
had some sort of close relationship. She's been described as not the brightest
bulb on the string.

I'm not trying to dismiss the impropriety of the situation, but I really
wonder if there's enough data on the table to draw any conclusions.

When does it become improper, anyway? If he'd had sex with a 13 year old
girl would it be the same issue? How about a 15 year old girl? 17? 21? Where
does this line get drawn?

>        <<< Note 748.362 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I'm not trying to dismiss the impropriety of the situation, but I really
>wonder if there's enough data on the table to draw any conclusions.

	He's 13.  She's approximately three times that.  That's 
	enough data.

Great. Now go back and address the first statement in my response, if you would.

He makes the suggestion, she's too dumb to know any better and complies.

What if?

>        <<< Note 748.364 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>He makes the suggestion, she's too dumb to know any better and complies.

>What if?

	What about it?  Suddenly it's okay because she's a total moron
	or just dropped in from Jupiter?

>>he's not even a mature 13-year-old.
>
>How is this measured?

Here's the whole thing:

The alleged victim's mother said yesterday described her son [sic] as
"not even a mature 13 years old.  He loves baseball, rollerblading and
bikes.  He doesn't go to dances or parties."

    
      As to what the law is, it's simple - kids are jailbait, and the
     adult is always wrong.  The philosophical basis is that minors
     are not competent - their signature on a contract, for example,
     is worthless, as they are under no legal requirement to pay up.
    
      The age, like any other age, is arbitrary, which means it is
     determined by politics.  A vote.  People below age 35 cannot be
     President.  Because most of the people in the society think it
     would be too young.  It can be changed, arbitrarily, at any time,
     to some other age, also through politics.
    
      bb

>	What about it?  Suddenly it's okay because she's a total moron
>	or just dropped in from Jupiter?

Nobody said it was "okay". Do you think it would make a difference
as far as the prosecution, the defense, or the decision of the court
or a jury?

Some sort of, er, ah, extenuating circumstance, yeah - that's the ticket!

    .363
    
    > He's 13.  She's approximately three times that.  That's
    > enough data.
    
    Ergo, if he were 21 and she 63, it would be wrong for the same reason?

>Great. Now go back and address the first statement in my response, if you would.

>He makes the suggestion, she's too dumb to know any better and complies.

>What if?
    
    It's rape and in JackWorld she gets to meet Sparky.

>        <<< Note 748.368 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Nobody said it was "okay".

	Well, you certainly didn't make the point of your question clear
	in .362.  "What if...?"  Would it be improper?  Duh - yeah.

>Do you think it would make a difference
>as far as the prosecution, the defense, or the decision of the court
>or a jury?

	What are we talking about here?  _This_ situation - a woman
	with three kids of her own who apparently has some amount of
	grey matter?  Or a total idiot who has no knowledge of the law?
	Sure it might make a difference, depending on how mentally
	competent the adult involved is.

>    It's rape and in JackWorld she gets to meet Sparky.

Hey. No skin off my nose. Have at it!

Does that mean that the question isn't worth pursuing?

>     <<< Note 748.371 by SMURF::BINDER "Errabit quicquid errare potest." >>>
    
>    Ergo, if he were 21 and she 63, it would be wrong for the same reason?

	There were two reasons in my response.  Him being 13 was one of them.
	

> Would it be improper?

That wasn't my question, though.

    
    	Does the kid have to press charges in order for her to be
    	prosecuted?  Or is the state going to prosecute it for their
    	own benefit, to "teach her a lesson"?
    
    	If he doesn't want to press charges, I say let her go.
    

    He's not competent, Shawn.  The state will act in loco parentis for
    him (since the woman obviously failed thereat), and press charges.

    I don't see why any of this should be anybody's business except that of
    the participants, unless one of the participants has some objection.
    
    The only reason age enters into it is because of a man-made law that
    says it does.  Maybe that's another bad law.
    
    And the only reason there would be more outrage if the sexes were
    reversed is because men still like to think of women, especially young
    girls, as their personal property.
    
    Can't you still legally get married at 13 in Kentucky?  Or was it West
    Virginia or Mississippi?
    
    The amount of victorian hypocrisy in the legal system of this
    supposedly most advanced country in the world sometimes boggles the mind.
    

    hey, the boy got lucky, but the woman should've had a better sense of
    doing it where someone can peek into the windows and see everything...
    
    it's NOT right for a man OR a woman to have sex w / a
    minor...extenuating circumstances just applies when the sentence gets
    handed out...5 yrs or 20 yrs or sparky

>                      <<< Note 748.380 by USAT02::HALLR >>>

>    hey, the boy got lucky...

	Had it been a 13-year old girl and a nearly 40-year old man,
	would you have said, "hey, the girl got lucky..."? 
	Somehow, I can't imagine you would have.

>	would you have said, "hey, the girl got lucky..."? 
>	Somehow, I can't imagine you would have.

I have to agree with you, however, never having been a 13-year old girl,
personally, it's difficult for me to have the same viewpoint as regards 
this situation.

For all I know, it's quite correct that no 13 year old girl would wish
to be in such a situation, however, I know of _VERY_ few 13 year old
boys who wouldn't give their eyeteeth to have been in this kid's, er,
position.

It may very well be "PC" to consider the boy victimized. It's certainly
proper to consider the situation an abusive one based on the law. What
is not clear is how the situation is perceived by the boy. Lacking any
further info, it's not too hard to make some assumptions as to how he
felt about it. And I'm not claiming that that _should_ mitigate her actions,
but I recognize that it very well may in the eyes of the jury.

Now, we can sanctimoniously refer to him as a victim if we like, but
the more interesting question becomes whether or not that's just blowing
smoke.

Well, regarding the use of the term "PC" in this context, I don't know
what else to call it.

A 13 year old boy knows damn well what his physical desires are and how
he feels about an opportunity to satisfy same, without any help from the
legal system, his parents, a church or anything else. I strongly doubt
that this particular 13 year old boy feels the least bit victimized, other
than the fact that this is now becoming of Federal Case Proportions in
terms of the publicity.

So, if someone wants to call him "a victim", anyway, what the hell is it
if it isn't "PC"?

Do you expect that you're going to change the kids moral/spiritual outlook
by calling him "a victim"? All that's accomplished is one's personal
feelgood-ness that they've spoken for the "right" side of the issue.

    
    >>Why is it that anybody with the name "Kennedy" has a difficult time
    >>controlling themselves?  Is it environmental of genetic?
    
    ttwa:  why is it that anybody with the name 'martin' thinks he is
    funny?
    
    shall i give you a list of the kennedys i know that don't appear to
    have a hard time controlling themselves??
    

    di:
    
    good response on the first half of my note, now how bout responding to
    the second hald also?

>        <<< Note 748.383 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>A 13 year old boy knows damn well what his physical desires are and how
>he feels about an opportunity to satisfy same, without any help from the
>legal system, his parents, a church or anything else.

	Of course, this is also true of a 13-year old girl, no?

	So anyways, are you saying that the whole statutory rape thing is just
	one big crock of PC nonsense?

>                      <<< Note 748.385 by USAT02::HALLR >>>

>    di:
    
>    good response on the first half of my note, now how bout responding to
>    the second hald also?

	Er, I didn't know I was supposed to respond to every part of
	a person's note.  This must be a new rule.

	Anyways, here you go:  Very well said, Ron.  I couldn't have
	said it better myself.  Bravo, bravissimo.

	How's that?

    getting serious again, i know as a 13 year old i would have felt lucky
    for a 38 year old woman to pay attention to me, much less have sex with
    me...
    
    the problem is, a 13 year old, being naiive in the ways of sex and
    personal responsibility, probably has little capacity to say no, onkly
    that his hormones tell him "he wants it."
    
    the adult in this situation, whether it's a 13 yr old boy or girl and
    the adult being a man or woman, is the legally responsible party,
    regardless of extenuating circumstances...
    
    i feel that the extenuating circumstances ONLY apply to the punishment
    for the crime, not the determination of guilt or innocence.  

| <<< Note 748.360 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Why is it that anybody with the name "Kennedy" has a difficult time
| controlling themselves?  Is it environmental of genetic?

