As freaky as it sounds, if the girl consents, then it should not be a crime- but the parents should approve at that point as well, and I doubt they would. ------------------ Protrolls.com! RITQAIOCLHTPFOTFWBPTD
Bobrek- It should be Her decesion if she is "ready" or not but all I can say for sure is that the law should'nt decide if "anybody" is ready or not ------------------
Rimbaud, I posted twice originally discussing the matter. In one of those posts I commented that calling the activity a crime is not so easy when the girl is at least 14 and the boy is under 20. Your response was one of those statements which I find personally annoying. You said, "Are you saying there is no difference between a 14 year old and a 20 year old?" If I had wanted to say THAT, I would have said THAT. I would have chosen those words instead of the words I chose. When you posed your question you could not possibly have concluded that I was saying there is no difference between a the two. Rather, you were arguing that was my statement, in its essence. I find it annoying when anyone attempts to disassemble and reconfigure my statement, or anyone else's, and pass off the new configuration with "Are you saying that...." It is not really a question. It is a statement which avoids the text of the original statement. It attempts to create an argument which was not made. It is a straw man, set up in a passive aggressive manner. If you wish to say that there is a difference between 14 year olds and 20 year olds, then just say it, like BobRek did. Challenge me on what I say, but don't attempt to put words in my mouth I didn't say. It's easy to disagree with me straight up. No need to be coy, Roy. That's all "I'm saying." ------------------ Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.
Pine, I am not out to get you, so I do not undertand the twisting words to use agains you argument. My intent was for you to explain why it was difficult in dealing with a 14 and 20 year old. Perhaps I used the wrong tone or wordage, but I did not think it would be taken so personally. I apologize. Coy? Anyway, I again apologize for being an annoyance, please disregard everything I have said. Please do not respond to my original intent as well. ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
Quit using one-liner logic outside of the Hangout area, and one day you will have more friends than me. Until that time, embrace the believers of passionate speech, and join the crusade against pithy punches.
And then I can call everyone p*****s, too? I think Kafka said it best when he said: "But I was only of disservice to it, for I did not understand it, I did not prize it at its true value, I had no real feeling for it. It was infinitely above my intellectual capacity." (the above passage being an exceptional example of why I have Panofsky's Gift) ------------------ Squatting on old bones and excrement and rusty iron, in a white blaze of heat, a panorama of naked idiots stretches to the horizon. Complete silence-their speech centers are destroyed-except for the crackle of sparks and the popping of singed flesh as they apply electrodes up and down the spine. White smoke of burning flesh hangs in the motionless air. A group of children have tied an idiot to a post with barbed wire and built a fire between his legs and stand watching with bestial curiosity as the flames lick his thighs. His flesh jerks in the fire with insect agony.
I guess DeShawn is just a party animal!! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000848.html http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000998.html ------------------ "Win if you can, lose if you must but always cheat!" - Jesse Ventura
Rimbaud, why do you ask a question of me instead of just reading and comprehending my posts? They are not that difficult to understand. I cite you to Lewis Carroll's statement in ALICE IN WONDERLAND: "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards." Why not give him the presumption of innocence to which he is entitled? Why not find out the facts from someone other than a prosecutor before drawing any meaningful conclusions? Prosecutors are, after all, politicians, which is certainly little better than a statutory rapist. At least the statutory rapist only screws someone who wanted to be screwed. ------------------ Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.
I am in awe! Pinetree rox! Yeah rimbaud, what is with the TheFreak-ish one-liners that mean nothing. And Pinetree was being nice to you. Notice he didn't end the post with "...next" like I probably would have in face of your pithily prancing jabs of laconic luctation. Ooooh, if I don't say much, I'll sound logical...
Pine, but your argument seems to be less "wait until he's found guilty" and more "statutory rape isn't such a bad crime when the perpetrator is young himself." I agree with the former, but not the latter. At least, I'm guessing that is your argument, because your questions like "did she have a fake ID" and "did she lie about her age" are not relevant to the crime. Representations made by the victim to the accused as to her age are not a defense. I know you've got kids who are about the same age. But the statute (at least the one in Texas) has some built in protection so that it isn't criminal for, say, an 18-year-old to have sex with a 15-year-old. 20 and 14 is a different story and, if he committed the crime, he should do the time. The law exists, like JV says, to protect young girls. ------------------ I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip that I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis.
