What's your opinion of the finding child molestation in this case?

[Locut0s]

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1693362&page=1

Absolutely crazy, more fundy madness?
Too harsh but still guilty?
Agree with it?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. What? he is 17, she is 15? and they

find child molestation?

I am not sure I am prepared to live in this world any more.

[readmoreoften]

2. Insane Fundie Madness for sure.

A 17 year old goes to jail for 10 years for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old???? There's a two year frickin' age difference and they're both minors!

(And he was completely acquitted of rape charges based on video-taped evidence of the girl's consent.)

By the way, if dating someone 2 years younger than you constitutes child molestation, than about 25% of my schoolmates were child molesters in senior high.

[izzie]

3. Sounds like she had to get out of it in the morning.

I think the use of the law in cases like this, just some thing some DA is doing for his resume.I have lived off and on in dorms with women. Believe me they are not all sweethearts and will do things you do not like to think about even if it gets others in trouble. A flat law that scoops up every one in it is some times bad. I am a mother but I some how feel bad for these kids who are in a lot of trouble when every one knows that sex will go on with kids this age.

[bobalu]

7. I'm not speaking to the particulars of this case but

more to your remark of having lived in dorms with women and that "they are not all sweethearts and will do things you do not like to think about even if it gets others in trouble"....Well, no, but then again, neither are men.
I do see, however, that women are still held to the "double standard".

Maybe when we stop applying ugly labels like "Slut" and "Whore" to sexually active girls we'll find less of them desperate to "get out of it" in the morning.

[lukasahero]

12. Excellent post. Thank you. eom

[izzie]

19. Still did not sound like he should have got the time on this one.

I do not go with either sex being all good or bad but I do recall girls in the dorm picking men that they were going to have sex with and be sure to have him have to marry them. And with Harvard and MIT next door you can guess what they went after and were pretty free on what they would do. I guess I was a little hick to not know that this went on and women were so opened about such things. So when girls say they said no I question it some times.

[RC]

4. This country is absolutely demented when it comes to anything

sexual. Reality doesn't have much to do with anything any more, except maybe as a plot for fiction stories. I think the state of Georgia owes this boy something.

[sbj405]

5. Meanwhile, a young child in GA is being molested by an uncle, their pastor

etc.

Frankly, the child molestation charge seems like retaliation for not being able to convict on the rape charge. Dare I ask the race of the young ladies?

[LostinVA]

6. Most states have a "Romeo nd Juliet" law

Where kids with (usually) either two or three years age difference can't be prosecuted.. even if a 19-year-old has sex with a 17-year-old. No statutory rape. Of course, color me surprised that Georgia doesn't do this... were the girls white?

[LWolf]

8. It depends on whether the blow jobs were coerced in some way.

15 year olds are susceptible to coercion. What substances were involved? The girl says she didn't drink anything, but the other girl on the video may have been drugged, or just too self-medicated to participate in decision making about sex.

A 15 year old and her 17 yo boyfriend? No problem. A 15 yo girl on her knees, videotaped while a parade of them line up to take turns? I'm uneasy about that. I wonder what kind of baggage she'll carry into her adult sexual life.

I need more specific information about the substances involved, the persuasion used, and the purpose of that video camera before passing judgement one way or another.

[Lerkfish]

10. great minds think alike...

I just posted something similar.

[LWolf]

54. Yes.

You make good points.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

90. From all that I've heard, it seems that a great many teens don't even

consider oral sex, sex. This is (sadly) becoming the norm with teenagers. So if it is "accepted" as being part of their society's moires, does one carry the same emotional baggage as say you or I would have?

[LWolf]

91. I don't know.

That's why I say I don't have enough information to pass judgement. This is more than oral sex, it's a 15 yo servicing a whole group of them. Serving them; it doesn't seem to have been a mutual situation.

I know how I would have felt to have been asked to serve a whole group of guys at a party. Today's teenagers may feel different. I wonder how today's parents feel? What is a parent's reaction to this situation? Would parents of teenage girls feel that this behavior is a legitimate "choice," or would they want some action against the guys? Should they feel that way?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

92. I honestly don't know either. The thought that she did service all of them

absolutely turns my stomach and yet, if oral sex is being considered as inconsequential, did it matter to her if it was one boy or 10? As to recipricol, I also understand that girls give BJs to their boyfriends without the expectation of anything in return.

As a parent, with a sexually active teen, I often feel very apprehensive as to what will happen if and when my son breaks up with his girlfriend. He'll be 19 this month and his girlfriend is 17. As to today's parents and legitimate choices, I have more misgivings about my son and his girlfriend's relationship than her parents do. Her parents are a good deal younger than me, as I had a late start in the mommy game. She started to sleep over here about 6 months ago, and although her parents do care about her, they don't seem to be concerned at all. In fact she's downstairs right now getting ready to go to school.

[LWolf]

98. IAs the mother of 2 grown sons, I've been through that concern.

I wish the best for your son and his relationships.

