Sexual abuse allegations- how best to protect when the truth is unknown

[ancientregime]

I do understand.

I repeat you can't claim that "he would have still gone to jail" in this case. He actually did the crime and the system worked. Ancientregime is at best merely engaging in idle speculation.

He needs to show cases where a person actually did get convicted because some one accusing him of having sex with her even though he hadn't done so.

No. The system need to be concerned with convicted people based on the truth, not lies.

 

[ancientregime]

So it's ok to have oral sex with children because there is no harm involved according to you?

Right.

It's not according to me. I didn't create nature. Nature doesn't show any harm, but your morality seems to point to harm that nature doesn't indicate. When it's rape, nature says it hurts. When it's consensual they are having fun.

There is a invisible world yet to be discovered by those who have been taught to see things from a moral perspective. Yet, its a world full of danger, this scientific world of thinking, because witch hunt mentality still exists around the corner ready to burn you at the stake for merely saying the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Old Doctrine dies slowly, and the living never think it changed since yesterday.

 

[scott3x]

I guess it's time I reveal something- while I am attracted to women my age or older, I can also find some teens attractive; even if they're below 18 (gasp!). Since I was very young, I realized the taboo there was between age differential relationships when one of the partners was a minor, but it wasn't until I was 21 that I realized just how deeply engrained this was in society and began, like most 'normal' people, to isolate myself from minors in general when it had anything to do with sexuality. My attraction to teens didn't fade, however.

A 16 or 17 year old is not exactly the same as an 11 year old child, is it?

I wouldn't think so, no...

For example, would you have sex with a child you were entrusted and employed to care for? That is what ancient doesn't quite seem to grasp.

The term 'child' varies so much it gives me a headache. I think it's safe to say that while the world may not agree on age of consent for adult/minor sexual interactions, North America has now settled on 16-18. As a general rule, I find that breaking the law isn't a good idea, and I think it certainly applies here. ancientregime's friend apparently believed that the 11 year old girl in question would have gotten him in jail if he didn't have sex with her and given testimonies such as the one that lucifersangel gave in post 43, I'm inclined to agree that it's certainly possible, if not probable.

Personally, however, I wouldn't have done it even so. Why? Because I generally don't think it's a good thing to cave in to blackmailers, for starters; you teach them that they can get what they want using those types of tactics and I really don't think that's something that should be taught. In the ending, he went to jail anyway, which ofcourse shows another aspect of ancientregime friend's judgement; if she had blackmailed him into letting her stay up all night, her mother may never have employed him as a babysitter again, but that'd be the end of it. But when a blackmailer blackmails someone into doing something that will give them even -more- power to blackmail.. yikes.

Is that his friend wanted and had sex with a pre-pubescent child who was 11 years of age at the time and then tried to say that it was not wrong because she wanted it, no apparent harm came from it and that oral sex is not really "sex" because it causes no harm.

His friend now wishes that he'd never babysat the girl to begin with, a position I can certainly sympathize with. I think it's unarguable that ancientregime's friend has been harmed; from being a free man, he's now doing time. As to the girl, I don't think that someone capitulating to her blackmail was beneficial to her. As to whether ancientregime's going down on her was harmful to her in other ways, I find that that's a far more complex issue. I know I've mentioned it many times before, but I think that the story of Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau is a textbook example of how society can at times do more harm then good with its laws concerning adult/minor sexual relationships.

It would seem the 11 year old had a better grasp of what constitutes "sex" because oral sex is still sex.

From what ancientregime said, my impression was that she said he'd penetrated her with his 'thing'. I have found that various people classify sex in various ways; I think we're all familiar with the fact that Bill Clinton refused to classify oral sex as sex, while his detractors insisted that it was. I personally -would- like to classify them as different things, especially when it comes to females, because if they're pubescent, it can lead to children and if they're pre pubescent it can be very painful. Oral sex or cunnilingus is just not in the same league physically, although our society may still wish to equate the 2 at times.

Now, he claims she asked for it. Which leads onto another point.. Had she been a victim of sexual abuse in the past? Promiscuity amongst young girls, especially of that age, is an indicator of sexual abuse.

I think there are many possibilities. Perhaps part of the problem has to do with language. From what I've heard, when people have had a fairly negative childhood sexual experience, this can frequently make them to -not- want to have any more sexual encounters, especially with the age group that first sexually abused them.

