Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Playing Devil's Advocate here: 12 is NOT pre-pubescent these days. Many boys begin puberty younger and even begin growing public hair and masturbating regularly as young as 10. And with the prevelence of internet-use by younger kids, I HIGHLY DOUBT that he didn't know what was going on. He probably welcomed it. His parents found the texts and went to the authorities (which I am not defending her -- the parents were right because this IS illegal).
I'm saying that the boy was well aware of what was happening and being that he continued going to see her and texting her often, also never telling his parents -- he knowingly encouraged it.
12 is not a clueless baby these days -- I have a son around his age and I would spit fire on anyone who dared to touch my kid. My son isn't innocent though, he's VERY into women (even women my age)... all about boobs, booties and kisses. He would know dang well if a woman touched him sexually, what that meant.
Why? Because YOU don't agree with it? And who made you the morality police? Marriages licenses don't create marriage for ANYONE. It's up to the people involved to make the marriage. But gay people deserve the right to marry. There is no legitimate reason why they shouldn't. And no, religion is not a legitimate reason to deny them that.
I can't be the only one who finds it funny that conservatives don't want government intervention, only when it suits them.
Playing Devil's Advocate here: 12 is NOT pre-pubescent these days. Many boys begin puberty younger and even begin growing public hair and masturbating regularly as young as 10. And with the prevelence of internet-use by younger kids, I HIGHLY DOUBT that he didn't know what was going on. He probably welcomed it. His parents found the texts and went to the authorities (which I am not defending her -- the parents were right because this IS illegal).
I'm saying that the boy was well aware of what was happening and being that he continued going to see her and texting her often, also never telling his parents -- he knowingly encouraged it.
12 is not a clueless baby these days -- I have a son around his age and I would spit fire on anyone who dared to touch my kid. My son isn't innocent though, he's VERY into women (even women my age)... all about boobs, booties and kisses. He would know dang well if a woman touched him sexually, what that meant.
So what? There are 12 year old girls who think it's great to be with an older man.
The point is that a 12 year old, male or female, doesn't understand the ramifications of sexual activity and particularly not sexual activity with the parent of a friend. The fact that the kid feels the pleasurable aspect of sexual activity doesn't change that.
Playing Devil's Advocate here: 12 is NOT pre-pubescent these days. Many boys begin puberty younger and even begin growing public hair and masturbating regularly as young as 10. And with the prevelence of internet-use by younger kids, I HIGHLY DOUBT that he didn't know what was going on. He probably welcomed it. His parents found the texts and went to the authorities (which I am not defending her -- the parents were right because this IS illegal).
I'm saying that the boy was well aware of what was happening and being that he continued going to see her and texting her often, also never telling his parents -- he knowingly encouraged it.
12 is not a clueless baby these days -- I have a son around his age and I would spit fire on anyone who dared to touch my kid. My son isn't innocent though, he's VERY into women (even women my age)... all about boobs, booties and kisses. He would know dang well if a woman touched him sexually, what that meant.
There is NO excuse as to why a grown ass woman should be having sex with a 12 year old. Devils advocate my tail. This logic is what causes blurred lines.
I can't be the only one who finds it funny that conservatives don't want government intervention, only when it suits them.
Really. What about the whole thing with the pro-abortion/anti-life people bringing their case to the supreme court to universally legalize abortion back in 1974? What about the famous Scopes Trial "The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he purposely incriminated himself so that the case could have a defendant." I know, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Liberals don't YOU run to the government, either, when you don't get your own way. Stop thinking you exclusively occupy the moral high ground. If it is NOT right for the conservatives, it is not right for you either. And no it is NOT the same as the civil rights issue of the 1950s/1960s, stop insulting the black population in this country.
This country has supported "traditional marriage" for over 200 years. And now all of a sudden traditional marriage is down the toilet. Yes, anybody is going to be able to marry anybody or anything else. "Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it."