[Lerkfish]

9. I think there's more to the situation than that short story tells us.

I would need a little more info, like what happened before the video. And I call bullshit whenever someone being sentenced is described as "honor student, homecoming king, star athlete" as if that in and of itself mitigates anything they're accused of. When people start playing THAT card, you know they're being manipulative. Either he did the deed or he did not do the deed, but whether he outscored his teamates in a bball game is completely irrelevant.

back to the case: Sounds like one was "willing", and one was taken advantage of, but seriously, if you have a party of teenage boys and the girls are "servicing" ALL the boys in succession, something bad was going down, even if the one girl appeared "willing".

If you were a 15 year old girl, at a party of 17 year old boys, and told to give them all oral sex, how much of that is willingness and how much of that is fear? And, what if later, when the boys were going up on charges, and they made threats to your safety, do you think you'd claim it was willing? As I said, I don't know enough to make that judgment.

in my opinion, from the little bit you provided, I'd say:
1. there's more to the story
2. every boy who got "serviced" should be sentenced
3. the sentence should be the same whether he was an honor student or the class clown. No breaks for good ball handling.

[bobalu]

14. I agree...The whole story is not being told and here's a question

that does not seem to be addressed anywhere: Did the girls involved KNOW they were being videotaped?

...That seems a rather egregious oversight.

[readmoreoften]

27. There's not "more to this story"

He was acquitted of taking advantage of the drunk 17 year old (by the way he's also a drunk 17 year old) based on video-taped evidence.

The 15 year old girl never even brought up charges against him. The court convicted based on the videotape. The jury did not want to convict, but felt they were forced to convict based on the way the law was written.

This case makes a joke out of both rape laws and laws protecting children from pedophiles.

[Lerkfish]

93. hmmm. I'll stick with my opinion.

but it is interesting that you think because a girl never brought charges she wasn't being victimized.
Because, as we all know, its not really rape unless the victim is comfortable enough to press charges. Until then, its consensual.

:sarcasm:

[bleedingheart]

11. I find it degrading to the young woman. They treated her like a receptcle

perhaps I am the only one who thinks this way but any girl who is willing to do that is clearly unstable to begin with....Assembly line sex is a way to get attention not to have an orgasm and fulfill one's self.

Perhaps I am old fashioned but if people think what happened to her is okay then they better think the same if it was their daughter, wife or sister...

[Yupster]

16. How about the guy in the story saying

he won't take deals because it's not about how long he spends in prison it's about doing what's right.

If he was doing what's right he would have left that party as soon as he saw what was going on there. I bet there were other kids who did see what was going on and left.

[Misunderestimator]

13. Sounds to me like he should have been charged with rape...

and not child molestation. I'd assume they went with the molestation charge because it would ensure a conviction. That whole article sickens me... it's clear from what little was written there to describe the situation that the girls were abused.

[High Plains]

46. He was charged with rape...and acquitted.

[Misunderestimator]

47. Sounds to me like he shouldn't have been acquitted.

:)

[bobalu]

15. Did these girls KNOW they were being videotaped?

I don't see that question addressed in the report or on this thread.

...It seems to me that if they didn't, that would constitute a crime in itself.

[TahitiNut]

17. "Until 1998, oral sex between husband and wife was illegal ..."

Pretty much says it all. :shrug: :eyes:

[Kailassa]

18. Am I my brother's (or sister's) keeper?

I'd answer yes, we each need to look out for each other.

What that 15 y o was doing was clearly not in her own best interests, and those boys could see that. Instead of selfishly waiting their turn, they should have acted the part of brothers or friends to her, and even if she asked to do that for them, not let her.

However, the nearest to punishment I would like to see inflicted on them would be enrollment in a well run, intensive discussion and role-playing program, in which they could learn to empathise with other people and look at their own actions in a different way. Teaching respect for ones self and for others would do a lot more to decrease minor harmful sexual behaviours than any laws or punishments will do.

Once, when I was 18 and desperately depressed and lonely, I accepted an invitation from a stranger to go to a party with him. He asked me in the car on the way there, why was I going off with a stranger, and I told him I could tell I could trust him.

It was in a house in a secluded place at the top of a cliff, 50 guys there, and he'd been deputised to find a girl for them for the night. Owing to childhood stuff I'm not afraid of anything anyone can do to me, but no-one gets to lay a finger on me without my agreement. So when the groups leader came in to get things started, I kicked him in the balls, and wouldn't give in despite being told I'd be thrown down onto the rocks below if I didn't. Much as I wasn't keen an that idea, and knew I couldn't fight off 50 guys anyway, I still could not let them touch me.

So the leader guy told the pick-up guy he and his friends could get things started and teach me a lesson, and threw him twine. Then I was thrown onto the bed in a room with this guy and about 6 of his mates, and he sat down beside me and said that he guessed I knew better than to trust him now. I looked into his eyes, and could see him struggling inside with what he was about to do, and knew he'd feel terrible about it in the morning. So I held his hand, told him not to worry, I knew he was being coerced into this, and that I understood he had no choice.