-However-, if they had a -positive- sexual encounter, the results can be quite different. The main problem is that the term 'sexual abuse' is used as a blanket term; it makes no differentiation between wanted and unwanted sexual interactions.

Was her behaviour a common occurrence amongst children that age? Children will experiment, but they will usually experiment with other children their own age. Now ancient claims that she was "hot to trot" and that she liked having sex with older men..

No one taught me how to masturbate. But as soon as I learned, I didn't give it up. As for attraction to girls, I felt attracted to them ever since I was 6; I also felt attracted to some young women at a young age as well. This doesn't mean I actually did much. But in the one time when a 17 year old -did- seem to be interested in my 11 year old self at camp, I put the breaks on it; I remember feeling afraid that she would be maligned by society and I didn't want that to happen. On the last day that I saw her, as she got on the bus (I wasn't going on that bus), she wanted me to go up to say goodbye; i was absolutely positive that she was going to give me a kiss and I didn't want that to happen. I guess I felt that I knew what was going to happen and I didn't want her to think that she'd 'surprised' me. Now I wish I had gone up on that bus, but I can't turn back the clock. But I -can- advocate for a world where consensuality is valued more then chronological age, in the hopes that the next boy or girl that finds myself in a similar situation will have a better time of it.

 

[ancientregime]

The Effects of a False Allegation of Child Sexual Abuse on an Intact Middle Class Family

Very interesting study in West Virginia warning against iatiogenesis. My theory is this whole thing we been talking about regarding these subjects is socio-cultural, legal, and psychiatric iatriogenesis. A thorough compendium of scientific studies in these areas is what is needed to get to the bottom of all of this moral-cultural mess reinging upon or legal, social and mental health systems.

It is pulling a moral hijab over our lives, destroying our liberties, destroying our artistic and photographic culture, imprisoning innocent people, and breaking up families. The irony is, it doesn't matter to these moralist who are brainwashed, because most of them think their off to some wonderful place in the sky after they've imposed their idiotic morals on others. As for the atheists who are part of their team, they are haters, pure haters.

But we, those who have true respect for this unique life we have, those who know there is only one shot here on this planet, in this consciousness, this one life for all we know, and one time to enjoy it, we see them killing many beautiful, beautiful possible things. That which will never be, because of their ignoramus control. That which we can never appreciate, because we were forced to miss it, so unnecessarily. It is so tragic.

 

[scott3x]

Common: Questions about menstruation, pregnancy, sexual behavior. “Experimenting” with same-age children, including kissing, fondling, exhibitionism, and role-playing. Masturbation at home or in private places.

Uncommon: Use of sexual words and discussing sexual acts.

http://www.sltwc.org/casigns.html

These are some of the signs of healthy sexuality in children of this girl's age range. What she exhibited (from ancient's claims) are well beyond the scope of what one would consider normal or healthy.

I definitely don't think that blackmailing is healthy. And in this society, it's generally very dangerous for an 11 year old to be sexual with anyone. Judith Levine chronicles this fact in her book "Harmful to Minors". Here's a good passage near the beginning of her chapter "Therapy- "Children who Molest" and the Tyranny of the Normal" [Judith changed the names of the children to protect their identities]:

