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

[swarm]

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

Odd, you seem happy to speculate what the court would have done.

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

I'll have to be more careful quoting AR, that line no longer exists. So I withdraw the bj until its made clear.

On a side note for AR, in cases of statuary rape no force is required for the charge of rape. By law a minor is incapable of consenting, therefore it is automatically rape no matter how willing the victim.

heinous: 1. Totally reprehensible, horrible, wicked.

No, I don't agree with you.

That's nice but personal opinions don't really matter much here. Statutory rape is considered a heinous crime by the law. Its almost as bad as smoking dope in some states.

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.

The judge may have agreed since he only got 7 years.

 

[scott3x]

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

Odd, you seem happy to speculate what the court would have done.

If we begin to speculate on what he -did- instead of only what he was charged with vs. what he said he did and then try to figure out all the possible rulings, the possibilities could become endless; I wanted more finite parameters.

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

I'll have to be more careful quoting AR, that line no longer exists.

You sure it ever did? I simply remember him saying that he gave oral sex.

So I withdraw the bj until its made clear.

Ok.

On a side note for AR, in cases of statuary rape no force is required for the charge of rape. By law a minor is incapable of consenting, therefore it is automatically rape no matter how willing the victim.

Which just goes to show you how absurd the law can be, mixing rapists with people who simply have illegal sex.

heinous: 1. Totally reprehensible, horrible, wicked.

No, I don't agree with you.

That's nice but personal opinions don't really matter much here.

Again, I disagree.

Statutory rape is considered a heinous crime by the law.

Laws can (and sometimes should) be changed.

Its almost as bad as smoking dope in some states.

The horror

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.

The judge may have agreed since he only got 7 years.

You may be right there. Might have been lighter still if he hadn't been convicted of sexual intercourse instead of cunnilingus.

 

[swarm]

what he said he did

Defendants in cases like this rarely admit to what they did. But in either regard most US laws don't distinguish between kinds of sex acts so it would be a moot point in most cases.

Which just goes to show you how absurd the law can be, mixing rapists with people who simply have illegal sex.

In the case of some one who is a minor and unable to even begin to defend themselves against an adult, physically, mentally or emotionally; the law is designed to err on the side of the minor. The defendant in rape cases is always going to claim that the sex was consensual so that defense is removed. It is impossible to have consensual sex with a minor who is not your wife. Since he wasn't charged with aggravated rape, he is not being raked over the coals here.

Again, I disagree...Laws can (and sometimes should) be changed.

So you basically feel sex with children is ok?

You may be right there. Might have been lighter still if he hadn't been convicted of sexual intercourse instead of cunnilingus.

I seriously doubt it. 7 years is a pretty light sentence in the US for this sort of thing. You shouldn't forget there was a serious breech of trust involved as well.

Let's face it. If you aren't a professional priest, you should leave the kiddies alone.

 

[scott3x]

what he said he did

Defendants in cases like this rarely admit to what they did.

Defendants in cases like have also at times not done what they were accused off, as lucifers angel made clear in post 43.

But in either regard most US laws don't distinguish between kinds of sex acts so it would be a moot point in most cases.

Apparently there would have been a difference in this case, perhaps especially in regards to the blackmail bit perhaps, or I doubt that ancientregime would have brought it up at all.

Which just goes to show you how absurd the law can be, mixing rapists with people who simply have illegal sex.

In the case of someone who is a minor and unable to even begin to defend themselves against an adult, physically, mentally or emotionally; the law is designed to err on the side of the minor.

The law is designed to forbid minors from engaging in sexual activities with adults, as the case of Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau makes clear. Society can try to fool itself into thinking that this only 'protects' minors but the truth is clearly otherwise.

The defendant in rape cases is always going to claim that the sex was consensual so that defense is removed.