Well, he spoke to his friends and made a deal with them. Provided they were allowed to put my panty hose back on, which they'd dragged off me by then, they would cover for him by making appropriate sounds in the room, a higher voiced one making us all laugh with his feminine pleas for help, while my new friend helped me out the window and drove me home, leaving me at my door, unscathed.

I never saw them again, I just hope they didn't get the evil group leader taking revenge on them.

Its a pity not more girls are as lucky as I was.

[allalone]

20. good thing they never came around our high school eom

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. My opinion is that he should be charged with rape...not molestation.

I was eating as I read that article and almost vomited. This happened here in Michigan with some "Grosse Pointe, wonderful students, not in our family"type Boys being charged with rape and it took almost three years and the degradation of the girl involved to finally put them away...for far too short a time.


Women are not playthings. You bring a video camera, you have a 15 year old girl there...you have a 17 year old girl who says she was raped...I'm going to have a tough time believing you. Too bad this boy went and ruined a bright future for himself. I hurt for his mom.

No doubt, this boy would have gone on to become any one of the number of spoiled NFL athletes who think they can get away with the most hideous of things...just because of who they are.

[Beaverhausen]

23. I agree

It's like these guys were trying to make their own "Girls Gone Wild" video.

[Richard Steele]

24. He WAS charged, and the jury QUICKLY found him not guilty.

Believe me. That was my first thought as well, that
the real CRIME was what happened with the 17yo drunk girl.

But the JURY, who actually saw the tape,
quickly and unanimously decided that no rape had occured.

But then they hung this kid on a TECHNICALITY, based on
what happened with the 15yo who was NOT drinking
and did this with several boys.

Bad CHOICES, yes.
STUPID, foolish, UNHEALTHY, childish choices...yes. By all concerned.

But a CRIME? No.

Did you read in the story about the Georgia 'oral sex'
law that changed in '98?
Did you know that THAT law was only changed after
a man was given a 15-year sentence for performing
the act ON HIS WIFE?

This is more of the same ridiculous MEDIEVAL nonsens, IMHO.

[ScreamingMeemie]

25. A crime? Yes.

Sorry. If O.J. can be considered guilty and still be acquitted by a jury so can this boy. I watched a trial happen just like this with some rich boys in Grosse Pointe (as I mentioned above). It was who they were that caught the jury, not what they had done. Several crimes were committed that night. I only feel sorry for the victims...and his mother. Sorry

[Richard Steele]

30. So the sins of the rich Grosse-Pointers transfer to this kid?

Sorry, but that's TWICE you've mentioned that.
It's a different case, you know.

This was NOT some 'child of privelege' who's parents
had some 'pull' in the community.
This is a black kid being raised by a single mom in GEORGIA.

That's about as OPPOSITE as it gets; the odds were
certainly slanted AGAINST him as much
as they slant IN FAVOR of certain other people.

The only way he had a CHANCE of being found 'not guilty'
is if he was CLEARLY NOT GUILTY!

So, are you saying it's OK for this kid to spend 10 years in prison
and be labelled a 'child molester' for life just
because he got a BJ from a girl 2 years younger?

[ScreamingMeemie]

32. Sorry. I'm not buying what you're selling. Yes, it is okay for him to

spend 10 years in prison. His actions were a crime. Why did I bring up the other thing twice? Because they both reek of priveledge thinking it can get away with the horrendous. This is a black kid being raised in Georgia, with coaches knocking on his door offering scholarships...with popularity, well liked...this is the same story. Again, I only feel sorry for his mother.

[Richard Steele]

39. Well then, you and I will have to 'agree to disagree'.

Just because we don't happen to see eye-to-eye today
doesn't mean I am going to stop enjoying
your presence here at DU. I do, you know.

I hope you feel the same way. :hug:

[ScreamingMeemie]

43. Always dicksteele.

:hug: Your opinions are always valid to me. We're on the same side, and I can't really say that I know this kid. It was just my impression after reading the story.

[Occulus]

49. deleted

stupidity

[Beaverhausen]

26. If the age of consent is 16 in his state he broke the law.

[readmoreoften]

29. So should a high school senior go to jail for having sex with a...

high school junior.

This makes a joke out of laws that protect children from predators.

[Beaverhausen]

31. I'm guessing you don't have any teenage daughters

a 17 year old can be a predator. And it sounds like he is when you read what happened on the night in question.

[readmoreoften]

33. No. I don't have any teenage daughters. And that doesn't matter.

Yes, a 17 year old can be a predator. But he's not a predator simply because he has consensual sex with someone 1 1/2 to 2 years younger than him. He is a predator if he is proven to rape or coerce anyone of any age. That did not happen in this case. In fact it was even PROVEN not to have happen in this case. In fact, a jury of adults (I'm sure some of whom have children of their own) sat around and looked at a videotape of this incident and they all agreed UNANIMOUSLY that it was NOT RAPE OR COERCION. How many sex acts get that seal of approval?