"Whereas conventional Marxist-Leninists were hostile towards the non-Communist Left, Gramsci argued that alliances with a broad spectrum of leftist groups would prove essential to Communist victory. In Gramsci's time these included, among others, various "anti-fascist" organizations, trade unions, and socialist political groups. In our time, alliances with the Left would include radical feminists, extremist environmentalists, "civil rights" movements, anti-police associations, internationalists, ultra-liberal church groups, and so forth. These organizations, along with open Communists, together create a united front working for the transformation of the old Christian culture." So tell me, when does it begin. Or has it already begun? Are you now going to force churches to accept and even marry same-sex couples for fear of losing tax-exempt status? And if that fails, will you close down the church altogether? Or maybe you will just infiltrate it and cause so much chaos as to have it dissolve. Destroy traditional marriage and the traditional family along with traditional Christianity and you can usher in Marxism.
"The first phase in achieving "cultural hegemony" over a nation is the undermining of all elements of traditional culture. Churches are thus transformed into ideology-driven political clubs, with the stress on "social justice" and egalitarianism, with worship reduced to trivialized entertainment, and with age-old doctrinal and moral teachings "modernized" or diminished to the point of irrelevancy."
So what? There are 12 year old girls who think it's great to be with an older man.
The point is that a 12 year old, male or female, doesn't understand the ramifications of sexual activity and particularly not sexual activity with the parent of a friend. The fact that the kid feels the pleasurable aspect of sexual activity doesn't change that.
Pretty much nails it.^^^ Still, I do see how many think a case such as this will be double standarded. The prevailing mindset is, that males are not as adversely affected by such encounters. Why that is, I don't know. I know a couple guys, who bad such encounters as lads. They are scumbags, in how they treat and view, women. They see women as nothing but semen recepticles. Is that not "adverse"?
Pretty much nails it.^^^ Still, I do see how many think a case such as this will be double standarded. The prevailing mindset is, that males are not as adversely affected by such encounters. Why that is, I don't know. I know a couple guys, who bad such encounters as lads. They are scumbags, in how they treat and view, women. They see women as nothing but semen recepticles. Is that not "adverse"?
I think it's a double standard because people feel a young girl cannot physically remove themselves from the situation and so believe they are a true victim. We don't consciously feel like boys (especially adolescent) could ever be held against their will, even if that's inaccurate. Sure they can be adversely affected but not to the same degree in our minds.
There is NO excuse as to why a grown ass woman should be having sex with a 12 year old. Devils advocate my tail. This logic is what causes blurred lines.
Of course -- loads of people would misunderstand me. My point was: Yes, what this woman did was illegal and she needs to be prosecuted. No excuse for her.
But the son is not innocent either. He KNEW well what he was doing and by him not even telling his parents (they had to find out through his texts), he's also guilty of going along with it. He knew better. He was NOT a victim.. did you even read the article? He continued going to see her for months during their "relationship", texting her and claiming he was in love with her, etc. Bleh. He needs to be grounded until he's 20.
I have a son around his age and my son would KNOW what was up. Boys that age these days are smarter and more sexually developed and wanting than they used to be. Not very innocent. It's 2015 now, not 1930.
By GODDESS' logic, all those flirty little Lolitas in their sexy kidswear from Target are not innocent either.
No matter how children may behave in regards to sexuality, having sex with children is rape.
Wrong. I doubt those little "lolitas" texts you, claimed to be in love with you, hid you from their parents and sexed you up by their own choices. 5 year old "lolitas" are also not sexually developed yet. This boy IS.
The woman is guilty of statutory rape. No doubt. That boy is 12 and 12 these days is more akin to a 15 year old a hundred years ago. He knew what he was doing. And he knew it was illegal.
I would say the same damn thing if a 12 year old, sexually developed girl having already started puberty "hid" a 30 year old man from me, claiming she was in love with him. HIS behind would be in jail, but you BEST believe that I would lock that girl up in severe timeout for a few years for her behavior too.
He wasn't innocent. Read the article.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