In November 1993, the San Diego County Child Protective Services pronounced Tony Diamond a grave danger to his sister. Jessica told someone at school that her brother had "touched her front and back." Mandated by the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to report any suspicion of child abuse, even by a child, the school called the Child Abuse Hotline. The social worker who did the family's intake interview elicited a record of Tony's earlier offenses: In elementary school, he used sexual language and looked under girls' skirts. At four, he lay on top of Jessie in the bath.
With only Jessica's testimony to go on, the juvenile court charged Tony with "sexual abuse" of "the minor" Jessica, "including, but not limited to touching her vagina and anal areas... placing a pencil in her buttocks" (that is, he poked the flesh of her buttocks with a pencil), and threatening to hurt her if she "disclosed the molest." Jessica's story would change over the weeks and months and none of what transpired between them is clear.
Nevertheless, the interviewer made this confident assessment: "It would appear from a review of the case that Tony is a budding sex offender.". Tony was nine years old.
Tony was to become one case in a new "epidemic", the "sexualization" of children; a new class of patient, "children with sexual behavior problems"; and a new category of sexual criminal perpetrator, "children who molest". Although some youngsters, particularly teen boys, do commit real sexual intrusions, even rape of other kids, "children who molest" are of another order. As young as two, they are diagnosed and treated, and sometimes prosecuted, for "innapropriate" behaviours like fondling, putting things inside genitals or even flashing, mooning, or masturbating "compulsively". From the anecdotes I have gathered since reporting on Tony, it appears that sex play between siblings is considered the gravest, though ironically the commonest species of a grave and not uncommon problem.
Children who molest are accused of coercion, though often the "victim" complies willingly, enjoys, or does not notice the "abuse". And while some such kids are aggressive in other ways, such as fighting, stealing or setting fires, their doctors practice under the assumption that any sexual acting-out is of a wholly different, and worse, order of behaviour. So, with little supportive evidence, a new group of self-styled experts has persuaded the child-protecitve systems that "sex-offense-specific" therapy is necessary for any minor with a "sexual behaviour problem."
Although the events that befell Tony and his family may seem extreme, they are not unique...​

What it does indicate that she may have very well been a troubled child and her behaviour reeks of possible abuse by others.

I don't know about that. It may just be that she wanted to try something out that she knew to be forbidden. I definitely think that her blackmailing ancientregime's friend speaks of -something- wrong with her, but I don't think that something wrong had to have much of a sexual component to it; kids blackmail and coerce others for many reasons, not just for sexual favours.

But lets look past that and look at the behaviour of the friend when confronted with a child who asks him to have sex with her. As an adult male, would you have had sex with her at her request? Or would you have ensured that her parents were informed immediately?

I would indeed go for option b. But at the same time, I think I can understand ancientregime's friend's reasoning.

Ancient is trying to portray this as normal behaviour.. that an adult male confronted with a promiscuous pre-pubescent child will be aroused and will act on that arousal if he wants to and that it is normal to find pre-pubescent children sexually attractive and appealing. Do you agree?

Ah, the many definitions of normal.

Here's one from thefreedictionary.com:

: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.​

Note the rather circular reference ("constituting a norm" indeed ). Honestly, I don't think that we should focus on what's normal; the norm right now is that we're destroying our planet, but I don't think that's very healthy for us. No, I think we should focus on what's good and healthy. Ofcourse, what's good and healthy frequently depends to some extent on the environment one's in.

So, is it good, healthy or atleast ok if one is sexually attracted to pre pubescent children? If it doesn't go beyond sexual attraction, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Perhaps it would be best to take a look at sexuality itself and the way we deal with it. Some say it's good, some say it's bad, but as a general rule, we want to keep the topic away from 'children'. Why is that? I personally think that it has to do with puritanical values and the idea that the whole subject is sinful. I also think that part of it is that our society tends to think that children shouldn't be very sexual; whereas before it was that children should be seen but not heard, it's now a bit more liberal; children can be seen and heard, but we still want them to be fairly asexual. Personally, I think it comes down to how you feel about sex; if you feel ambiguous about it, you may want to 'delay' your children from knowing about it. And I can understand the reasoning behind this; basically, the idea that what a child doesn't know can't hurt them. The main problem with this line of reasoning is that biologically speaking, especially when they hit their teens, children are very much meant to know about sexuality. And frankly, ever since I can remember, I remember absolutely loving the idea of being with girls in what could definitely be construed as a sexual way and the sky was the limit with what I wanted to do with them (because of a lack of knowledge, ofcourse, my sky was rather limited; I absolutely loved the idea of kissing and being naked with them but I believe I didn't really understand much about sex other then that penis and vagina had to come into contact until I hit the double digits). Due to societal constraints, after the mutual baths with my sister of 2 years younger then me ended at the age of 6, however, my contact with females was decidedly more limited. Would I have liked it if an older female had shown me all about sexuality in a society that didn't frown on such things? I would have -loved- it. But it didn't happen.

So, going back to the original question and modifying it- would it be -beneficial- for some adults to be sexually attracted to pre pubescent children? Definitely for some children, if only society could only accept such things.

Is a child a sexual object in the eyes of an adult?

Ever since I was a boy, I never saw people as objects and I certainly haven't changed now. I know that -some- people, especially men, tend to objectify females, but that's never been my cup of tea.