	Jack, will Mrs. Dougherty vote for her? :-)

>	Of course, this is also true of a 13-year old girl, no?

I already said, I _DON'T_KNOW_ for sure how a 13 year old girl would
feel about such a situation. I've never been a 13 year old girl. I
have, however, been led to believe, by way of my upbringing and
what-have-you, that a 13 year old girl _WOULD_NOT_ be pleased to be
in a situation where she had the opportunity to have sex with a man
three time her age.

Now, if I'm correct in that assumption, and, trust me, I know I'm correct
regarding the outlook of most pubescent boys, then _THAT_ is where the 
difference lies.

    .389
    
    depends on whats she is running away from   :-)

    Ron, well put.  I would argue however that the 13 y.o. is not
    necessarily naive in the ways of sex.  12, 11, and 10 y.o.s for that
    matter are probably pretty wise to whats up in sexual mechanics
    especially if there are older siblings around.  Personal responsibility
    is entirely another matter.  

	I don't presume to know what the majority of 13-year old girls
	think these days.  I'll wager plenty of them are just as anxious
	to have sex as 13-year old boys are, however.

	So anyways, Jack, are you saying that the whole statutory rape 
	thing is just one big crock of PC nonsense?

>	So anyways, are you saying that the whole statutory rape thing is just
>	one big crock of PC nonsense?

No. You didn't read that anywhere, did you? What I'm saying is that calling
this boy, in these circumstances, "a victim", without having some sort of
feedback from him personally regarding the situation, is quite "PC". Do
you think he feels traumatized? Or damaged?

    Perhaps "statutory RAPE" is the wrong term.  As was pointed out, rape
    means nonconsensual sexual penetration.  When a minor is involved, we
    need a term for consensual sex that is differentiated from rape.

             <<< Note 748.393 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


	>I don't presume to know what the majority of 13-year old girls
	>think these days.  I'll wager plenty of them are just as anxious
	>to have sex as 13-year old boys are, however.

        Ask Shawn.

    Damaged from the hype and publicity perhaps.  Will probably have a hard
    time getting a date in jr./sr. high school.  Which one of you parents
    would let your daughter date this kid?  
    

   Aside: "victim" - you didn't read that anywhere in my notes, did you?

   So if you ask the boy how he feels about it, and he says, "No problemo.",
   that means he wasn't damaged?

    
    	RE: Diane
    
    	If there was no force involved, why would there be any damage
    	if the participants were both willing and able?
    
    	Reverse the sexes and you could run into some problems regard-
    	ing "Tab A" and "Slot B", of course, but in this case there's
    	no real danger of that happening.
    

>   Aside: "victim" - you didn't read that anywhere in my notes, did you?

Perhaps not in so many words. I did get the impression that that was your
opinion, though. Am I mistaken?

>                <<< Note 748.399 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Cracker" >>>
    
>    	If there was no force involved, why would there be any damage
>    	if the participants were both willing and able?

	There wouldn't _necessarily_ be any damage involved, but there
	_could_ be long-term psychological effects, at the very least,
	depending on the youth involved, n'est-ce pas?  This is pretty
	obvious stuff.  

>   So if you ask the boy how he feels about it, and he says, "No problemo.",
>   that means he wasn't damaged?

It certainly could very well mean that. Yes. Are you of a different opinion?
Just the fact that he had sex at 13 with a woman three times his age
does not in any way provide bona fide evidence that harm was done to him.

As I said quite some time ago, the possibility exists that it was his idea.
And, without information to the contrary, I can't see that he would have
been harboring much vehement opposition to the plan.

So, the neighbor looked through the window and saw them doing something...
has the "something" been defined or described in the news? In today's
world, ever since a friend here was counseled for sexual harassment
because he referred to a female coworker as a "lady," I kind of like to
know just what they're talking about when they say "rape." Could it be what
we used to call fondling or groping - or touching?

Second question - was the reported incident the first such instance
involving the two people in question?

Just wondering,

Art

    >So anyways, are you saying that the whole statutory rape
    >thing is just one big crock of PC nonsense?
    
    Nah, just regular nonsense.
    
    >we need a term for consensual sex that is differentiated
    >from rape.
    
    It's called fun.
    
    >Which one of you parents would let your daughter date this
    >kid?
    
    How many times have you ever successfully forbidden your son
    or daughter to date someone?  If > 0, then what makes you
    think you were successful?
    
    >there _could_ be long-term psychological effects
    
    Yeah, they call it "fond memories"
    
    :-)
    

    
    I have a question. Was the woman married or single? I didn;t remember
    reading that in the article. Still, she must be hard up if she's making
    it with a 13 year old.

    it's quite clear who had the power in this situation.
    who steered things.  who suggested things.  the woman
    did.  she's guilty.  what the hell was she thinking?

>	_could_ be long-term psychological effects, at the very least,

Well, yes - we all know that there's plenty of evidence indicating how
young children are psychologically crippled by traumatic events in their
lives, such as getting yelled at, or punished, or grounded, or ...

And certainly some kids are more emotionally frail than others.

I just don't see much value in starting to point accusatory fingers in
this case, given what we know. The possibility also exists that it did
him more good than harm. And we can't prove that, either.

    .407
    
    > it's quite clear who had the power in this situation.
    > who steered things.  who suggested things.  the woman
    > did.
    
    You were there.  You heard the discussion and witnessed the events that
    led to the act in question.  Why the hell don't you come forward as a
    material witness.
    
    What?  You weren't there?  Suddenly your vision has just become about
    as clear as mud.

>        <<< Note 748.401 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>>   Aside: "victim" - you didn't read that anywhere in my notes, did you?

>Perhaps not in so many words. I did get the impression that that was your
>opinion, though. Am I mistaken?

	Right now, I know he was a participant in an illegal act.  It's
	possible that he's a victim.  But I wouldn't use that word.

>	possible that he's a victim.  But I wouldn't use that word.

Well, then, I guess you're not so PC afterall.

:^)

    
    I don't get it. If she was that hard up, she could have called shawn.

    .409
    
    oh right, dick, as if the 13-year is as savvy and worldly
    as the 37-year old.  i can see the 13-year having control
    of the situation if and only if the woman is retarded.

>        <<< Note 748.408 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>


>I just don't see much value in starting to point accusatory fingers in
>this case, given what we know.

	Point accusatory fingers?  Aagagag.  It's illegal.  You want
	we should just ask anybody under age if they enjoyed it and
	if they say "Yeah.", send the adult on his or her merry way?

    I have a 13 year old son.  He is smack dab in the middle of raging
    hormones from the onset of puberty.
    
    I think he could make a decision to have sex with an older woman, but
    the real issue is his maturity level.  My son cannot make a "good
    decision" regarding sex at this time in  his life, particularly at this
    time in his life.
    
    Can he make the decision?  Yes!  Can he enjoy the activity? Yes.  But
    neither of these constitute the appropriate wisdom by which to judge
    and make a "sound" decision towards being sexually active [even with
    another 13 year old].
    
    Explicit Comments Following - BE WARNED!
    
    Let me also be rather blatant on this next point as well.  I enjoyed
    the sexual molestation of my father.  Shocking?  It shouldn't be. 
    Children ARE capable of sexual stimulation very early on.  My first
    recollection of pleasure from this was when I was around 3 years old.
    
    By the time I was 12 and already 36 - 25 - 35 shaped "child", I was
    a sex addict, still techinically a virgin.  I seduced 2 of my uncles
    and to this day the guilt around that behavior is horribly overwhelming
    at times... HOWEVER, I cannot help but ask why in the world these grown
    men with daughters my age didn't stop and ask why was I behaving this
    way.  Why is it men think that no matter what age a girl if she comes
    on to him he has the right to take her?
    
    I was not able to make a good decision and my behavior was totally out
    of line [I know that now as an adult], why couldn't another adult know
    it then?
    
