posted on July 19, 2002 02:43:35 PM new
In theory, the less money you have to spend to try to keep society safe from criminals re-offending, the more money is available to try to prevent the crimes from happening in the first place.
Sadly, in practice the money saved would probably be diverted to something else entirely.
posted on July 19, 2002 03:31:01 PM new
kraftdinner,Just guessing here,Everyone would want the child molesters to have chip implants.It would take years to wrangle out the legalities,Because the perve has to have his-her constutional rights in place.
If they lose their right to vote when they go to prison,Looks like the law would'nt have such a stumbling block on something as chip implants for the molesters and rapist.
I am pretty sure everyone has their own idea
of implants and how to use them,None of us want to be wrong.
posted on July 19, 2002 05:22:00 PM new
No, we certainly do not want those "perps" to loose their Constitutional rights in prison, otherwise we'll be right back to torturing the mentally ill for having a problem.
posted on July 19, 2002 06:24:30 PM new"Luckey is a 17 year old wanting to show a young man the ropes.(Both under age) No laws broken."
Let me see if I follow your reasoning here, junquemama. So, when it was a 34 year old female who molested a 12 year old boy and that boy, when he turned 34, molested his 12 year old daughter. Therefore, if the female had only been 17 and molested him when age tweleve and that's OK, then it would also be OK when he turns around at age 17 and molests a 12 year old girl?
posted on July 19, 2002 07:16:55 PM new
[b]posted by: Borillar
"Luckey is a 17 year old wanting to show a young man the ropes.(Both under age) No laws broken."
Let me see if I follow your reasoning here, junquemama. So, when it was a 34 year old female who molested a 12 year old boy and that boy, when he turned 34, molested his 12 year old daughter. Therefore, if the female had only been 17 and molested him when age tweleve and that's OK, then it would also be OK when he turns around at age 17 and molests a 12 year old girl?
What am I missing here?[/b]
I don't know what you are missing,The 17 year old would not have molested the boy.And the 17 year old female was not a relative.
No incest,No childhood trauma,No force of will.
posted on July 19, 2002 07:26:00 PM new
Also keep in mind where I live,The good old boys "use" to take their sons across the border
To have their first experience.
The young men of this area use to brag about the older women who showed
them the "ropes" Were they lying? or just bragging,? I will never know.
posted on July 19, 2002 08:24:04 PM new
junquemama, do you feel that it is perfectly all right for 17 year old males to be diddling 12 year old females?
posted on July 19, 2002 08:36:34 PM new
No,Borillar I don't. Do you?
This was your original question:
Question: should the aunt have been punished and sent through the system as a sex offender and the young boy to have received psychological treatment, or was the boy just being "lucky"?
I answered,Did you not want an answer?
If you didnt want an answer then it was a
statement.
posted on July 19, 2002 10:22:52 PM new
junquemama, I'm not trying to get nasty here -- just trying to have a discussion.
The problem that I am having is that you seem to be saying that it is perfectly OK for a 17 year old female to diddle a 12 year old male, but it is not OK when a 17 year old male diddles a 12 year old female. I can't understand why it is OK for one person to molest a young child and why it is NOT OK for another to do so. Can you explain this to me?
posted on July 19, 2002 10:37:02 PM newThe problem that I am having is that you seem to be saying that it is perfectly OK for a 17 year old female to diddle a 12 year old male, but it is not OK when a 17 year old male diddles a 12 year old female. I can't understand why it is OK for one person to molest a young child and why it is NOT OK for another to do so. Can you explain this to me?
I never said it was O.K and you are the one stuck on diddling.
You called it lucky.
posted on July 19, 2002 10:46:52 PM new"I never said it was O.K"
However, you posted on July 19, 2002 02:37:41 PM:
"Luckey is a 17 year old wanting to show a young man the ropes.(Both under age) No laws broken."
If that isn't the implication - that you are approving sexual contact between a 17 year old female with a 12 year old boy? If not, what are you saying? Are you saying that "Luckey" is a 17 year old male and that's OK because they are bhoth under age, so no laws are broken?
Can you please clarify your statement to clear up my confusion?
posted on July 19, 2002 10:59:48 PM new
It was said in jest only because of your question:
Question: should the aunt have been punished and sent through the system as a sex offender and the young boy to have received psychological treatment, or was the boy just being "lucky"?
What is your idea of lucky with an Aunt?