Now with the friend, it would seem that the answer where it involves this particular child is yes.

I believe that ancientregime has implied the reverse; that if anyone was used, it was ancientregime's friend.

As ancient has disclosed, his friend was not concerned with the law or going to jail.

What??? Where did he do that?

He did it because he wanted to do it.

I think you've got things a bit confused. From what I understood, his friend was attracted to underage girls, but he was fully aware of what could happen if he actually acted on those desires and the only reason he did so was because he was afraid that the girl was going to put him in jail pronto if he didn't; you could say that he got into one risk that may have seemed more distant or perhaps even avoidable in order to get out of another sooner danger.

His anger lies with the girl who apparently lied when she disclosed she had sex with him, because according to ancient, oral sex isn't really sex and it cannot be a crime if no harm is caused to the supposed victim. Now, is sex abuse, even if no harm comes of it, a crime?

I think the better question is, what constitutes sex abuse.

We live in a culture where the desire to protect our children is at times, zealous. You bring up an important point. What of cultures where sexual maturity is much younger and sex with minors is not considered taboo. In such societies, the families and the parents of the children are well aware and will consent to the relationship. A person acting outside of those boundaries would suffer the consequences. But we do not live in such a society today.

Agreed; the argument of some, however, is that there were some aspects of old societies that we should adopt.

In some societies, it was normal to sacrifice virgins at an altar to a favoured God. Does not mean that if someone takes a virgin and slits her throat her the name of a particular God that we would not arrest or jail them for murder because it was common practice in the past.

Agreed there as well; however, I think that there are few people who think that -that- practice should be reinstated .

 

[Bells]

What??? Where did he do that?

Oops. My bad. That should have been that his friend did it because he wanted to do it.

I'll get back to the rest of your post within a day. Kids have gone feral.

 

[swarm]

1- Before the blackmail, from what I understand, he hadn't practiced any form of 'sex'; oral or penetrative. The girl told his friend that if he didn't have sex with her (oral I assume), she would say that they did anyway, so he did.

Assuming he is telling the truth, which is a fairly big assumption here. It is still irrelevant. He could have done any number of things, report it to her parents, refuse to babysit, even report the blackmail to the authorities. Her mere threat of blackmail is no justification for having sex with her. I am doubly suspicious that he had her do him. If she was actually in control I doubt she would agree to that. No, it seems like he just had sex with her and then tried to justify it after getting caught.

2- His claim that the girl claimed that he had penetrative sex when in fact he only had oral sex with her. ancientregime apparently believes that he wouldn't have gone to jail if she hadn't lied about the type of sex they had. I'm not sure if he's right, but I do happen to know of a case here in Canada where a man who had oral sex with a girl of 12 got probation.

You crazy sex crazed Canadians. I blame it on the French. ancientregime is endulging in idle and unsupported speculation.

I'll do it:

I'm familiar with similar cases but I doubt his actual motive is to actually critique such cases.

 

[swarm]

Again, you are having difficulty reading. He was charged for an act and found guilty for an act he didn't do.

He had sex with an 11 year old that he was baby sitting. Oral vs. vaginal vs. anal is entirely irrelevant. He was found guilty for what he did.

How do you know ... I'm just this sicko ...

Aren't you full of yourself.

 

[swarm]

He didn't lie under oath. When someone asks you something that is none of your fucking business you don't deserve the truth.

Actually he did lie under oath.

When you are under oath before congress, a court or other legal entity, or if you are creating a sworn testimony, affidavit or other such legal document; then you either tell the truth or you shut the fuck up and plead the fifth aka REMAIN SILENT. If you lie then you are guilty of purjury above and beyond anything else. Even if you are innocent of the original accusition, you can be convicted for the purjury charge, which is a felony.

ancientregime you are a classic dumbass so you better listen because you are going to need to know this. The next time you get arrested, shut the fuck up and REMAIN SILENT.

 

[Ophiolite]

Guys can get a hard on for bicycles and vacuum cleaners.

I sense an implicit criticism here. :bawl:
You've obviously never looked closely at the intricate mechanism of an operating derailleur gear change, the well lubricated chain sliding sensuously over the sprockets as the Campagnolo rear derailler thrusts the intimately connected links into a new position.