    This is rather painful, but it feels good to get it off my chest.  And
    hopefully, if there is anyone who reads this who perhaps is still
    feeling guilt from a childhood experience, they will find themselves
    not alone.
    
    
    

    .413
    
    > if and only if the woman is retarded.
    
    Bingo.  She has already been described in the press as not the
    brightest bulb in the string.  But of course you didn't see that
    because your vision isn't attuned to the possibility of extenuating
    circumstances.  He's a kid, so she's at fault, period.

>Well, then, I guess you're not so PC afterall.

	I would have hoped you knew that before.

  not the brightest bulb in the string == retarded?

  i did not know that.

    .413
    
    |> if and only if the woman is retarded.
    
    |your vision isn't attuned to the possibility of extenuating   
    |circumstances.
    
    check your own vision.  i'm the one who wrote the top line.

>	Point accusatory fingers?  Aagagag.  It's illegal.  You want
>	we should just ask anybody under age if they enjoyed it and
>	if they say "Yeah.", send the adult on his or her merry way?

If you'll be so good as to note, I have not, in any of the discussion
heretofore, suggested any such thing. What I have posited, is that there
is no reason, without some evidence or testimony, to start making wild
claims about the "damage" done to this boy in these circumstances. And
simply "because it's illegal" doesn't improve the probability of that
being the case.

I orginally entered the debate this morning with the queries "What if it was 
the kid's idea?" and "Where do we draw the age differential which matters?"

As of yet, I haven't seen any convincing reasons why "it's illegal" should
excuse the validity of those questions. Yet, what I continue to hear, is
"It's illegal".

Yes - I _know_ it's illegal. We've established that.

Failing to pay your income taxes properly is also illegal, but I remain
unconvinced that it's necessarily and intrinsically "wrong".

I think Nancy emphasizes the critical point of whether a 13 year
old is capable of making a responsible decision. I wonder how
much this boy thought of the risks of communicable diseases or
aids. 

Sure, he thought it was okay because he felt good. I wonder if
he would feel good 10 years from now if her were dying from
pneumonia...

I'm sure he gave as much thought of the risks during the acts
as the kids who have died while puffing.

>Now, we can sanctimoniously refer to him as a victim if we like, but
>the more interesting question becomes whether or not that's just blowing
>smoke.
    
    How do you square this with "Any sort of intimate relationship between
    a 26 year old and a 14 year old is pretty sick, and any parent who
    would condone same is even sicker"? Just wondering. You seem to play
    the sanctimony card quite contentedly when it suits you.
    
    Mebbe we should saunter over to Crime and Punishment where you assert a
    rape is a rape is a rape and "the penalty for rape should be death."
    
    Do you make any effort at all to be consistent in your views?
     

> whether a 13 year old is capable of making a responsible decision.

And in this he is no different from many 23 year olds. Or 33 year olds.
Or 53 year olds. Or....

Lots of people make dumb, irresponsible decisions. And sometimes they're
just lucky. Other times they die. Maybe 'cause they crossed a street.

>        <<< Note 748.420 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>If you'll be so good as to note, I have not, in any of the discussion
>heretofore, suggested any such thing.

	If you'll be so good as to note, I was asking if that's what
	you want.  We call this a question.

>What I have posited, is that there is no reason, without some evidence or
>testimony, to start making wild claims about the "damage" done to this boy

	Of course that is true.  I haven't made any such claims myself.
	The problem is that there can be damage without any evidence of
	it or testimony to that effect.  So - so what if it was the kid's
	idea?  It's still just as wrong for the adult to engage in the
	act, not knowing what effects it could have on the kid.  Do you
	not think it's illegal for a good reason?

    
    	How are we supposed to know if the boy minded or objected
    	to the woman's advances?  Because he didn't come forward ?
    	Because he didn't complain ?
    
    	Everyone is saying the boy enjoyed it, nay, that this is
    	the answer to every 13 year old boy's dreams.  Doesn't that
    	tell him there's something wrong with him if he *didn't*
    	welcome her advances ?
    
    	We're talking about a kid, here!
    
    

    >And in this he is no different from many 23 year olds. Or 33 year olds.
    >Or 53 year olds. Or....
    
    Well, he should be. And to cite this as a point of justification just
    goes to show how irresponsible your point really is.
    
    >Lots of people make dumb, irresponsible decisions. And sometimes
    >they're just lucky. Other times they die. Maybe 'cause they crossed a
    >street. 
    
    None of which are applicable to this situation.  But it sure sounds
    good as fill in.
    
    
    

>    Do you make any effort at all to be consistent in your views?

Where's the lack of consistency between finding fault with irresponsible
parents who encourage a sick sexual relationship between their own child
and a social deviant, and failing to agree that there's inherent victimization
in a sexual relationship between those of disparate ages, even if it isn't
necessarily the most wholesome relationship in my opinion, when the particulars
of the matter aren't clear?

I'll grant you it may look like playing two sides, but it clearly isn't.

Nowhere have I claimed that the Maynard affair is proper. I'm just sick
and tired of reading/hearing the onesided viewpoints which are trying to
"protect" this kid who, from all appearances, wasn't looking to be protected.

    
    	RE: Karen
    
    	It has been said that "there's a good chance he enjoyed it",
    	but no one can be sure, nor has said as far as I know, that
    	"he did enjoy it".
    

    
    I've got to know. If this woman is convicted of statutory rape, should
    she then get the death penalty???

>        <<< Note 748.427 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

> I'm just sick
> and tired of reading/hearing the onesided viewpoints which are trying to
> "protect" this kid who, from all appearances, wasn't looking to be protected.

	That's the nature of the adult/child relationship, in case you
	hadn't noticed.  Adults are constantly protecting kids who don't
	think they need it.

    >when the particulars of the matter aren't clear?
    
    This is exactly to what I am speaking.  It matters NOT the particulars. 
    Either way it is a travesty to the boy.  As it was pointed out, this
    boy probably doesn't have enough "good information" regarding sex and
    communicable diseases to have wagered all before the relationship
    engaged.
    
    It could be years before he realizes what has happened, but the one
    thing that MOST concerns me is the line that was crossed with him,
    could very well set him up to cross that line himself later on with
    another who is now his junior.
    
    The human sexuality is so closely linked with our morality in every
    other sense of the word that to date, it cannot be measured.
    
    
    
    

>             <<< Note 748.404 by NUBOAT::HEBERT "Captain Bligh" >>>

>So, the neighbor looked through the window and saw them doing something...
>has the "something" been defined or described in the news?

	The report I heard said she was performing oral sex on him.

| <<< Note 748.394 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

| No. You didn't read that anywhere, did you? What I'm saying is that calling
| this boy, in these circumstances, "a victim", without having some sort of
| feedback from him personally regarding the situation, is quite "PC". Do
| you think he feels traumatized? Or damaged?

	The person may not have been either of those. But according to the law,
it ain't right. It isn't PC, it's the law. 



Glen

    
    	RE: .432
    
    	So the kid was bored, and she apparently had an hour to blow.
    
    	Big deal.
    

-1 you're are baaaaaad, Shawn. that was good, though.

>        <<< Note 748.427 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Where's the lack of consistency between finding fault with irresponsible
>parents who encourage a sick sexual relationship between their own child
>and a social deviant, and failing to agree that there's inherent victimization
>in a sexual relationship between those of disparate ages, even if it isn't
>necessarily the most wholesome relationship in my opinion, when the particulars
>of the matter aren't clear?

   But I thought the Doctah was asking you about this:
    
   "Any sort of intimate relationship between a 26 year old and a 14 year
    old is pretty sick, and any parent who would condone same is even sicker".

   You don't seem to limit it there to sick sexual relationships between 
   children and deviants.

>Where's the lack of consistency between finding fault with irresponsible
>parents who encourage a sick sexual relationship between their own child
>and a social deviant, 
    
    Exactly where did you get this from? Certainly not the basenote.
    According to the basenote, the parents consented to a "friendship"
    relationship between the young girl and the "baby-faced" computer
    professional.
    