I've also BEEN a 15 year old girl and I KNEW a whole lot of 15 year girls when I was a 15 year old girl, so I'm well aware that plenty of 15 year old girls JOYFULLY and GLADLY perform oral sex on boys-- and those boys are not "predators" because girls like having sex with them.

As a parent, you may not want to accept reality, but you cannot condemn a 17 year old kid to prison for 10 years because you want to live in a fantasy world where girls are ALWAYS angelic victims with no sexual appetites.

Sending this kid to jail is like bombing Iraq to stop Al-Qaida.

[Beaverhausen]

37. a jury watched a videotape of Rodney King being beaten

and the verdict was "Not Guilty."

Sorry. I don't have much faith in juries these days.


I can't condone the behavior of this kid at the party. Period. If you think it's OK fine. We just have to agree to disagree.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

56. I haven't heard

anyone even so much as question just why this 15 year old girl was at a party in a MOTEL ROOM in the first place. With all the jumping on the "the boy is guilty and the poor baby girl is an innocent victim" bandwagon no one is asking what the hell she was doing there in the first place. Apparently these girls came there of their own accord. Or does anyone think they were kidnapped and taken there against their will? This is typical of today's society. Automatic judgment, a miraculous insight on what did and did not happen without actually being there or seeing the evidence, and a group of people who routinely bash the far right wingnuts for their actions and distortions suddenly start acting a lot like them..

[Baconfoot]

84. So, sorry, do I have to be kidnapped to be raped now?

"X is guilty" of a crime does NOT exclude "the victim made poor choices"
I just wanted to point out that to you that if you read over the posts in this thread the actions of the girl are considered besides the point since it is something else which posters are scrutinizing and in no way does what most people are saying exclude being able to say that the girl should not have been put herself in a situation to become a victim.

I also wanted to mention that e.g. you can be raped without being kidnapped. (Trust me, I know, unfortunately.) So you should not be highlighting the fact that they weren't e.g. dragged to the location.

[readmoreoften]

85. Good point.

My issue with this case is simply that a 17 year old girl accused a 17 year old boy of rape because she was drunk. There was videotaped evidence of the alleged offense and the jury QUICKLY acquitted the defendant (so either it's a jury that is all incredibly sexist or the evidence really betrayed the claim.)

Then, the state charges him with having consensual sex with a girl who was completely sober, merely because she is 1 1/2 to 2 years younger than he is. Ten years in prison. That is haunting.

If I had a teenage child, I'd be terrified right now.

[Richard Steele]

36. Yes he did. But are all violations equal?

This is just a kid at a drunken party,
didn't bother to check the ID of the SOBER girl
who was VOLUNTARILY giving BJ's to everyone in the room.

Do you think his crime is the same as someone who
forcibly rapes a 9 year old?

Kids do STUPID things.
All of these kids were, by their own admission,
doing things which were
foolish, childish, dangerous and unhealthy.
IMHO, every damn one of them needed to get
a firm 'smack upside the head' from the legal system.

A "smack" that would be a lasting reminder to NEVER
do anything as stupid as this, ever again.

But to destroy this kid's entire future?
Throw him in prison for 10 years, and
label him a 'child molester' for life?

No, there's no way in HELL that the punishment
fits this crime.
This is not JUSTICE we are discussing here today.

[readmoreoften]

40. I agree 100%

This is wrong-headed in every way. And I'm a feminist.

[readmoreoften]

28. I love how quick everyone is to dismiss the evidence.

It frightens me to see people write "he probably should have been charged with rape." HE WAS AND IT WAS DISMISSED!

You can't just assume that this kid is a rapist because you feel like it. You also can't assume that the 15 year old didn't want to have oral sex with the 17 year old just because YOU don't want to imagine that 15 year old girls might consent to such an act.

They're putting a successful young black teen in jail on a ridiculous technicality simply because he was sexually active with other sexually active kids.

No crime was committed.

[ScreamingMeemie]

34. Sorry. I'm going to disagree. It has nothing to do with what I might or

might not imagine. A successful young teen used his popularity to act in a horrendous, and (I'm going to believe the girl...just as some believe that OJ killed his wife even though HE was found innocent as well) unlawful. All the screaming in the world isn't going to change my mind. Until people stop looking at women as playthings, sluts...unless they don't have sex,or otherwise, the world will be just this unfair...to the victim, not the football player. I look at is as having been saved from reading another Randy Moss type story in 10 years time.

[readmoreoften]

35. "Used his popularity." Give me a break!

A jury watched this videotape and dismissed the rape/coercion of the 17 year old girl. This 17 year kid is being put in prison for 10 years because he had consensual sex with a 15 year old. The 15 year old never even claimed that it was anything other than consensual sex. How is that a "horrendous" act????