 

[scott3x]

As ancient has disclosed, his friend was not concerned with the law or going to jail.

What??? Where did he do that?

Oops. My bad. That should have been that his friend did it because he wanted to do it.

I believe you're probably referring to something ancientregime said in post 7:

I may have brought up a bad example, because he really did want to do things with her. He just wasn't going to do it because it was illegal. He respected the law until he got trapped by the very way it's carried out. He felt both ways risked guilt. Why not atleast get something from it is what he thought. But you see, it wasn't that he actually did something that made him guilty, it was the process which guarantees his guilt if accused. All in all, he just wished the next door neighbor had not asked him to babysit.​

So yes, he wanted to, but he -wouldn't- have if he hadn't been presented with the possibility of going to jail for doing nothing at all.

I'll get back to the rest of your post within a day. Kids have gone feral.

Must admit I'm curious as to what's got them all worked up, laugh . Back when I was a kid, the internet or even game consoles weren't really around all that much; TV was the center of the universe for me and my sister, up until my father got an apple IIe (complete with a bunch of pirated games ) when I was 11; and there were a fair amount of times when we didn't agree on the channel to watch . I was all for an idea of equal time; but my sister would have none of it; while she said it was just too complicated, I felt that she knew she was getting more programs for herself and didn't want to let the advantage go . I remember that one time it came to a head; I think I had the remote and wouldn't let go; so my sister started throwing things at me, laugh . I swear to God, my sister may have been 2 years younger then me, but she did bully a bit when it came to TV ;-); fortunately not too much; I'm also absolutely positive that she got to choose more shows then I did; fortunately not -all- the shows she wanted were annoying (I didn't mind "My little pony" but "the care bears" was just.. ugh ) and again, it was fortunate that I was never into sports, so I don't think she was ever -completely- bored with what I watched .

The irony is that when I'm not watching t.v. with someone, I generally don't watch all that much t.v.; which is probably why I let my sister pick a lot of the stuff; my sister -loved- watching t.v. and I don't think I ever remember her not being there when I was watching t.v. when I was young. I think that at some point in time I thought that maybe it would be good to get my own t.v. but the thought was never that strong, probably because I think I really got used to watching t.v. -with- someone. This also extended to movies; I have never gone to see a movie in a movie theater with the intention of seeing it alone (it's happened twice, but the original plan had been to see it with others).

I think we both liked thundercats, but I don't think she liked my transformers all that much ;-).

 

[scott3x]

Guys can get a hard on for bicycles and vacuum cleaners.

I sense an implicit criticism here. :bawl:
You've obviously never looked closely at the intricate mechanism of an operating derailleur gear change, the well lubricated chain sliding sensuously over the sprockets as the Campagnolo rear derailler thrusts the intimately connected links into a new position.

Lol

 

[James R]

On the issue of harm caused by pedophiles, I would like to point out that there is a debate between ancientregime and myself in the Formal Debates forum that is relevant, here:

[thread=90901]Debate: Pedophilia is pseudoscience[/thread]

Discussion of this debate, open to anybody, can be found here:

[thread=90940]Discussion: Is Pedophilia pseudoscience?[/thread]

 

[scott3x]

1- Before the blackmail, from what I understand, he hadn't practiced any form of 'sex'; oral or penetrative. The girl told his friend that if he didn't have sex with her (oral I assume), she would say that they did anyway, so he did.

Assuming he is telling the truth, which is a fairly big assumption here.

I personally like going under the assumption that one is innocent of lying until proven guilty, yes. To not do so, I believe, would probably leave me with decidedly bad footing with my friends and/or several members of this board.

It is still irrelevant.

I disagree.

He could have done any number of things, report it to her parents, refuse to babysit, even report the blackmail to the authorities.

I agree there. However, it would seem that he felt that these types of strategies wouldn't work.

Her mere threat of blackmail is no justification for having sex with her.

Apparently he felt that if he was going to get in trouble, he might as well enjoy the ride there; personally, I agree with you though.

I am doubly suspicious that he had her do him. If she was actually in control I doubt she would agree to that.

The phenomenon is actually not that uncommon; it was the theme of a movie called The Crush. From what ancientregime has said, she coerced him into doing it. I think the fact that he was already attracted to minors helped, but when a kid threatens to say that you had sex with her and you don't have an alliby as was the case with lucifersangel's family member, I think it's fairly well established that you could be looking at some time in the clink. Southpark did an excellent episode of the way our society tends to err on the side of believing the kids.