>and failing to agree that there's inherent victimization
>in a sexual relationship between those of disparate ages, 
    
     This isn't just disparate ages. We are talking about adults having sex
    with children here. Not children who are almost adults, no, children
    who will be waiting a 2-3 more years before they so much as qualify for
    driver's ed. And you're willing to accept the judgment of such a child
    when they listen to their hormones? Yeesh.
    
>Nowhere have I claimed that the Maynard affair is proper. I'm just sick
>and tired of reading/hearing the onesided viewpoints which are trying to
>"protect" this kid who, from all appearances, wasn't looking to be protected.
    
     And 13 and 14 year old bimbettes, craving affection, who end up
    screwing 25 and 26 year old misfits who are willing to spend a little
    money and attention on them don't figure they need to be protected,
    either. That doesn't make it so.
    
     Still, this is a stark example of the double standard between the
    sexes. To be perfectly frank, I'd have happily engaged in the acts
    alleged (petting, digital penetration, oral copulation & "natural sex")
    with some of my 'babysitters' as a young boy. But I'd be some kind of
    pissed off if one of my girls were "had" by someone into whom we'd
    entrusted their care.
    
     Indeed, this particular case affects me on a much less less visceral
    level than it would were the genders reversed. That's called sexism.
    It's called a double standard. And I think an awful lot of people feel
    the same way.
    
     I disagree that it has anything to do with the "property" claim that
    some jamoke made a number of replies ago, but I do think it's somewhat
    related to the way society values female virginity and devalues male
    virginity. A girl that "does it" is "dirty" whereas a boy that doesn't
    is lame.
    
     I also think it's related to the protection instinct. Men in general
    have an urge to protect the females under their "jurisdiction", and
    certainly don't want them to become someone else's victim. I think this
    is due to both a wish to spare them emotional harm as well as the
    implication that the failure to do so is their failure. And who wants
    to fail?
    
     This is a reasonably complex issue, and one that doesn't really lend
    itself to simple solutions. However, with the age disparity so great, I
    think it's pretty clear that this was entirely inappropriate behavior
    and the adult must bear the full responsibility for it.

    Nancy, I'm sorry to hear about your traumatic experiences as a child. 
    It took a lot of guts share that, even in Soapbox.  I admire that.
    I couldn't do it.  Luckily, I have never been victimized by a family
    member or anyone else (unless I'm repressing it ;) but I would think
    the pain would be too great to admit to ANYONE.  I'm sure (I hope) 
    you've had lots of therapy for it.  I have a friend who was sexually
    molested by every man in her family and I could never figure out how
    that could make her so promiscuous, as she claimed it did.  I'm
    starting to understand now, thanks to you, that it is partly due to
    enjoyment and associating acceptance with sex, especially incestuous or
    otherwise morally reprehensible (like S&M, etc).  It becomes sick and 
    twisted and pleasure becomes mixed with pain. 
    
    Anyway, thanks for sharing.  I have upmost respect for you.  However, I
    still reserve the right to disagree with you on any given subject.
    
    'pril
    
    8)

    
    'pril and nancy, disagreeing on a subject??? Never happen.

    
    >>Second question - was the reported incident the first such instance
    >>involving the two people in question?
    
    it has been reported that the incident witnessed by the peeping
    neighbor was not the first time such things happened between the child
    and the adult.  it was also reported that the brothers of the boy have
    come forward (don't even...) and admitted that similar things happened
    between them and the maynard woman.

    
    she sure was trying to be "neighborly"

>    the pain would be too great to admit to ANYONE.  I'm sure (I hope) 
>    you've had lots of therapy for it.  I have a friend who was sexually
    
    No, I haven't had much use for therapy. Tried it once and didn't find
    it very helpful.  However, I have found that the teachings in the Bible
    have been powerfully used in my heart toward healing.
    
    
    > that could make her so promiscuous, as she claimed it did.  I'm
    > starting to understand now, thanks to you, that it is partly due to
    
    I'm glad you are able to better understand your friend.  It can be
    rather alien to anyone with a "normal" development.
    
>    Anyway, thanks for sharing.  I have upmost respect for you.  However, I
>    still reserve the right to disagree with you on any given subject.
    
 Absolutely, the door swings both ways chickie. :-) :-)

    
    chickie??? now I've heard everything.

Re JackD:

>I'm just sick and tired of reading/hearing the onesided viewpoints which
>are trying to "protect" this kid who, from all appearances, wasn't looking
>to be protected.

and Re Diane:

>That's the nature of the adult/child relationship, in case you
>hadn't noticed.  Adults are constantly protecting kids who don't
>think they need it.

What is actually being protected here is _society_.  That's why it's a
criminal charge, not a civil charge.  That's why it isn't the boy who
presses charges, but the people.

/john

    .443
    
    Hey, its my age.

>             <<< Note 748.444 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>What is actually being protected here is _society_. 

	The kid's part of society, so I'd say he's being protected
	no matter how you slice it.

    
      Yeah, Di.  But the case WILL be "Commonwealth" v. "tykesucker",
     or some such.  Ito presided over Calif v. OJ, not, the ghosts
     of Ron and Nicole v. slasher.  Crime's victim is "all of us".
    
      bb
    

    
    "tykesucker"
    
    can he say that in here????

>          <<< Note 748.447 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

	Yabbut, yabbut, there's just a level of indirection there, no?
	We, as the adults of the Commonwealth, are making cases against
	tykesuckers in order to protect the kids that society comprises.  

    
    	Not sure, Battis, but she said it too.
    

    
    well shawn, it's now an official entry in 138.

    
      Well, of course, Lady Di.  We, "society", are damaged by the
     fact that the safety of children in our society is reduced.
    
      It's words, mostly.  The kid will probably testify.  If she
     has any money, or a house, he'll split it with his lawyer.
    
      The American Dream.
    
      bb

    
    .452
    
    Only in a civil suit. This is a criminal suit. hth

She has neither money nor a house; she was living in a public assisted
low rent apartment.

/john

    Has the boy involved in this matter been identified by name in
    the media?
    
    Chris

    No.  He should not be, as by law the identity of a minor is
    confidential.

>    by law the identity of a minor is
>    confidential.

	yup.  i remember i had a heck of a time figuring out what
	mine was.

    Okay, that's good.  So at least the kid won't be damaged by any
    publicity that the sordid media loves to dwell on.  Of course,
    it's probably all over town locally, but at least the kid's face
    won't be on the front page of the Herald every day for a whole week
    like they did with that poor murdered nanny.
    
    Chris

    Sex between a 37-year-old and a 13-year-old is sick IMO, no matter what
    the genders of the people involved.  I don't care if it is man-girl,
    woman-boy, man-boy, women-girl or whatever.  A thirteen-year-old may be
    able to have some pleasure out of this, but that is about it, as far as
    I am concerned.  
    
    I have talked to women who have married men who were abused this way. 
    It isn't all that many fantasies in this file think it is cracked up to
    be.  There are many of the same problems with maintaining relationships
    and loving with men who were abused as children, as there are with
    women who were abused as girls.  
    
    there is a similar situation going on in Denvber with a teacher and a
    12-year-old boy.  I find the whole thing disgusting.
    
    meg

    knot too pook funn but it's DENVER.
    

    I think what we have is a conflict in what rape is.  I know it was my
    dream to always have the pretty neighbor lady across the street take me
    inside after mowing her grass (no pun intended). I can see the "right
    of passage" in that sense.  I think it is sexist to think that a female
    of the same age cannot have those same feelings. If you asked the boy I
    bet he didn't feel violated or abused.  But if the tables were turned
    and it was a girl, then everyone would think that the guy manipulated
    her, and she didn't know better. I really think this gives the message
    that girls/women can't make reasonable decisions, which we all know to
    be not true.
    -ss

    .461
    
    Have you read a single thing I've written on this subject?