You can't put a kid in jail for 17 years because "people need to stop looking at women as playthings." If you want to play it that way, put every man who reads Hustler or goes to strip clubs into prison for ten years right along side this kid. In fact, put all the women who read Hustler in jail, too. Or are women always "victims" and do women never actually really want sex? Is this ridiculous anti-sex, anti-feminist crap what passes for feminism these days?

I'm a female. And I've SEEN rapes. And I've SEEN coercion. And I've also seen a 23 year old woman, not only have sex under the influence-- but willingly jump on top of a friend of mine an start having sex with him. When her boyfriend found out, he convinced her that she was raped because she'd been drinking and "she was a good girl who'd never do anything like that." THANK GOD I was there and not drinking at all or this kid would've been charged with rape.

Treating women like infantile, sexless victims does no one any good. Look at the facts of the particular case or mind your own business.

[ScreamingMeemie]

38. Ummm...don't want my answer...don't post to me...pretty simple

Have a good day. I'm a female too. Sorry readmoreoften, your gender doesn't change my mind. My opinion. The facts in that story and the site his family set up stink to high heaven.

[readmoreoften]

41. I wasn't posting to you. I was posting originallly to 24.

You posted to me!

And your gender doesn't change my mind either. "Facts" don't ever stink to high heaven. If you want to condemn a upstanding 17 year old African-American boy to prison for 10 years for having consensual sex with a girl his own age, then that's on your head. Not mine. I don't believe in scapegoating kids to get back at "the state of society" or other people's crimes. In logic, this is called a category error.

And the real sexual abuse of women continues...

[ScreamingMeemie]

42. Oh. I'm sorry. I thought your quoting of me would be posting to me.

My mistake. Let me put it this way. Neither of us know this kid. It is just as ridiculous for you to call him upstanding IMO as for you to think I am ridiculous for seeing him as using his position to get away with what constitutes the criminal abuse of a woman. We're going to disagree. Luckily, there is room for that on this board.

Thank God the jury was smart enough to see that OJ was innocent, eh?

[readmoreoften]

44. By upstanding, I mean having no record.

As well as being successful in school. OJ is an entirely different matter. He had a long history of brutally abusing women. That, in itself, is evidence.

There is no evidence that this kid "abused" a woman beyond receiving consensual oral sex from a sober girl in his own age range. If you think that he deserves 10 years of prison and a life time of registering as a sex offender for engaging in this behavior-- which is legal in most states-- then I find that disturbing. If you think that consensual oral sex is abuse, then I also find this disturbing.

If you can armchair judge this child based on the OJ case, then a freeper can armchair judge the case of a girl who is obviously gangraped based on the Tawana Brawley debacle.

I'm not judging this case at all. The jury found him not-guilty of rape and I'm not second-guessing that. I'm not armchair judging. I am saying-- LOUDLY-- that I believe all legislation that would convict a 17 year old to 10 years in prison for having sex with a 15 year old should be stricken from the books.

If you had a 17 year old daughter who had a 15 1/5 year old girlfriend, would you want her to go to prison for 10 years for having oral sex with her?

[ScreamingMeemie]

45. It isn't what I would want to have happen. I wouldn't want my daughter

to go to prison for anything. Armchair judging appears to be okay only in cases where we think we know what happened. OJ had never been in prison before, therefore his record is clean...but we can armchair judge him based on what we have read in papers about him, by comments of other people who may or may not have a beef with him. I'm saying that if I don't know, then you don't know...unless you personally know this boy's family. The way this case has been presented is rancid. Again, in my opinion. Which is just as valid to me as yours is to you. We are only going to judge those cases which fit our agendas anyway. I can at least admit that. Can you?

[Occulus]

50. I have only one question for you:

Have you seen the same video the jury saw? Yes or no.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

58. Excuse me

But the job of a jury is not to determine if they THINK someone is innocent or guilty. The job of a jury is to decide if the prosecution proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In OJ's case, the prosecution screwed that case royally. So in response to your comment of "thank God the jury was smart enough see that OJ was innocent." I think you are bashing a group of people that are undeserving of it since their jobs as jurors was not "see his innocence or guilt" it was to vote guilty/not guilty based on on was the case proven by the prosecution BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

[High Plains]

48. You'd send this kid to a Georgia prison for 10 years so you can

"be saved from reading another Randy Moss-type story?"

He was found innocent of rape--although that apparently doesn't matter because you disagree with the verdict despite knowing nothing of the case.

The prosecutor gets a consolation conviction for consensual sex between people two years apart in age and you think that's worth 10 years in prison?