No, it seems like he just had sex with her and then tried to justify it after getting caught.

It doesn't seem that way to me. However, in a very real sense we don't have to judge this thing on whether we have absolute proof as to what happened. We can judge this whole thing as a hypothetical; as in, what if it really -did- go down that way? It's certainly not all that uncommon; even famous defense lawyers like Eddie Greenspan have encountered this phenomenon; and it doesn't only apply when the alleged victim is a minor. I recommend that you read his book "The Case for the Defense".

2- His claim that the girl claimed that he had penetrative sex when in fact he only had oral sex with her. ancientregime apparently believes that he wouldn't have gone to jail if she hadn't lied about the type of sex they had. I'm not sure if he's right, but I do happen to know of a case here in Canada where a man who had oral sex with a girl of 12 got probation.

You crazy sex crazed Canadians. I blame it on the French.

Laugh . I wouldn't really describe canadians as sex crazed; I think we're generally like the americans; a lot of porn and such but the average male doesn't actually get that much; or atleast not that much compared to the French (I think I'd call them sex satisfied instead of sex crazed ). Maybe Quebec (the former french colony in Canada that's now a province) has more of it, wouldn't know since I don't live there .

ancientregime is endulging in idle and unsupported speculation.

I don't even know what country ancientregime is in, but if he's in Canada, I believe I've made it fairly clear that he's not.

Ancientregime is at best merely engaging in idle speculation.

He needs to show cases where a person actually did get convicted because some one accusing him of having sex with her even though he hadn't done so.

I'll do it:
The Effects of a False Allegation of Child Sexual Abuse on an Intact Middle Class Family

I also found a web site dealing with false sexual abuse cases:
Defending False Allegations of Abuse - Cowling Investigations

lucifers angel's post 43:

i know of a case that i was actually a witness in court for, a family member said that a certain family member abused her sexually, and because the girl caused so much trouble to me and my family i was asked to stand up in court and give a statement now the person who apprently abused her was actually with me the day he was supposed to have abused her, and he was cleared of all charges on my statemen, he lost his wife, house job everything because of that lieing bitch

I'm familiar with similar cases but I doubt his actual motive is to actually critique such cases.

And what do you believe his motive is?

 

[swarm]

I personally like going under the assumption that one is innocent of lying until proven guilty, yes.

He was proven guilty.

I agree there. However, it would seem that he felt that these types of strategies wouldn't work.

So are we assuming he has an IQ of 70?

Despite all the speculative back story, rationalizations and excuses, the things we know are he wanted to have sex with her; he ate her out and had her suck him off while babysitting; and he was convicted of pedophilia, a crime he committed.

Despite ar's whining about how its unfair and pedophilia is a fun pastime, I still don't see the problem here.

From what ancientregime has said, she coerced him into doing it.

Let's not go into what kind of pussy you would have to be to get coerced by an 11 year old.

 

[scott3x]

I personally like going under the assumption that one is innocent of lying until proven guilty, yes.

He was proven guilty.

An 11 year old girl said they had sexual intercourse. The court chose to believe her. He claims that he only engaged in cunnilingus. Both I and lucifersangel have provided evidence which suggests that people are prone to err on the side of erring on the side of the defendant in cases such as this.

I agree there. However, it would seem that he felt that these types of strategies wouldn't work.

So are we assuming he has an IQ of 70?

I'm not assuming it. What I know is that he made a mistake and he's now paying for it.

Despite all the speculative back story, rationalizations and excuses, the things we know are he wanted to have sex with her; he ate her out and had her suck him off while babysitting

Not sure about the sucking off bit. From what I understand, he wanted it but wouldn't have done it if it weren't for the blackmail.

and he was convicted of pedophilia, a crime he committed.

Pedophilia isn't a crime, it's an attraction. He was convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor, something he claims he didn't do.

Despite ar's whining about how its unfair and pedophilia is a fun pastime, I still don't see the problem here.

Again, pedophilia isn't a past time, it's an attraction.

From what ancientregime has said, she coerced him into doing it.

Let's not go into what kind of pussy you would have to be to get coerced by an 11 year old.