    We`ve tried not to. I have anyway.

    re .462
    
    Yes, I'm sure I have, but I wanted to put my $.02 worth.
    -ss

    :-)  Glad for your two cents as its rather confirming, I just wondered
    if you knew we agreed [somewhat].
    
    Epperson you remind me of a phone number.  epperson-363. :-)

    | epperson you remind me of a phone number- epperson-363
    
    this guy reminds me of things that make little or no sense at all. 
    does anyone know what this clown is talking about?
    

    
    	Well, that guy is a girl, if it matters.
    
    	And Nancy is pretty old, apparently, and reminiscing about the
    	way phone numbers used to be dialed "way back when".
    

    
    <---- first of all, she's female. please try and keep up newbie.

    
      "Sparky", eh ?  If we get him to nob off, would he be, maybe,
     "Sparky Unplugged" ?
    
      bb

    Anybody got a Ronco comma inserter Mark can borrow?

    
    	I just said that.  You please try and keep up as well.  8^)
    
    	::SCHELTER, whack him AGAIN if you have time.  Hard.  Thanks.
    

    I think Mike should try the other side this time.

    
    drop dead. all of you.

    
    	You'd miss us and you know it.
    

    It's more a question of sexual maturity than anything else.
    A 13 year old boy certainly would want sex, but doesn't have
    the maturity to choose a partner, use birth control or derive
    anything other than a sense of pleasure from the event.  What
    may wind up being more psychologically damaging for him over
    time is all the hoopla surrounding the loss of his virginity.
    
    It's also an age thing.  Two 13 year olds being equally stupid
    may be adminished, but certainly not arrested.  Add 10 years
    and a 23 year old and a 47 year old may be chuckled over as
    a "May-December" romance, but certainly not arrested.  A 13 year
    old girl is "taken advantage of" but a 13 year old boy is "lucky"
    (of course, I've yet to see a 13 year old boy get pregnant).
    What this points up more than anything else is that we defend some
    real strange double-standards in this society.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

>   You don't seem to limit it there to sick sexual relationships between 
>   children and deviants.

In .427 I stated that the Maynard relationship wasn't necessarily healthy.
No where in this discussion have I indicated anything to the contrary,

    Which addresses what?

>    Exactly where did you get this from? Certainly not the basenote.

No - not from the basenote. I gathered from the ensuing discussion that
the parents were aware of the abuse in the relationship. If that was
an incorrect conclusion on my part, well, then, it was.

>     This isn't just disparate ages. We are talking about adults having sex
>    with children here. Not children who are almost adults, no, children
>    who will be waiting a 2-3 more years before they so much as qualify for
>    driver's ed. And you're willing to accept the judgment of such a child
>    when they listen to their hormones? Yeesh.

Who said anything abouyt being willing to "accept the judgement" of the
child. I think what I said was that without further information, it's not
valid to conclude, ispo facto, that the kid was victimized. I refer you
back to my original query of yesterday - What if it was the kid's idea?

>    itself to simple solutions. However, with the age disparity so great, I
>    think it's pretty clear that this was entirely inappropriate behavior
>    and the adult must bear the full responsibility for it.

Nobody's said otherwise.

    >this guy reminds me of things that make little or no sense at all. 
    >does anyone know what this clown is talking about?
    
    That is the first time EVER in my life I've been called a guy. :-) Hey,
    thanks new experience ya know.
    
    I'm not THAT old, btw.  I just remember my father talking like this.
    -----
    
    
    

>Who said anything abouyt being willing to "accept the judgement" of the
>child. I think what I said was that without further information,
    
     And the example of this "further information" that you gave was what
    the child had to say about the experience.
    
    >I refer you back to my original query of yesterday - What if it was the 
    >kid's idea?
    
     I'll assume you aren't asking about the (obvious) legal question but
    rather whether it's valid to conclude that the child is victimized when
    his suggestions for sexual behavior are acted upon by an adult. Whether
    victimized is the most accurate word for it or not I don't know; what I
    believe is that it is not possible to discount the possibility of
    psychological harm as a result of the inappropriate sexual behavior,
    and as such the behavior remains wrong and hence perfectly legitimate
    to legislate against. Whether victim is absolutely precise or not is a
    matter of nomenclature and is relatively uninteresting relative to the
    other issues being examined, IMO.

    >What if it was the kid's idea?
    
    See .431
    

>     And the example of this "further information" that you gave was what
>    the child had to say about the experience.

Yes.

And regardless of protestations to the contrary, it appears, at least to me,
though clearly not to others, that the child's opinion is of some import
in the matter, especially given the apparent mental immaturity of the woman.

For crissakes, we're always more than ready to rely on the testimony of
a child victim in any other sort of case, why is it suddenly immaterial
in this matter?

    I noticed with cynical ennui in this morning's paper that the media
    has already begun the eagerly-awaited "Kennedy is a victim" process.
    Apparently she was abused by her ex-husband and possibly others
    (I didn't/couldn't read too much of the article), and it's "relevant"
    to this current "Where the Boys Are" case, according to her attorney.
    
    Also related to this case, see HUMANE::DIGITAL 4033.276.  :-)
    
    Chris

    
    I wonder how this case will affect this woman's custody of her
    children?

    Oh, and by the way, aside from "Summer of 42" fantasies and related
    adolescent "teach me, teacher" delights, not every 13-year-old boy
    is on such a mindless hormonal rampage that he would eagerly bed
    any older woman who presented herself to him.
    
    When I was that age, most of my little fantasies involved either my
    classmates or some "older" (i.e., 17-18) neighborhood girls.  In fact,
    a woman in her late thirties did come on to me when I was 13 or 14, and
    I ran like the wind.  :-)  (I remember my reaction being along the
    lines of "Yeeuuucchhh!")
    
    Of course, time does wonders for all things... my reaction to a woman
    that age might be different now.  :-)
    
    Chris

You misspelled "invasion."  Time to crank up old sparky.

>        <<< Note 748.483 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>For crissakes, we're always more than ready to rely on the testimony of
>a child victim in any other sort of case, why is it suddenly immaterial
>in this matter?

	I don't know who's said it's "immaterial".  But where do you 
	think its relevance should lie?  In deciding whether or not to
	press charges against her?  In deciding what her sentence should
	be, if convicted?  Where?
 

Well, certainly not in pressing charges. We've already established that
she's allegedly committed an illegal act, haven't we? How many times is
it necessary that I state my agreement on that point? Do I need to get
out a set of rosary beads, or what?

    Try a little verbal precision, then, Jack. Nobody said it was
    immaterial, yet that didn't stop you from tossing it around as if
    someone did. What was said is that you can't put much stock into what a
    13 year old says about how s/he feels about sexual congress with a 37
    year old adult, as it may not be obvious what fallout, if any occurs
    from such acts. In other words, just because a kid says "everything was
    A ok" doesn't mean it's necessarily so. Of course, I imagine if the
    kid's parent's made it clear what kind of testimony was expected of
    them and they went on the stand and said it was horrible and they were
    ruined for life, I'm sure you'd eagerly fire up the generator for old
    sparky. :-)

    
    "Had sex with a kid?"
    
    "Time for you to swim with the squid"

    
    	Boinked a kid, and then got caught?
    	In prison I think that you should rot.
    
    	Satisfied a minor, orally?
    	You'll get the chair, believe you me.
    
    	Groping, fondling, fellatio?
    	Guaranteed 3 hots and a cot ... way to go!!
    

>    someone did. What was said is that you can't put much stock into what a
>    13 year old says about how s/he feels about sexual congress with a 37
>    year old adult,

This whole concept of inability to"put much stock into what" the kid says
is the part that perplexes me. The family that ran the daycare center
in MA several years ago, the case in which two women and a man were
convicted of abuse - I forget the name - the women were recently released,
were all convicted strictly on the testimony of the children involved
in the case. It certainly sounds like the state was more than willing
to put plenty of stock into the opinions of children much younger. You see,
the issue here, is that society probably "doesn't really want to hear" what 
this 13 year old ex-virgin might have to say, perhaps because it could tend to
"weaken" the prosecution's case?