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. And you agreed with it. Oh well. How exactly did you know it was

consensual again? Oh that's right. You read about it and a jury found him innocent of rape...Sorry. No dice. To whomever else decides to respond, my opinion has been posted ad nauseum. You can agree with me or not. I'm just tired of women being shafted by the judicial system...and the court of public opinion. Not changing my mind. Story reeks. You are personal friends of this boy's family I presume?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

57. Well then

Maybe some of the women in societey (and the teenage girls) should stop behaving like playthings and sluts. It kills me how people will automatically blame the male. Never mind a 15 year old shows up at a party at a freakin MOTEL ROOM and has oral sex with several males there willingly and not drunk yet she is an innocent angel and he is the anti christ. Personally, I would consider her actions to be that of a girl acting like slut. Unless of course she was kidnaped and forced there against her will. But wait, there were no charges of that or anything even remotely resembling that were there?

[readmoreoften]

63. I disagree. The girl isn't "a slut."

She's just a girl who wanted to enact this fantasy for whatever reason. And she never brought charges against these boys. The girl should not be deemed as a "slut" or an "angel" she's just a goddamned person having sex. And the boy wasn't an "abuser" or a "victimizer" (as far as the evidence presented), he was just a goddamned person having sex.

Kids having sex. Acting out maybe more than most of us would want. Maybe it was a bad idea. Maybe it was a wonderful fulfilling experience. Who the fuck knows?

But regardless: THE IDEA OF THE STATE PUTTING A 17YO AWAY FOR 10 YEARS OVER A CONSENSUAL BLOWJOB IS DANGEROUS AND ABSURD.

No angels, no anti-christs, just a couple of teenagers having wild sex and some really bad laws that need to be changed.

[LisaL]

65. It doesn't matter whether she is a slut or not-she is under age.

According to the law, she can not give consent.

[readmoreoften]

68. Well, then round up all the 16 year old boys in America.

Because a good deal of them have had sex with 15 year old girls. Let's get those FEMA trailers in order. We're gonna need 'em. And if the statute of limitation is 7 years, lord help us. I know a lot of boys who're going to prison for a long time.

[Solon]

73. Not to mention 16 year old and older girls as well...

Hell, when I was in high school, I went to Senior Prom three times, and was dating a college woman when I was a Senior at prom, you do the math.

[readmoreoften]

77. Do you have her address?

The FBI might want to give her a visit if the statute of limitations isn't up.

[Solon]

82. Nope, and the statute of limitations is definately up...

Its been over 10 years now, also, I should have specified that the Prom, at my High School, was for both the Juniors and Seniors, and it wasn't ALL the same girl, you know what revolving doors that relationships become when in High School.

[bobalu]

94. Why are girls "sluts" but males not?...Can you say "double standard"?!

[SomewhereOutThere424]

52. evidence was...

He had a video camera and she was intoxicated to the point he had to move her from the floor to the bed. Yeah I'm sure the sex was so good (half or mostly asleep), that's why the camera was there to catch the great moment.

I don't really buy it...I agreed with your opinion until I actually 'readmoreoften' and found that, contrary to your claims, the kid was an honor student with no honor.

Was it a crime? I dunno. But it certainly takes the 'innocent' and 'successful' parts of your post and throws them away.

[readmoreoften]

53. Yeah, and that had to do with the 17 year old, not the 15 year old.

I said that I didn't see the video evidence of him having sex with the 17 year old who was seriously drunk, so I can't say whether or not I would have convicted on that charge! But you would because "you don't buy it!" Yeah, to hell with sequestered juries and evidence "I done read it on the internets. I know everything!" That's why idiots on discussion boards don't get to judge legal cases from a distance based on their hunches and intuitions.

The conviction wasn't for rape of the 17 year old. He was acquitted of that. The conviction was child molestation because he had sex with someone 2 years younger than him.

So my issue is with the fact that the kid was charge for having consensual sex with the 15 year old who never pressed charges against him. I don't have a problem with A VERDICT. I have a problem with THE LAW ITSELF.

And since you want to rag on usernames and get snippy, maybe you should retrieve your brain from "somewhereoutthere" and look at the facts.

[progressivebydesign]

86. My stepdaughter tells me half the kids in middle school do oral sex.

I'm not going to weigh in on that story, as I haven't seen the video or sat on the jury. but.. hate to break it to some people here, some teen girls are having sex with teen boys.

[sandnsea]

22. This happens every day in every state

Usually the boys plea so it doesn't end up with a ten year sentence, but it happens all the time and has been for years. It also is not the fundies, it is liberal feminism trying to hold males accountable for their sexual behavior. I don't know what happened at the party, but sex with a drunk girl is often considered rape because she can't consent, so he was lucky there. The 15 year old is underage and he was responsible to know that. There probably needs to be different laws to consider teen sex, but at the same time guys need to stop taking advantage of drunk and young girls.

[Solon]

60. Wait a second...

He was drunk too, so therefore can't consent either, so did the two 17 year olds rape each other? Serious question there.

[sandnsea]

61. Not too drunk to "perform"

I don't know how drunk the girl was, that would matter. I'm guessing the guy didn't drink himself into a black-out, so I'm also guessing he wasn't all that drunk or he wouldn't have been "up to the task". A slightly drunk guy taking advantage of a completely blotto girl, that's the line.