And my answer is Don't let your kids out of the house untill they are 35.
posted on July 19, 2002 11:11:34 PM new
Oh, that's too bad. I really would have liked some honest discussion on the question. You see, everyone always avoids this subject on here, because too many of them feel that young boys can not be molested by older adult women - it just isn't molestation. If an older adult woman molests a young boy, the kid is being "lucky" and it's True Love At First Sight and all of that sort of nonsense that I've heard on here before. And not a one of them will admit that they are two-sided hypocrites about the subject. So, really, I would have enjoyed a sincere discussion on the topic of how society perceives the situation; that is, allows these boys molested by older women grow up to be adult molesters of young girls; and how it's "OK" to be the CAUSE of a warped child, but its not OK when that warped child grows up and repeats the experience. [Remember that schoolteacher in Washington State that got pregnant twice by the same boy, who was only 12 or 13 the first time? What happens when he grows up and at age 30+, begins to molest and impregnate young girls 12 or 13?? Should society castrate him and make him into a monster for that, while calling the schoolteacher's molestation "True Love"? You tell me!]
posted on July 19, 2002 11:32:20 PM new
I don't think anyone would agree that a woman that molests a child is any different than a man that does it. It's just rare in women as opposed to common for men.
posted on July 19, 2002 11:39:06 PM new
Borillar,I don't believe any child should be molested,I am not afraid to talk about it.And if you have watched any talk shows,
Maury and Jenny Jones when they have the
Bad kids on,You would know in part why I said what I did.A man named Moses and his men are regulars on these shows,They try to scare the kids stright with tough love.
Every one of the kids bragged about all the sex they were having with older women,Some of these kids arent even 12 yet.
Young boys start bragging at a young age,
On the other hand a little girl,Would not want any one to know.
Remember that schoolteacher in Washington State that got pregnant twice by the same boy, who was only 12 or 13 the first time? What happens when he grows up and at age 30+, begins to molest and impregnate young girls 12 or 13?? Should society castrate him and make him into a monster for that, while calling the schoolteacher's molestation "True Love"? You tell me!
I think the young man will be fine,Time will tell.The teacher took advantage of a
immature young mans infatution(sp?)And the young man I am sure was willing.
The problems of perversion seem to be from forced molestation,I maybe wrong on that.But it seems every story that comes out on a sex
offender,They were forced into sex at a very young age.
posted on July 20, 2002 12:10:52 AM new
I think that the evidence points out that it is not a rare occurrence for an older woman to molest young boys. It's just such a taboo subject that we can't imagine women doing that to young boys.
I'm not saying that all male child molesters got their start by adult women molesting them. But our society tells us that when women molest, it's A-OK! I've watched local shows on the Mark Kay Latourno schoolteacher case. It was a big deal here in Oregon. So many men expressed the idea that the boy was just being "lucky" and the women were all saying that it must have been "True Love" and what a SHAME it was to put her in jail! And it wasn't just talk shows either. I've heard more than a few women around here say that very thing: that Mary Kay got a bum deal and that the Prosecutor was every expletive known. What I am saying is that too many people just do not see anything wrong at all with an adult female raping a young boy. That TV shows where the young boys come in and talk about their older female sex partners, doesn't that ring a bell of some sort with you all? Doesn't that say that Adult females are out there molesting young boys and nobody gives a damn! That's what it says to me!
My point is that WE, the Society, are often guilty of creating these monsters among us. We allow young boys to become "sick" with some experiences from adult females and we don't acknowledge the damage done to these young boys. If we, as a society, turned around and focused on PREVENTING these young boys from getting molested at an early age, maybe we wouldn't have so many of these monsters around us. While it is hard to diagnose other causes that turn ordinary men into child sexual molesters, this is one that is certainly preventable. What will you say the next time that you hear about how "lucky" this young boys soon-to-become adult child molesters themselves were to have the attentions of an older female?
posted on July 20, 2002 01:43:03 AM new
Not everyone agrees what is harmful.
That is why we have problems here in MI with the law saying people are sex offenders that a lot of the poulation thinks are just kids experimenting.
There are other cultures and other countries where they differ a great deal from the US standard.
Sometimes the accusations of misconduct become rediculous with a witchhunt hysteria.
The sort of thing where what might have been a simple valid complaint gets blown into hundreds of acts coupled with satanic ritual - killing animals and such. Things that if you are attached to reality the people involved could not even have TIME to do.
posted on July 20, 2002 07:41:50 AM new
kraftdinner - Last night while watching the media ask questions of the sheriff in the Samantha case, one news person has already started questioning why the accussed was held so long by the police before being charged. And would this create a problem for the district attorney when his defense lawyer takes his case.
junquemana - If they lose their right to vote when they go to prison...it looks like the law wouldn't have such a stumbling block on something as chip implants for the molesters and rapists.
I'm posting this url as I read it a few days ago, and was surprised at how many states are giving convicted felons their right to vote back.
I'm with those that said: "But some lawmakers say people convicted of crimes such as murder and rape have broken their contract with society and should not regain some rights."
posted on July 20, 2002 09:58:05 AM new
LindaK,Thats a mind blower.Now the tide can turn in a election for extra cheese&macaroni
At supper.I sure did'nt know that was going on.Disappointed the Democrats are pushing
it thru.The republicans probley will be behind the move ,if any of them go to prison for stock fraud.
posted on July 20, 2002 10:07:10 AM new
Linda, the idea of a Citizen loosing voting rights comes from an old English legal tradition. It may not be a bad idea on the face of it. But you must not be aware of how since after the end of slavery in this country, there has been a concerted effort, especially in the South to make as many felons as possible out of black people. That concerted effort to do that malicious act is admitted fact for many years. This is a case where the political theory is very sound as you've noticed, but the reality is that there is too much abuse going on and the potential for abuse will always be there. Therefore, if you believe in Civil Liberties (yours as well), you may want to rethink your position on that issue.