You have proof that everyone single rapist denied what they did? And when it comes to -statutory- "rape" (aka illegal sex), it's another story entirely; the minors can be against the prosecution entirely and later end up marrying the adult they were having sex with. Ofcourse, the adult may well have had to serve jail time and have a permanent criminal record. Society should apologize for such treatment. I find it rather telling that no matter how many times I bring up the case of Mary Kay Letourneau and her now husband, Vili Fualaau, people have not addressed this case every single time. So I'll just keep on bringing it up and let the parody of this avoidance continue.

It is impossible to have consensual sex with a minor who is not your wife.

No, it's not. It's impossible to have -legal- sex with someone below the age of consent in your jurisdiction, which is completely different.

Since he wasn't charged with aggravated rape, he is not being raked over the coals here.

Yeah, just 7 years in the slammer for getting blackmailed into having sex.

Again, I disagree...Laws can (and sometimes should) be changed.

So you basically feel sex with children is ok?

In a world with more liberal laws, it would still depend both on how you define sex and how you define children.

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.

The judge may have agreed since he only got 7 years.

You may be right there. Might have been lighter still if he hadn't been convicted of sexual intercourse instead of cunnilingus.

I seriously doubt it. 7 years is a pretty light sentence in the US for this sort of thing.

If that's true, then I believe it simply demonstrates how absurdly hard these punishments people receive for this type of thing in the U.S.

You shouldn't forget there was a serious breech of trust involved as well.

Definitely; an 11 year old girl apparently took serious advantage of her poor neighbour; the irony is that -he's- the one who's now spending 7 years in prison for it.

Let's face it. If you aren't a professional priest, you should leave the kiddies alone.

I think even the priests have taken notice; the amount of money they've had to pay hasn't exactly been insubstantial. However, I think the pendulum has swung much to much to the other side of the equation; from protecting certain abusers (the clergy, for instance) to seriously injuring healthy relationships (Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau).

 

[visceral_instinct]

Definitely; an 11 year old girl apparently took serious advantage of her poor neighbour; the irony is that -he's- the one who's now spending 7 years in prison for it.

WHAT THE SHIT?

She was an 11 year old prepubescent child. When are you motherfuckers going to get this point through your goddamned thick dura mater:

She was a CHILD. It doesn't matter what lies she threatened to tell, the appropriate response was to tell the parent then refuse to see that child again.

It doesn't count as taking advantage of him. She was a CHILD. I'll say it again, maybe it will sink in. She was a mentally disturbed child and didn't know what the hell she was doing.

 

[scott3x]

visceral_instinct, I must say that I reported your post due to abusive language. It may be that nothing is done about it, but atleast I tried. That out of the way...

It doesn't count as taking advantage of him. She was a CHILD.

The fact that she was a child doesn't mean she couldn't take advantage of him, sorry.

It doesn't matter what lies she threatened to tell, the appropriate response was to tell the parent then refuse to see that child again.

I agree with you on the first part, not sure about the second. Even ancientregime's friend now wishes that he'd never been asked to babysit her. Hindsight is great though; it's the moment that can be problematic.

I'll say it again, maybe it will sink in. She was a mentally disturbed child and didn't know what the hell she was doing.

You can say it all you want. It doesn't make it true. I'm all for believing that she was a mentally disturbed child. I'm sure that she was just trying to do what she felt would maximize her happiness and minimize her pain. I believe the same to be true for the person who's now spending 7 years in prison.

You may have made more points, but interspersed with all those insults, I decided I'd steer clear.

 

[swarm]

Defendants in cases like have also at times not done what they were accused off

That is true of any law, but in this case we know he committed the crime.

especially in regards to the blackmail bit perhaps, or I doubt that ancientregime would have brought it up at all.

Don't expect to get very far claiming an 11 year old blackmailed you into having sex with them unless you are in a muslim country.

AR just seems to be a pedophile apologist.

The law is designed to forbid minors from engaging in sexual activities with adults

You could not be more wrong. The law is designed to forbid adults from engaging in sexual activities with minors. There is no penalty for the minor no matter what happened.

Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau would have had no problem had they followed the rules. She was already married and he was a minor. If you want to have sex with a minor you have to get married first. If she had gotten a divorce and gone to any of the number of states which allow marriage at that age, she would not have been violating the law.

Again, you don't have a leg to stand on here. No where in the US or Canada is a teacher having an illegal affair with a student, especially one that is a minor, allowed. The law was working exactly the way it is designed to.

If you can't understand the multiple breaches of trust here, that with her husband, the student/teacher relationship and statutory rape; then all I can suggest is you should avoid any position of authority, especially one involving minors.

No, it's not. It's impossible to have -legal- sex with someone below the age of consent in your jurisdiction, which is completely different.

It is impossible to have consensual sex with a minor who is not your wife. A minor cannot legally consent to having sex, period.

It is possible to have legal sex with someone below the age of consent if you are married to them.

That is the law and it should come as a surprise to no one.

Yeah, just 7 years in the slammer for getting blackmailed into having sex.

I have a bridge you can buy too.

 

[James R]

Yeah, just 7 years in the slammer for getting blackmailed into having sex.

Blackmailed by an 11 year old. Yeah, right.

 

[visceral_instinct]

visceral_instinct, I must say that I reported your post due to abusive language. It may be that nothing is done about it, but atleast I tried. That out of the way...



The fact that she was a child doesn't mean she couldn't take advantage of him, sorry.



I agree with you on the first part, not sure about the second. Even ancientregime's friend now wishes that he'd never been asked to babysit her. Hindsight is great though; it's the moment that can be problematic.



You can say it all you want. It doesn't make it true. I'm all for believing that she was a mentally disturbed child. I'm sure that she was just trying to do what she felt would maximize her happiness and minimize her pain. I believe the same to be true for the person who's now spending 7 years in prison.

You may have made more points, but interspersed with all those insults, I decided I'd steer clear.

The fact that she was a child doesn't mean she couldn't take advantage of him, sorry.

Bullshit. He chose to be "blackmailed". He could have done what every other normal decent man would have done, which was to tell the parent then refuse to have any further contact with the child.

You can say it all you want. It doesn't make it true. I'm all for believing that she was a mentally disturbed child. I'm sure that she was just trying to do what she felt would maximize her happiness and minimize her pain. I believe the same to be true for the person who's now spending 7 years in prison.

You may have made more points, but interspersed with all those insults, I decided I'd steer clear.

None of this changes the fact that she was a child, was not old enough to have a sexuality of her own, and was abused. Even if she told him to do something to her, her child's reasons are not good enough grounds. When she hits puberty and becomes a woman, not a girl, she's competent to have sex with someone. As a preteen child she's most definitely not.

My saying motherfucker or goddamn does not make my points any less valid.

 

[Orleander]

.... When she hits puberty and becomes a woman, not a girl, she's competent to have sex with someone. As a preteen child she's most definitely not....

My Aunt got her period in 4th grade. Does that make her a woman?

And, I agree. Big Bullshit :bravo: Blackmailed my ass.

 

[visceral_instinct]

I don't mean you immediately become a woman when you have your first period...I should have just said a sexual being, rather than a woman. My bad.

 

[scott3x]

Yeah, just 7 years in the slammer for getting blackmailed into having sex.

Blackmailed by an 11 year old. Yeah, right.

You think an 11 year old is incapable of blackmailing an adult?

 

[swarm]

His story stinks like yesterday's diapers.

 

[James R]

You think an 11 year old is incapable of blackmailing an adult?

In this case, yes. I agree with swarm. The story is totally implausible.

 

[Bells]

You think an 11 year old is incapable of blackmailing an adult?

Lets see. An 11 year old tells her babysitter.. 'if you don't have sex with me, I am going to tell everyone that you did.. so you better do it'..

Baby sitter replies with 'ok, lets have sex'.

Hmmmm..

Did you miss the part where he did it because he wanted to do it?