[Solon]

62. Well, considering he was acquitted due to videotape evidence of that...

charge, then I guess that's a moot point. However, here's a question, the 15 year old was sober at the time, and had oral sex with him and other drunk guys, who took advantage of who in that situation?

[sandnsea]

70. Too bad so sad

That's the law in Georgia, no sex with 15 year olds. No exceptions. Everyone is responsible to know the law.

Mind you, I tend to think the law should be changed to consider consentual teen sex, until I get a hold of a guy who doesn't want to accept responsibility for his own sexual behavior.

[Solon]

72. Would you say the same if the situation was reversed?

That it was a 15 year old sober boy who had sex with a 17 year old drunk girl?

[sandnsea]

74. Yes

Unless she was so drunk she couldn't speak.

[Solon]

75. At least you are consistant. n/t

[LisaL]

67. Now, that is a complete idiocy.

Are you saying that a drunk man is not capable of rape due to being drunk?

[readmoreoften]

69. No, but is he capable of consensual sex?

If a 17 year old boy is drunk and a 57 year old man gives him a blow job, then it is automatically not consensual and he is a victim. But if a 15 year old sober girl does it, he obviously raped her against her will.

All of these kids are underage, and the 15 year old never claimed to be assaulted by the boy.

[Solon]

71. I didn't say that...

I was responding to this quote:

I don't know what happened at the party, but sex with a drunk girl is often considered rape because she can't consent, so he was lucky there.

I simply put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak and asked a valid question, if a girl who is drunk can't consent, then neither can a boy, isn't that correct?

[readmoreoften]

79. boys consent when they get the hardon.

unless, of course, that hardon is caused by another man. then it's rape. then he was just confused.

unfortunately, none of us can tell what happened because we weren't there and we didn't see the tape and we don't have any evidence.

right now, the whole story's got nothing more to go on than the hamster wheel of our imagination.

[bobalu]

55. THIRD TIME THIS QUESTION IS BEING ASKED: PLEASE ANSWER!

Does anyone know if the girls involved KNEW THEY WERE BEING VIDEOTAPED??

[alittlelark]

59. Given that they were quite intoxicated at the time.....

why are you screaming for an answer?

[readmoreoften]

64. what a lovely guess.... n/t

[bobalu]

87. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to scream..It's just that I did ask twice

and received no response even though the thread continued and I thought it was a really important question.

[readmoreoften]

66. Who knows, but I'd imagine that they did.

There's no mention of the videotape being a surprise and they seem to have a great deal of footage.

[alittlelark]

76. Yeah... when you are WAY intoxicated...

that's exactly what you are thinking 'am I being videotaped'. Yeah

[readmoreoften]

78. well, it depends...

if someone is running around with a video camera, then it's hard not to notice. if it's a hidden camera, then it's a different story. it didn't seem to come up in the trial.

[alittlelark]

80. If you are way f*cked up....

do you notice or care?

PS - who helped them to that stage?

[readmoreoften]

81. I mean, it depends!

They may have known that cameras are going to be there. They might've been glamorizing what they wanted to do. If they got fucked up, I'm assuming they got themselves fucked up. They probably stole alcohol from their parents or bought it with a fake ID. I wasn't there. I don't know.

[bobalu]

88. Who is the "they" in your question?

When sex, videotape, and teenagers are involved, it's generally the case that it was "hidden"..and it was the boys doing it.

[MrSlayer]

83. The application of the law in question here is ludicrous.

This kid is guilty of being a kid. He shouldn't spend a second in prison and he shouldn't have his future destroyed due to the misapplication of law. And the way they are now amending it is stupid too, he is still going to be convicted of something at the end of the day.

[bobalu]

89. ....The girl is a "kid" too....But she, unlike the boy, will be labelled

a "slut"...Indeed, she already has been on this board.

[MrSlayer]

95. Hmm.. Being called a slut or being wrongly convicted of molestation?

If you go and blow 5 or 6 dudes in succession you're going to be called a slut. It goes with the territory. Every gang/corner/group in my neighborhood had a couple of girls that just did everyone and were happy to do so while the majority of the girls weren't giving up anything. They were our party girls or corner hos and everyone treated them well. They were fun to hang with but no one was going to make them their exclusive girlfriend. That's just how it goes.

Being wrongly convicted of child molestation on the other hand is far worse and has much higher implications. Simply liking to fuck a bunch of guys isn't going to keep you out of college, will not hamper you in pursuit of a job and will not be stamped on your personal record to haunt you forever and follow you wherever you go. No one is more hated and reviled than a child molester.

So what's worse? Being called something that, right or wrong, your actions have earned or undeservedly having to carry around the label of pedophile or child molester? The answer is clear.

[bobalu]

96. "Being called slut or being wrongly convicted of molestation"?..How about

Neither?!