posted on July 20, 2002 10:36:44 AM new
Borillar,You said:
I've watched local shows on the Mark Kay Latourno schoolteacher case. It was a big deal here in Oregon. So many men expressed the idea that the boy was just being "lucky" and the women were all saying that it must have been "True Love"
That was a rare case,Mary Kay had babies by the young man.The news media went nuts with the storey.The mother of the boy,Knew what was going on after a while and "could'nt"
do anything about it.You keep mixing consent and molesting as one and end up with pervert and molester as the end result.
Yes there have been other case's,A couple of them,The female teachers wanted their husbands knocked off,And used sex to get their way. Also this is one in the same with old Butafucio(sp?)His young girl friend went to the house(his)and shot his wife.Now he lives in Hollywood and "use" to live on the talk shows.
Women have never been raised to be aggressiors,Even now they still get their dollies at Xmas,And toy appliances.
A female is of legal age at 18,The male is legal at 21.
If life was fair,They would both be legal at 21.
The law seems to believe a woman is responsable her actions eariler then a male.
The little punks I mentioned before on Jenny Jones show,Totally out of control since
Diapers.You won't hear about them,Because they hang the streets and corners.
Dope is the control,homeboys the friends,Did they really have sex with older females? I doubt it,But"it sure sounded good to the homeys.Boys will brag,even from imagination.
posted on July 20, 2002 10:42:09 AM new
Borillar - The reason I shared that article with junquemama is because of her statement, which I also believed to be true until I read it wasn't. This also applies to my statement that the 'rights' of those sick people who do these things to children, are put way ahead of the victims rights. The dead children will NEVER be able to vote. Don't their rights count too?
I will never change my mind that people convicted of a crime against children should ever again have any rights. That bother's you? So be it. We've got to keep them away from being able to offend that 'second' time.
posted on July 20, 2002 11:06:15 AM new"You keep mixing consent and molesting as one and end up with pervert and molester as the end result."
Please expand.
"A female is of legal age at 18,The male is legal at 21. If life was fair,They would both be legal at 21."
Aren't you mixing up the Age of Consent with Drinking Age? Or, does the state where you reside force the Age of Consent for males to age 21?
I myself have known of older women having affairs with underage males (12, 13, 14 y.o.) since living in Oregon. I've tried to run some of them in as pedophiles, since the psychological damage that their perversions did was quite obvious, but I've been repeatedly told that courts will just see it as the boys "getting lucky" and juries won't convict a woman of sexual child molestation around here. I think that's why the media made such a big deal about the Mary Kay case here is because people think it's GREAT if a young boy is molested by an adult female <DARN! LUCKY KID!!> Right?
What I'm saying is that adult women prey on young children as much as if not a whole lot more than adult males do, but society sees what the adult female is doing as beneficial to the young victims and when its a male, he gets the media coverage as the SWAT Team takes him away. With this mindset in place, adult women need fear no law or prosecution and women are every bit as predatory that men are. That means that women, who prey on young males, will continue to create these monsters and no one wants to stop them for doing it (except me!)
Until we, as a society, change our ideas about introducing the idea of adults having sex with children as acceptable, we will only be perpetuating the problem.
posted on July 20, 2002 11:37:36 AM new
Borillar,You repeated:"A female is of legal age at 18,The male is legal at 21. If life was fair,They would both be legal at 21."
This is used for insurance and legal matters as well.Take for instance,A male 19
and a female 19 rob a liqour store or some store,They get caught by the law,The boy gets
juvenile time,The girl gets adult time.
Thats the way it is here or was, and the laws have changed somewhere along the road.I do know the insurance requirements are different(credit report)but I don't think anything else has changed.
posted on July 20, 2002 11:57:36 AM new
Borillar,You said:
What I'm saying is that adult women prey on young children as much as if not a whole lot more than adult males do, but society sees what the adult female is doing as beneficial to the young victims and when its a male, he gets the media coverage as the SWAT Team takes him away. With this mindset in place, adult women need fear no law or prosecution and women are every bit as predatory that men are. That means that women, who prey on young males, will continue to create these monsters and no one wants to stop them for doing it (except me!
Regardless of what You" think,No one will buy it because it isnt true.You are trying to make a female predator out of most of the female population,Now you have shown me what you really think.
We could also go deeper into the phych of men who marry and hate women.
Or the control freaks who won't let a woman out of the house,And beats her on a whim.And even the scam artist who prey on women with words and rob them.
So many cons....So little time.
Women know,more about those men now and try to avoid them.But honey when a 100 0/0
male shows up that likes women and doesnt feel threatened by her in any way,50 women will fight for the honor of having that man as a mate! Good men are hard to find is the old saying and it still holds true.
[ edited by junquemama on Jul 20, 2002 01:28 PM ]