>		 as it may not be obvious what fallout, if any occurs
>    from such acts.

And it's just as obscurely possible that no fallout will occur. It depends
upon a lot of factors, many of which are still within a 13-year old's
coming developmental years, as to how "this event" will shape him. Are we
now free to make a case for severe punishment because "maybe, somehow,
someday, the kid, might, perhaps, be somehow messed up"? And this from the
same side of the audience that can't see the inherent danger in a drunk date
rapist or an airhole that only picks fights when he's hammered?

>		 In other words, just because a kid says "everything was
>    A ok" doesn't mean it's necessarily so.

And it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't, either.

> I'm sure you'd eagerly fire up the generator for old sparky. :-)

Like I said before, Doc - no skin off my nose. Fry her if it floats yer boat.

    Rode a tyke?
    Take a hike!
    

>        <<< Note 748.490 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

	Well then stop saying stuff like this:

 >I just don't see much value in starting to point accusatory fingers in
 >this case, given what we know.

	That might help.

Huh? I'm missing the connection.

>        <<< Note 748.494 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

> And this from the
> same side of the audience that can't see the inherent danger in a drunk date
> rapist or an airhole that only picks fights when he's hammered?

	Oh, this is cute.  Suddenly, we've gone from not thinking everyone
	should be executed for such crimes to not being able to see the
	inherent danger.  Aagagag.  Get real.

> Get real.

Well, pardon my hyperbole all to hell, but I believe it was you, yourself,
who indicated that you had a lot more trust in the guy that only beats up
on folks when he's drunk. I still can't fathom that one.

Jack, according to an earlier reply, Ms. Kennedy allegedly had sexual contact
with this kid's brothers as well.  Somebody who repeatedly has sexual contact
with children is called a pedophile.  Most experts say that pedophilia has
a very high rate of recidivism.  If she did what she's alleged to have done,
and if the boy wasn't harmed, who's to say that her future victims will be
so "lucky?"

>        <<< Note 748.499 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>but I believe it was you, yourself,
>who indicated that you had a lot more trust in the guy that only beats up
>on folks when he's drunk. I still can't fathom that one.

	A lot more trust in the guy?  I said I'd rather be living next
	door to such a person than to a psychopath.  Yeah, that's pretty
	freakin' hard to fathom, I'm sure.  What I _didn't_ say was
	that I can't see the inherent danger.  I can, just to make that
	very, very clear for you.
  

    re: .500
    
    Perhaps so, but I think I'd stick to trying her for the 
    crimes she has already committed, and not the ones she
    hasn't.
    
    

re .502:

And the law defines those crimes in objective terms.  If she engaged in
sexual acts with a 13-year-old, she's guilty, regardless of the effects
on the kid.

>     <<< Note 748.502 by SMURF::MSCANLON "a ferret on the barco-lounger" >>>

	But this kid's testimony is lessened in overall importance, if
	you agree with Gerald's point.

>This whole concept of inability to"put much stock into what" the kid says
>is the part that perplexes me. 
    
     What's the difficulty? It's ever so much easier to prove a positive
    than a negative, regardless of who's testifying.
    
>The family that ran the daycare center
>in MA several years ago, the case in which two women and a man were
>convicted of abuse - I forget the name - the women were recently released,
>were all convicted strictly on the testimony of the children involved
>in the case. It certainly sounds like the state was more than willing
>to put plenty of stock into the opinions of children much younger.
    
    The Amiraults and the Fells Acre Daycare Center case. Tooky remains in
    prison.
    
>You see,
>the issue here, is that society probably "doesn't really want to hear" what 
>this 13 year old ex-virgin might have to say, perhaps because it could tend to
>"weaken" the prosecution's case?
    
     Not sure how this would weaken the case; the law's pretty clear and
    the kid testiying that "yeah, it happened" would tend to bolster the
    case. You disagree?
    
>And it's just as obscurely possible that no fallout will occur. It depends
>upon a lot of factors, many of which are still within a 13-year old's
>coming developmental years, 
    
     Which is precisely why we don't give adults a pass to fornicate with
    children. In the absence of proof that no harm was done, society has
    determined it to be in the collective best interest that no adults get
    to have sex with children, having determined that in at least some
    cases those children are, in fact, harmed. You don't figure caution is
    necessary? "Don't worry, be happy"? So what do you do when the kid is
    actually harmed? Go back, years after the fact and say "Well, it turns
    out that the kid you were having sex with was harmed, so it's off to
    the pokey now"? Or what? Do nothing?
    
     How exactly do you propose taking the child's perspective into
    account, and how do you propose that we deal with subsequent feedback
    from the child years after the fact?

    re: .504
    
    I'm not sure I do.  There is a big push in the federal
    government to try a lot more juveniles as adults.  This
    would assume that someone thinks these kids have enough going 
    on upstairs to know right from wrong.  If that's true, and this 
    13 year old knew that what he was doing wasn't necessarily something
    his parents would approve of, where do you draw the line?
    If you find a 13 year old using drugs, you arrest the person
    who sold him the drugs, but you also punish the child for
    the behavior, assuming that the child knew right from wrong.
    
    Why is this situation different?
    

    Pedophilia much to your misinformation isn't typically recid[finish the
    spelling yourself].
    
    As a matter of fact, the last 15 years of research on pedophilia has
    concluded that the majority of pedophiles were molested as children
    [please note this doesn't include rape].  Molestation, fondling hass
    quite a different long term effect than violent sexual abuse.
    
    
    

    >Ms. Kennedy allegedly had sexual contact with this kid's brothers as
    >well...
    
    Aha!  So she was gang-raped by a bunch of teenaged hoodlums, eh?
    
    Why, they oughta fry'em all!

    >This would assume that someone thinks these kids have enough going  on
    >upstairs to know right from wrong. 
    
    Actually, I don't believe the reasoning behind trying children as
    adults is due to the above assumption.  I actually believe trying
    children as adults is an attempt to "punish" children more severely
    because of the escalation of violent crimes committed by children.
    
    It's not because they think they KNOW what they are doing at all.  It
    is an attempt to use FEAR [of adult punishment] to control behavior.
    
    
    

    recidivist!

>     <<< Note 748.506 by SMURF::MSCANLON "a ferret on the barco-lounger" >>>

	What I meant was that the kid's testimony is lessened in
	overall importance with respect to the woman's culpability,
	punishment, etc.  He might say he enjoyed it and isn't damaged,
	but that doesn't mean she's any less to blame for the act or
	should be treated with any more leniency.  Him being held
	responsible too - well that's a different issue.  

    Good job Bonnie. :-)

    I take it back, I was wrong... pedophilia is recidivistic.
    
    I misunderstood the application of the word ..[blush]
    
    

    
    	RE: .512
    
    	So, the extenuating circumstances shouldn't make a difference
    	in her sentence?
    

    
    > So, the extenuating circumstances shouldn't make a difference
    >  in her sentence?
    
    	NO! He's a minor. He's a victim.
    	She, however, is not.

>                 <<< Note 748.515 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "FUBAR" >>>
    
>    	So, the extenuating circumstances shouldn't make a difference
>    	in her sentence?

	You think him saying he enjoyed it is an extenuating circumstance?
	I don't.      

If the 13-year-old boy had gotten the 37-year-old woman pregnant, would 
the boy be responsible for the child he fathered?  I would think that 
impregnating a woman would have an emotional impact on any 13-year old
regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy (abortion, adoption, the mother
keeping the child, etc.).  Why wouldn't all the laws regarding the fathering
of children apply in such a case?

J

    Actually, I believe that the kids parents would be the ones held
    responsible in such a hypothetical case.

    
    	In at least one case I know of in Massachusetts, police
    	arrested a young man when they were called to his home
    	by neighbors when he and his girlfriend were having
    	an argument.  The girlfriend did not want to press charges,
    	as she had thrown something at him that he threw back, but
    	the police said it doesn't matter if she presses charges or
    	not, they will bring charges against the man for domestic
    	abuse.  
    