An 11 year old's word can certainly land you in jail. Even with a rock solid alliby, it can get you to lose your "wife, house job everything", as lucifers angel made clear back in post 43. And let's remember that ancientregime's friend not only didn't have an alliby, it was -known- that he was with her, alone, because he had been put in charge of babysitting her. Because of his attraction to minors, he wouldn't even have been able to say that he didn't find her attractive.

 

[swarm]

An 11 year old girl said they had sexual intercourse. The court chose to believe her. He claims that he only engaged in cunnilingus.

Frankly I think if she was "blackmailing" him about having sex with her it was probably because he did have sex with her.

But a the least he ate her out and had her suck him off while in a trusted position over her, either of which are sufficient crimes as you can read below. Also we just have ar's word that he didn't have sex with her and that she was trying to manipulate him. I seriously doubt we are getting the whole story, but just the story we are getting is sufficient to convict him.

Given the circumstances I'm not inclined to believe him or ar. Now if he had refused her "advances" and gotten in trouble for that, then there might be something to this. But the fact remains that eating out and getting a blow job from an 11 year old while you babysit her is in fact a heinous crime be it Canada or the US.

I'm well aware that there can be problems with abuse cases. I've sat on a jury for an alleged child abuse case and seen first hand what happens. The prosecution's case was that "abuse is terrible." What they lacked was any evidence that the fellow actually engaged in abuse and so after some deliberation we acquitted the him.

That is not what happened here though since he admits the crime.

I see no reason to believe the defendant over the judge and jury at the moment.

Not sure about the sucking off bit. From what I understand, he wanted it but wouldn't have done it if it weren't for the blackmail.

Get real. No one blackmails you into letting them give you a blow job.

Here is the US federal statute (note it uses the general "a sexual act" which includes suck, fuck and blow):
usc_sec_18_00002241----000-(c)

With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.

 

[James R]

An 11 year old girl said they had sexual intercourse. The court chose to believe her. He claims that he only engaged in cunnilingus.

Either way, it's sex with a minor, which is illegal.

I'm not assuming it. What I know is that he made a mistake and he's now paying for it.

This is not a "mistake" - it is taking advantage of a young girl.

Not sure about the sucking off bit. From what I understand, he wanted it but wouldn't have done it if it weren't for the blackmail.

An 11 year old girl cannot blackmail an adult man unless he gives her the ammunition to do it. And is this guy and idiot? Who would say "Well, if I'm going to be convicted of a bit of molestation, I might as well go the whole hog and really commit full-on child abuse, to get my jail-time's worth"?

Pedophilia isn't a crime, it's an attraction.

It's a crime in most jurisdictions. Pedophilia: sexual relations with children. Crime.

Whatever gave you the impression that it is not a criminal act?

He was convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor, something he claims he didn't do.

Clearly the judge or jury didn't believe him. The legal process has spoken. Who are you to second guess? You were not privy to the entire court proceedings, so you're probably missing about 90% of the relevant facts.

Why defend a convicted pedophile, especially when you know next to nothing about the case?

 

[scott3x]

An 11 year old girl said they had sexual intercourse. The court chose to believe her. He claims that he only engaged in cunnilingus.

Frankly I think if she was "blackmailing" him about having sex with her it was probably because he did have sex with her.

If we're going to go into the speculative realm in terms of what ancient's friend -did-, this discussion doesn't work.

But a the least he ate her out and had her suck him off

I haven't heard ancientregime claim that she gave him oral sex.

while in a trusted position over her, either of which are sufficient crimes as you can read below.

As I've mentioned, in a case in Canada, a man who had engaged in oral sex with a 12 year old girl (in that case she -did- give him oral sex) only received probation; ofcourse in that case, he had a family to take care of and she didn't want to prosecute him.

Given the circumstances I'm not inclined to believe him or ar. Now if he had refused her "advances" and gotten in trouble for that, then there might be something to this.

I agree he made a mistake in succumbing to the blackmail. But perhaps if he'd had better chances of getting off if he'd not done anything he wouldn't have done anything. That, as far as I'm concerned, is the purpose of this part of the discussion.

But the fact remains that eating out and getting a blow job from an 11 year old while you babysit her is in fact a heinous crime be it Canada or the US.

heinous: 1. Totally reprehensible, horrible, wicked.