"Hmm.. Being called a slut or being wrongly convicted of molestation?
If you go and blow 5 or 6 dudes in succession you're going to be called a slut. It goes with the territory"

WHY does it "go with the territory"?....WHY is that "just how it goes"?...Why did these girls who "were fun to hang out with" (read: USE)..get disrespected and called shitty names for the crime of pleasing YOU?!...Why are THEY "sluts", but not you "dudes"??...Why do WOMEN PAY, in this sense, for sex, while the men who USE them and then have the gall to JUDGE them* go unsullied?..
..Do you ever question things, like this Double Standard?..or do you only question things that hurts YOU?

Every gang/corner/group in my neighborhood had a couple of girls that just did everyone and were happy to do so while the majority of the girls weren't giving up anything. They were our party girls or corner hos and everyone treated them well.

Oh yeah.."everyone treated them well"...like showing their contempt by refusing to make them girlfriends and calling them "hos" and "sluts"...By the way, did you do that to their faces or just behind their backs?...

"So what's worse? Being called something that, right or wrong, your actions have earned or undeservedly having to carry around the label of pedophile or child molester? The answer is clear".

Not really. As to the Child Molestation thing, perhaps he was falsely convicted of THAT charge, but if he videotaped these girls in SECRET, OR took advantage of someone intoxicated he DESERVES to be convicted of a crime, even if it's not "child molestation".

Being wrongly convicted of child molestation on the other hand is far worse and has much higher implications. Simply liking to fuck a bunch of guys isn't going to keep you out of college, will not hamper you in pursuit of a job and will not be stamped on your personal record to haunt you forever and follow you wherever you go. No one is more hated and reviled than a child molester.

Actually, in my opinion, no one gets away with more than men and boys under the "she asked for it" double standard and the "boys will be boys" pass....To say that being stamped a "whore" or a "slut" carries no penalties shows you don't know squat about being female....That term carries a world of hate and disrespect..Women and girls get KILLED for being perceived that way..or, like the young grad student in New York who was sexually mutilated, just for BEING female.


*"Pity the Tender Sex for they must deal with Men, who are at once their Seducers and their Judges".

..Thomas Paine

[MrSlayer]

97. I didn't say it was right, just that things are the way they are.

WHY does it "go with the territory"?....WHY is that "just how it goes"?...Why did these girls who "were fun to hang out with" (read: USE)..get disrespected and called shitty names for the crime of pleasing YOU?!...Why are THEY "sluts", but not you "dudes"??...Why do WOMEN PAY, in this sense, for sex, while the men who USE them and then have the gall to JUDGE them* go unsullied?..
..Do you ever question things, like this Double Standard?..or do you only question things that hurts YOU?

I didn't make things this way, society did. I didn't create the double standard. And as much as we used them, they used us. They liked doing it and what they got out of it. Those girls were always protected and they never had to spend a dime on anything. No one was ever forced to do anything. Quite frankly, it was always the other girls who looked down upon the beneficial friends, not the guys. We thought they were great.

Oh yeah.."everyone treated them well"...like showing their contempt by refusing to make them girlfriends and calling them "hos" and "sluts"...By the way, did you do that to their faces or just behind their backs?...

Yes, we did treat them well. When there was a party and everyone had to pony up, they didn't. They got to drink and smoke and whatever for free. And again, it was almost exclusively the other girls who called them sluts and corner hos and stuff, not us. We called them party girls. There are some girls who are just into a lot of sex and there is nothing wrong with that. At the same time you aren't going to make one your girlfriend when she's going to be doing your buddies the next day. Again, that's just how it is. Would you want a serious boyfriend that you knew was going to be banging six or seven other girls over the next week? I don't think you would.

As to the Child Molestation thing, perhaps he was falsely convicted of THAT charge, but if he videotaped these girls in SECRET, OR took advantage of someone intoxicated he DESERVES to be convicted of a crime, even if it's not "child molestation".

Agreed. However the jury in this case ruled that he did not take advantage of anyone who was intoxicated, there was no rape. And the taping that was going on was hardly being done in secret according to the story. So while I agree with you, none of that applies here.

Actually, in my opinion, no one gets away with more than men and boys under the "she asked for it" double standard and the "boys will be boys" pass....To say that being stamped a "whore" or a "slut" carries no penalties shows you don't know squat about being female....That term carries a world of hate and disrespect..Women and girls get KILLED for being perceived that way..or, like the young grad student in New York who was sexually mutilated, just for BEING female.

Well I think the "she asked for it" excuse is disgusting when applied to someone who has been raped but I don't see it applying here. I never said being stamped as a slut had no penalty but it certainly has nowhere near the penalty that being branded a child molester has. Usually being called a slut only has any weight in your inner circle as a teenager and generally is meaningless when you get out into society at large where most people do not know you. Hookers and crack whores might get murdered more than the average female but I don't see promiscuous girls being killed on a regular basis simply for that reason. Guys generally like them. I don't see what the mutilated grad student has to do with any of this, there are psychos out there all over the place.