    	I don't see that this case is very different.
    
    	

>     What's the difficulty? It's ever so much easier to prove a positive
>    than a negative, regardless of who's testifying.

No one's questioning what happened. No one's questioning the legality or lack
thereof of what happened. My point is that the jury may very well "put stock
into what the kid says" in regard to their decision (be it theirs) relative
to the woman's fate. The sense that I'm getting from reading this string is
that that shouldn't be allowed to enter into their decision making process -
that it's "immaterial". Now, clearly, the prosecutor can make such a case,
but I question whether or not he can make it effectively. You see, the whole
issue is clustered around the truism which you expressed earlier today, 
Doctah - the fact that our society supports a double standard of sorts in
these matters. And no amount of gnashing of teeth is likely to change that.

>     Not sure how this would weaken the case; the law's pretty clear and
>    the kid testiying that "yeah, it happened" would tend to bolster the
>    case. You disagree?

No - I don't disagree with that. But the prosecution needs to convince a 
jury as to the severity of the crime in order to get them to appropriately 
convict. See the O.J. topic. The kid's testimony that it was his idea and
that he didn't feel harmed in any way, and/or that he found it enjoyable,
coupled with the defense attorney's likely argument that his client, Ms.
Kennedy, was and is a mental midget, could quite likely convince your
everyday runofthemill jury of PRM lib 'Murrican braintrusts that she ought 
to be let off, no?

>     How exactly do you propose taking the child's perspective into
>    account,

If her attorney has at least a pair of simultaneously firing synapses, one 
would think he'll require testimony from the kid, citing the Amerauld case or 
something similar as precedent, and he will go for the liberal jury's
"conscience", as above. Do you feel otherwise? Not with respect to whether
that "should" be the case, but with respect to whether it "will"?

>If her attorney has at least a pair of simultaneously firing synapses, one 
>would think he'll require testimony from the kid, citing the Amerauld case or 
>something similar as precedent

There were no witnesses in that case.  In this case, there's the neighbor.
The judge would probably disallow questions like "Whose idea was it?" and
"Did you enjoy it?"

>The judge would probably disallow questions like "Whose idea was it?" and
>"Did you enjoy it?"

???

Which will get him nowhere. There's more than sufficient precedent in other
cases, such as the Amerault case, for asking the child-victim their opinion,
as well as "what happened?" I would expect that such a refusal would be 
immediate grounds for appeal.

So what kinds of questions other than "what happened?" were allowed in the
Amerault case?  Do you think a judge in an ordinary rape case would allow
"Did you enjoy it?"

    
    You might as well skip using the Amerault case for comparison
    as that was and is a complete travesty of justice.
    The children, responding to all types of questioning concocted
    fiction beyond anyones wildest dreams.

If "What happened?" is an allowable question, and the response from the
13-year old is "I asked her to do me", is it not feasible that a query
regarding his reactions would be allowed? It seems as though that's a
far different "happening" than your ordinary rape.

Except the charge is statutory rape, not forcible rape.

Right. You asked whether or not "Did you enjoy it?" would be an allowable
question in a normal rape trial. This is different. Potentially _very_
different. (Although it's my understanding that "Did you enjoy it?" is
actually quite often a question posed in rape trials, regardless of its 
propriety.)

.526:

The children concocted fiction beyond anyone's wildest dreams, but with the
help of well meaning, but probably not competent "therapists" and social
workers who were pressuring them to concoct such stories.  One of the
crimes here (aside from the imprisonment of innocent people) is that these
children still probably believe those stories they concocted just as surely
as any other memories they might have that are objectively verifiable.

This calls into question whether the children will suffer as if they had
actually been abused -- not because it happened, but because they believe
that it happened.  This, in effect, makes all those well meaning therapists
and social workers the rapists (ever notice that "therapist" is "the
rapist" without the space?  Never mind.)

As to the question at hand (pun intended):

1) testimony from children will be believed based on their ability to
provide.
  A child testifies that something did or didn't happen:  May well be
trusted, because a child over 5 has about a good a memory as anyone else. 
And, a similar capacity for lying and self delusion.

  A child testifies that something was or wasn't good for him:  I don't
believe it for a minute.  That's part of the maturation process, and I have
a hard enough time believing many adults on this score.  A child simply
isn't qualified to be making decisions such as this; that's why they have
parents.

As an example, in a custody case, a child may be called to testify about
actual events, but the judge isn't going to listen to the child about which
parent he should live with.

2) With all the natural assumption going on here that this event was the
kid's dream come true, it's pretty easy for me to see that if he did have a
problem with it, it'd be difficult to admit to, 'cause everyone naturally
assumes (and may not hesitate to tell him) that this was the greatest
moment of his life.

3) Even if the kid thought it was OK, we cannot assume that there won't be
negative impacts as a result of this abuse.  Even if it was his idea.  I
might remind everyone that this is a time when the child is supposed to
learn proper behavior, and AFAIC, this ain't proper behavior.

'scuse me, but there are a fair number of grown men in this world who have
LOTS of pieces to pick up after events such as these, and the fact that
everyone else naturally assumes that it was the high point of their
childhood doesn't make it any easier to deal with.

    |A child simply
    |isn't qualified to be making decisions such as this
    
    i agree.  a child is not a small adult.  a child is
    a child.
    

    
    i wonder how her attorney is going to construct her defense. I imagine
    he is in for an uphill battle.

    He'll probably go for diminished capacity or plead it out.

    
>    a child is not a small adult.  

    however, it is true that a lot of adults are
    big children.


    i thank you for your attention.
    

|   a child is a child.                            
    
    I wouldn't have thought this was rocket science.  But given the
    "argument" here I guess it is.
    
    
    BTW, in the Live Free or Die State, a 21 year old man is going
    to be tried for statutory rape of a 15 year old girl.
    
    The girl's mother and man call the girl his "fiancee".
    
    
    The mother was delighted when the man wanted to be her child's
    boyfriend.  The mother was more delighted when he asked for
    permission to move in.  The mother could barely contain her glee
    when the man asked if she wanted a grandchild.
    
    The girl is now 16 and pregnant.  (Mom did want a grandchild.)
    The mother recently got her child and the man their wedding rings
    at Walmart (at a discount).  If she finds a nutty enough judge,
    her child and the man will be married soon.
    
    
    They are puzzled by the fuss.
    
    What part of "a child is a child" do these adults not understand?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	Yes, di, but it seems to be genetic.
    
    

    TTWA: 
    
     What relevance "in the Live Free or Die State" is to William's story
    except to convey to the reader the author's shared trait with one Mike
    Barnicle...

    you mean the mike barnicle who lives in the PRM?

    you know others?

    whoosh.

    In today's society this woman will be considered a victim as well.  Her
    victimization will begin in early childhood and continue through into
    her adulthood by bad "men".  Of course these "bad men" cannot be blamed
    either because they too had a horrible abusive childhood that caused
    them to treat this woman abusively.
    
    And the boys that potentially can grow up to become pedophiles
    themselves, they won't be blamed either after they sexually molest your
    grandchild because they are only victims of this woman.
    
    

    > In today's society this woman will be considered a victim as well.  Her
    > victimization will begin in early childhood and continue through into
    > her adulthood by bad "men".
    
    See .484, it's already started.
    
    Chris

    .542
    
    You know for someone like myself, this "thinking" causes me to wince
    inside.  People don't have to REPEAT offenses to which they were
    victims.  
    
    Accountability has been lost in our society.

    it makes me wince, and then i shutter.

    I'm blinded by all the immorality myself.

It's curtains for you, too, then, Oph.

    Reply .535
    
    I take offense to your note.  My mother was 16 and my father was 21
    when they were married.

    What do you think the 16 year old should do? Sleep around with more men
    closer to her own age?  Perhaps she should wait to see what her true 
    sexual orientation is before she gets hitched to a young man five years 
    older than her?  Should the young man be put in jail, and the girl be
    told to go party with the local high school bimbos and just forget about
    it.