Here is the first example:

I may have brought up a bad example, because he really did want to do things with her.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2174890&postcount=7

Then he goes on to say that he wasn't going to do it because it was illegal.. but he actually wanted to do it anyway. So I guess one could say the "blackmail" served as an excuse, wouldn't you say?

Now, I am going to ask you a simple question. What kind of person feels that kind of attraction for a pre-pubescent child? Did he first imagine doing "things with her" before she brought it up in her blackmail? Or did it all pop into his head when she supposedly brought it up?

But here is where the whole thing blows up. He apparently respects the law.. but then figures why the hell not since the risk is there regardless. She was an 11 year old child. It shouldn't have even been something that he should have thought about, let alone considered.

 

[scott3x]

Yeah, just 7 years in the slammer for getting blackmailed into having sex.

Blackmailed by an 11 year old. Yeah, right.

You think an 11 year old is incapable of blackmailing an adult?

In this case, yes. I agree with swarm. The story is totally implausible.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

 

[scott3x]

You think an 11 year old is incapable of blackmailing an adult?

Lets see. An 11 year old tells her babysitter.. 'if you don't have sex with me, I am going to tell everyone that you did.. so you better do it'..

Baby sitter replies with 'ok, lets have sex'.

Hmmmm..

Did you miss the part where he did it because he wanted to do it?

ancientregime never said that.

Here is the first example:

I may have brought up a bad example, because he really did want to do things with her.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2174890&postcount=7

I took this to mean that he wanted to do it, if it weren't against the law. It is, however and my impression was that the only reason he ended up doing it was because he was blackmailed into doing so.

Then he goes on to say that he wasn't going to do it because it was illegal.. but he actually wanted to do it anyway.

You're making my own point for me

So I guess one could say the "blackmail" served as an excuse, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't.

Now, I am going to ask you a simple question. What kind of person feels that kind of attraction for a pre-pubescent child?

Someone like ancientregime's friend, clearly.

Did he first imagine doing "things with her" before she brought it up in her blackmail? Or did it all pop into his head when she supposedly brought it up?

It may be that only ancientregime's friend knows the answer to that; regardless, it seems rather irrelevant.

But here is where the whole thing blows up. He apparently respects the law.. but then figures why the hell not since the risk is there regardless.

Perhaps he fears the law. Perhaps he felt that if he just gave in to the blackmail things might work out. There are a lot of possibilities here.

She was an 11 year old child. It shouldn't have even been something that he should have thought about, let alone considered.

Thinking and/or fantasizing is one thing. Considering, plotting and doing (in that order) are different matters, however. ancientregime has never mentioned that he did -any- of the above before the blackmailing, however.

 

[James R]

In this case, yes. I agree with swarm. The story is totally implausible.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

I don't need evidence to express my opinion that the story is totally implausible. It's a conclusion I reach from all the available information, from my own experience and knowledge, from common sense about how people behave, from knowledge of human rationalisations and self-justifications etc. etc.

Explaining my entire process of reasoning would take far too long.

I'm not sure why you're defending a convicted pedophile. Please explain.

 

[Baron Max]

I don't need evidence to express my opinion that the story is totally implausible. It's a conclusion I reach from all the available information, from my own experience and knowledge, from common sense about how people behave, from knowledge of human rationalisations and self-justifications etc. etc.

So blackmail like that is just implausible, James? In the Dallas area just last summer, a young male teacher refused to give a passing grade to one of his students. She asked him to change the grade, and he refused. She then got two of her friends to concoct a story about the teacher's sexual misconduct with her.

Oh, yeah, he finally won the case by proving where he was when it was supposed to have happened. But .....that teach will never, ever teach again in any public school in the nation! He's a ruined man because of her accusations.

Little girls can blackmail quite adequately ....thanks to tv crime shows, and movies.

Baron Max

 

[visceral_instinct]

Oh, yeah, he finally won the case by proving where he was when it was supposed to have happened. But .....that teach will never, ever teach again in any public school in the nation! He's a ruined man because of her accusations.


Baron Max

Why? He's innocent for fuck's sake!