Rimbaud. At the time I wrote that first or second post on this thread, I thought he was 19, perhaps barely so. He is, after all, just one year out of school. And even though she is 14, she could be very close to 15. Were all that true, the age difference would be a little over 4 years. It is not unusual for teenage girls to date boys two to four years their senior. It is not unusual for teenage boys to date girls two to four years their junior. And, when dealing with young men who have achieved a degree of money and fame, it is not unusual for them to be pursued by young women (groupies) who will lie to them about age, birth control, and other matters. That was my mind set originally, before I read the more current reports on the situation, before I read of his age, his knowledge of her age, his relationship with the family, his confession on tape, and his buying of liquor and plying her with it. The essence of my earliest posts on this thread was that jumping to conclusions and hanging him out to dry BEFORE more facts came in was really premature. Perhaps I misread your post and its tenor. I am a natural born combatant. As Judge Mills Lane says...let's get it on! Sorry if I got a little testy with you. ------------------ Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.
After thinking about this for quite a bit, I kinda understand Stevenson better. I still disagree with what he did, but yeah, there is a HUGE difference between rape and statutory rape. I think it's a little easier when your older to look back and saw I wouldn't/shouldn't do that, but for a 20 year old, I can see how it gets tough. I'm 20 myself and believe that I'd never do such a thing, but when trying to see from Stevenson's point of view, I could. For example, here is a picture of Melissa from DREAM. She's hot. SHE'S 15. I can understand how one in Stevenson's position can lose sight of better judgement even for a minute. So don't be so quick to burn him, he's not evil, but he did make a BIG, BIG, BIG mistake. Just before you jump on him quickly (like I did when I first read the story), cool down and think about (even take a look at Melissa), and maybe try to understand. ------------------ I'm having a ****ty day.
The family of this girl had known Stephenson for 4 years prior to this, and the sex was consensual. The thing that bothers me is the fact that he bought alcohol for a 14 year old and had sex with her knowing she was susceptible to persuasion while intoxicated. Latest info on Deshawn ------------------ [This message has been edited by tacoma park legend (edited June 21, 2001).]
Let me guess . . . If their is grass on the field. . . PLAY BALL or If she can bleed she can breed ZRB this is the most idle minded thing you have ever said. I'm not attacking you but this mindset. The issue is this would you want your 13 yr old being sexed down by a 35 yr old? I would like to think society aids a parent in raising a child . . .becuase parents cannot be there all the time. 13 yr olds are NOT YOUNG ADULTS but old children They should be getting educated on sex they should be protected also. I don't think that a 13 yr understands the whole of the situation. ZRB you give 13 yrs far too much credit. Rocket River ------------------
LEt me through the baby out with the bath water Should sex with 8 yr olds be legal? Rocket River The Kiddy p*rn industry would love you man! ------------------
Those who cannot argue substance intelligently, use ridiculous hysterics, Pocket Rocket. ------------------ "We're having a pretty good time considering one day we're all going to die." Steve Martin, 1976
PS. Hit it Pearl. The Church Lady is ready to do her superior dance. (Cue Rocket River) ------------------ "We're having a pretty good time considering one day we're all going to die." Steve Martin, 1976
Why do you say that RR is resorting to "ridiculous hysterics", Pine? You said you were a lawyer, right? So you know that the statutory line has to be drawn somewhere. You can't make the criminality of the act dependant on how "ready" the girl is, emotionally, because that is far too subjective to enforce. Obviously, those subjective criteria do come in at the grand jury stage as to whether to indict, in the trial jury's decisionmaking, and in the sentencing. So the question is a good one - where do you draw the line? I think 17 is a fine answer, especially with the 3 year window built in to protect 18 and 19 year olds who are dating girls who are 15, 16, or 17. Three years is a good buffer - it is NOT common for high school juniors and seniors (17 and 18) to be dating middle-school kids (14 and younger). But if you don't like that line, draw your own. Otherwise RR's point is perfectly valid - why not let adults date 11 or 12 year olds? As a country and a society we can certainly enforce morality without being called prudish or puritanical. ------------------ I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip that I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis. [This message has been edited by SamCassell (edited June 21, 2001).]