No, I don't agree with you. What's much more reprehensible is a girl blackmailing a guy into this type of thing. Or a court of law sentencing a guy for succumbing to blackmail. Ofcourse, the court may never have even -known- about the blackmailing, so it's somewhat understandable.

I'm well aware that there can be problems with abuse cases. I've sat on a jury for an alleged child abuse case and seen first hand what happens. The prosecution's case was that "abuse is terrible." What they lacked was any evidence that the fellow actually engaged in abuse and so after some deliberation we acquitted him.

Perhaps the reason for this is because you were there. Sometimes it only takes one person to stand up for a person's rights to get a case acquitted.

That is not what happened here though since he admits the crime.

He admits the crime, but he also states that he was blackmailed into it. If that part is true, I think it deserves some recognition.

I see no reason to believe the defendant over the judge and jury at the moment.

Unfortunately, you weren't part of -that- jury, so you really don't know a lot of the details.

Not sure about the sucking off bit. From what I understand, he wanted it but wouldn't have done it if it weren't for the blackmail.

Get real. No one blackmails you into letting them give you a blow job.

The movie "The Crush" has precisely this type of contact, but it's hollywood; obviously things would go that far.

Here is the US federal statute (note it uses the general "a sexual act" which includes suck, fuck and blow):
usc_sec_18_00002241----000-(c)

With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.

Definitely stricter then Canada . We avoided going to Iraq too. Anyway, the above doesn't always hold. Mary Kay Letourneau was certainly in prison a lot less time. Perhaps it's because her lover, Vili Fualaau, never wanted her there. I keep on thinking of their book- (translated from French): "Only one crime, love."

 

[scott3x]

An 11 year old girl said they had sexual intercourse. The court chose to believe her. He claims that he only engaged in cunnilingus.

Either way, it's sex with a minor, which is illegal.

True, I simply felt that the punishment may have been lighter if the truth had been told.

I'm not assuming it. What I know is that he made a mistake and he's now paying for it.

This is not a "mistake" - it is taking advantage of a young girl.

Personally I see it as being coerced by a young girl and that his mistake was in allowing himself to be coerced.

Not sure about the sucking off bit. From what I understand, he wanted it but wouldn't have done it if it weren't for the blackmail.

An 11 year old girl cannot blackmail an adult man unless he gives her the ammunition to do it.

If by ammunition you mean a young person's whim, sure.

And is this guy and idiot? Who would say "Well, if I'm going to be convicted of a bit of molestation, I might as well go the whole hog and really commit full-on child abuse, to get my jail-time's worth"?

Someone who's attracted to minors and who doesn't realize the dangerous type of lesson he's teaching the girl in question.

Pedophilia isn't a crime, it's an attraction.

It's a crime in most jurisdictions. Pedophilia: sexual relations with children. Crime.

Whatever gave you the impression that it is not a criminal act?

As a general rule, I've found that pedophilia is meant to indicate attraction, not actions. Attractions are -not- illegal, regardless of what you're attracted to. I took a good look at wikipedia's entry on the subject, however, and found that in some cases even the actions are defined as 'pedophilia'. It shoudn't be; Philia does not mean an act, but a type of feeling. To continue to allow the bastardization of the term to include actions is flat out wrong as the medical profession frequently uses the term to simply describe an attraction. When I use the term, I always mean it in this context.

He was convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor, something he claims he didn't do.

Clearly the judge or jury didn't believe him.

Judges and/or juries can be wrong and when it comes to this issue, I think they frequently are.

The legal process has spoken. Who are you to second guess?

And individual who has seen much more then my fair share of unfairness when it comes to this subject.

You were not privy to the entire court proceedings, so you're probably missing about 90% of the relevant facts.

Maybe. However, I highly doubt that either the judge or jury were ancientregime's friend's friends.

Why defend a convicted pedophile, especially when you know next to nothing about the case?

I think the first part of your sentence speaks volumes by itself; 'why defend a convicted pedophile'. Heck, lawyers are lambasted for defending as yet -unconvicted- people who allegedly have had sexual interactions with minors. And then there's the issue that the term 'pedophile' originally was meant to describe only someone who was attracted to minors, not someone who necessarily broke the law.

Then there's the fact that we make no differentiation between someone who is sexually violent and someone who is simply illegally sexual.