    The knowledge of right and wrong does not begin and end with you, bill.

    --Doug C.
    
                                         

    I've been framed!!!! 

    as jerry lee lewis once said, "get 'em young and they're
    yours forever!"

To claim that having been abused as a child as an extenuating circumstance
strikes me as less than an excuse.

On the other hand, if you want to create more child abusers, let the
current crop just keep on abusing children.  This will create more of their
ilk.

    An artificial one-size-fits-all line drawn at age 21 or age 18 or any
    other age, separating "adult" from "child" is as artificial and
    nonsensical as any other one-size-fits-all characterization of all of
    humanity.
    
    If they are trying more and more juveniles as adults, then why on earth
    should those same juveniles be treated as children in the case where
    they have sex rather than commit a murder?
    
    Our laws are nonsensical when they are applied blindly as in statutory
    rape.  The "statutoriness" of this crime ought to be only one of the
    considerations -- more of a guideline than any hard and fast limit. 
    Kinda like the way speed limits used to be once upon a time...
    

I agree that the dividing line to adulthood is hazy.  I'm just pretty sure
that in most cases, 13 years old ain't there yet.

As far as trying children as adults:  Don't get me started...

- yr local bleeding heart

    
    will tell on you

    I'm just getting tired of our blatant double standards for when someone
    is a kid and when s/he is not.
    
    An 18-year-old can be sent to fight a war for us, can vote, but can't 
    buy alcohol.
    
    A 16-year-old can kill people and be tried as an adult, can drive a
    car, can legally get married in some states (still, I think?), but
    if you have sex with one, you are automatically guilty of rape.
    
    Our laws aren't even consistent with themselves.  We would all be a lot
    better off if we just didn't get so excited about every little thing
    people do.
    
    How would I deal with this incident?  Give everyone concerned,
    including the peeping tom who turned 'em in, a strong lecture on
    propriety and reasonable behavior, get some phych help for the woman
    and kids if it seems warranted, and then let it go.  No trials, no
    charges, no statutory rape, no lawyers, no more government interference
    in the lives of people whom the media has already massacred and who
    never did anything all that seriously bad in the first place.
    
    LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE!

         I agree 100%. 

    I agree 50%.

    
    	Glenn, does that mean that, for example, out of 10 points made
    	you agree with 5 of them?
    
    	Or that you agree with all of them but Onondanga doesn't agree
    	with any of them?
    

    I agree with the 10 points 50% of the time.

         What were the ten points? I must have missed them. 

	One of them sits on top of yer head! :-)

.555:

Yes, precisely the sort of inconsistency that makes my blood boil.

I'd like to see the laws be more consistent, as you would, but with a
different end.  Namely, that we quit this fiction that a 16 year old is an
adult, or that an 18 year old is the ideal lead catcher.

    Why is it so difficult to recognize that there are different aspects of
    "adulthood" which are achieved at different times, and that there is
    nothing inherently inconsistent about recognizing this in the
    codification of adulthood vis � vis various things?
    
    For example, by the age of 14, if you haven't figured out that killing
    another human being is very, very wrong and that the penalty for doing
    something so wrong is more severe than a week with no TV, then you are
    seriously deficient in development. However, I don't think that many 14
    year olds would understand nor should they be held responsible  for an
    auto lease contract. So I have no problem whatsoever with the purported
    inconsistency of holding a 14 year old responsible for killing another
    human being well beyond the age of majority while not holding them
    responsible for a contract signed under duress at the hands of an
    unscrupulous car dealer. Call me crazy.
    
    I don't know what the age of consent is, but I think 16 is a good
    number. If you're old enough to conduct 4000 lbs of sheet metal, you
    ought to be old enough to be held responsible for what you do with your
    genitals.
    
    I think the drinking age oughtta be 18. Once you're old enough to be
    held legally responsible for everything you do, you oughtta be old
    enough for all the rights as well.
    
    As far as criminal responsibility goes, I think that from 12-15 the
    default oughtta be that you are treated as an adult, with the defense
    having the opportunity to demonstrate why you should be treated as a
    juvenile. 11 and under automatically treated as a juvenile, and 16 and
    over automatically treated as an adult with no chance to be treated as
    a juvenile.
    
     Unfortunately, there's no magic test for adulthood. We have to
    approximate this by determining arbitrary limits which make sense to
    us. No matter where you draw the line, there will be some cases that
    most will agree should have fallen on the other side of the line.
    That's life. Deal with it.

| <<< Note 748.562 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "bon marcher, as far as she can tell" >>>


| I don't know what the age of consent is, but I think 16 is a good number. 

	I agree with the above. But here is a list of the age of consents for
this country:


                Age of Consent in the United States, by state

                             AS OF AUGUST 6, 1994

                              Alabama........16
                              Alaska.........16
                              Arizona........18
                              Arkansas.......16
                              California.....18
                              Colorado.......16
                              Connecticut....16
                              D.C............16
                              Delaware.......12
                              Florida........18
                              Georgia........14
                              Hawaii.........16
                              Idaho..........18
                              Illinois.......16
                              Indiana........16
                              Iowa...........14
                              Kansas.........16
                              Kentucky.......14 [1]
                              Louisiana......17
                              Maine..........14
                              Maryland.......16
                              Massachusetts..18
                              Michigan.......16
                              Minnesota......16
                              Mississippi....18 [2]
                              Missouri.......16
                              Montana........16
                              Nebraska.......16
                              Nevada.........16
                              New Hampshire..16
                              New Jersey.....16
                              New Mexico.....13
                              New York.......17
                              North Carolina.16
                              North Dakota...18
                              Ohio...........16
                              Oklahoma.......18
                              Oregon.........18
                              Pennsylvania...14
                              Rhode Island...16
                              South Carolina.16
                              South Dakota...16
                              Tennessee......18
                              Texas..........17
                              Utah...........14
                              Vermont........15
                              Virginia.......16
                              Washington.....18
                              West Virginia..16
                              Wisconsin......18
                              Wyoming........18
                                      
  FOOTNOTES:
  
   [1] Age 16 if the man is 21 or older.
   [2] If the female is over 12, the statute applies only to virgins.
   
                    Average age of consent is 16.2 years.

                         Lowest age of consent is 12
                         Highest age of consent is 18

    
    	Hmmm, looks like it's about time for a road trip to Delaware.
    

	And for the world wide age of consent (looks as though shawn needs it),
go to the page:

                    http://www.c2.net/~prd/world/aoc.html


Glen

    Crazy.  When I was 12, boys still had cooties...

| <<< Note 748.566 by SCASS1::BARBER_A "Spanky" >>>

| Crazy.  When I was 12, boys still had cooties...

	Some still do.... 

Aw Heck, Glen, you beat me to it.

But I beat you to this.

damn!

    re: 12-year-old boys had cooties
    
    My kids just got done giving me The Couples Report, i.e., who's
    dating whom, where they've gone on dates, how they managed it,
    whether their parents knew and/or were involved, who's kissed whom,
    how long they've been going together, whether they've "made out" at
    school, whether the teachers and/or principal caught them, who's broken
    up with who, where they broke up, how they did it, and so on.
    
    Elementary school.
    
    Chris

    .571
    
    This is sad very sad...

    
    
    	re -1
    
    	Aw c'mon, I remember that stuff from elementary school. Mostly just
    innocent explorations that never go beyond a kiss (there are exceptions
    to every rule) if even that far. Be glad they are talking about it with
    you now. A few years down the road, you won't be privy to such info. :)
    
    
    jim

    Jim used to play pretend EMT and give all the girls mouth-to-mouth and
    cpr massage.
    

    
    
    	{grin}
    
    	very funny. Now back in yer trench....<shove>
    
    

    <splash>

 re .573


  come ride on our church bus some Sunday morning, and listen to 9,10,11
 year old kids and the things they have to say, or the things they sing in
 songs.  



 Jim