I wouldn’t define something that is only illegal depending on what state you’re in as “child molestation”. In fact, it’s a pretty asinine declaration.
Wow,
The response to my post really freaks me out. Out here in Las Vegas about 8 or 9 teachers got busted for having sex with students. Those teachers are facing a long time in jail. Most people are outraged that an older person took advantage of an underage student. From what I have read I guess that most of you think that teachers fucking students is just a fine thing. Hey, the girl-guy was 16 so it is ok.
This isn’t limited to men fucking girls. One teacher, a female, took her 15 year old lover to a parking lot to have sex. The teacher is looking at a long jail term.
At the same time, to those who think that fucking a 16 year old girl isn’t child molestation, get a clue. The law is clear, if you fuck an underage person you are guilty of statutory rape at least. You may think fucking an underaged girl is fine but most people disagree. That is why there is a law against it. Older men and women should know better.
But I guess that Reynolds is just a good Democrat and his sins can be ignored. (I won’t even go into his conviction for Fraud and other things)
What really bothers me is that some posters, some of whom I truely respect, are stating that it is just fine for a 40 or 50 year old man to fuck his 16 year old intern.
16 year old girls are not usually capable of making rational chioces. That is why we protect young women and men.
BTW, I retract the ‘fucktard’ comment. I was pissed and I still am. I have been trying to use better arguements but sometimes I retreat to insults.
Slee
I don’t think that people are saying that it is okay to have sex with 16 year olds, but that it is not the same as molesting a child.
It’s not the same, but it also isn’t right. I don’t agree that he should have been released so early, or been able to get a job the way he did, but I also don’t think he is guilty of the same thing as the child molesters who “touch up” little kids.
The problem is that this is just pretty old news to me and most Illinoians. These days we’re dealing with some UofI prof nominating the outgoing governor for the Nobel Peace Prize because of his putting a moratorium on the death penalty, while meanwhile the utter breadth of corruption in his administration (license for bribes scandal that led to improperly licensed truck drivers killing people in accidents among other things, state workers being made to campaign for him during their work hours and using state resources, and so on - with hints that he knew about one or both of those) makes the thought laughable. And that’s just one example.
Reynolds is a criminal. He shouldn’t have been pardoned. (I still wouldn’t call him a child molestor.) Jackson is stupid to hire him.
The argument is that to call it child molestation is excessive given that sex with a sixteen year old is legal in the majority of states (see here ), not to mention the majority of other countries (only 17 of the long list of countries here).
I have a big problem with the issue of sex with minors. I also have a big problem with lying to score political points. You should go into his conviction for fraud because that is what Clinton’s pardon was for.
Had he or had he not completed his sentence pertaining to his having sex with a minor at the time he was pardoned by Clinton? Were his pardons related to any sex charges whatsoever? If the answers are yes and no, then Clinton’s name need not have come up whatsoever in regards to your moral outrage. The remaining question would be whether Jesse Jackson should or should not hire someone with a conviction for sex with a 16 year old to do whatever it really is that he was hired to do.
For my money, once you lied initially, there was little point in considering the remaining question.
I was a 16 year old girl.
I slept with men as old as 35.
I liked it.
Just one woman’s opinion.
That’s a pretty big fucking leap there, slee. A teacher is in a position of power and responsibility over their students. Abusing that position is reprehensible. However, Reynolds was not a teacher, nor was Heard his student. She was a campaign volunteer. The relationships are not comparable.
Well, at least they’re equal opportunity.
I think the fact that Heard was a volunteer is important here: if Reynolds advances were unwelcome, there was absolutely no reason for her to walk out the door. What was he going to do? Refuse to let her work for free anymore? And once the affair came to light, the prosecutors had to force Heard to testify by locking her up for ten days. This says to me that the affair was both consensual and desireable to both parties.
The question is, “Can a sixteen year old legally give consent?” In Illinois, no. So Reynolds broke the law, got busted, and did his time. However, if Reynolds and Heard had been in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Conneticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshie, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, or West Virginia, they’d have been free and clear. Hell, if he’d done it in his office in Washington D.C, instead of back home in Illinois, it’d have been legal.
What does this tell us? It tells us that the ability to make decisions isn’t mailed to us by the government on our eighteenth birthday. Some people mature much younger than that. Some people much older. Age of Consent laws are lawyers’ best guesses as to what age the average person is when they’re mature enough to make their own decisions. They’re a necessary tool in law-enforcement, but they are not useful as moral guidelines. Of course, breaking the law is, in general, immoral, but sleepng with a girl who’s only a year under the local age of consent does not nearly equate with “child molestation.”
Accusing your opponents of partisan politics just because you can’t defend your position is pretty cheap. And, you should go into his fraud. It’s the far more serious crime here.
Nope. That’s not what anyone is saying here. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that he broke the law and he deserved to go to jail. Where you disagree with everyone else in this thread is wether or not Reynolds has served enough time. He did, what, thirty months? Two and a half years seems likes enough time for a relativly minor crime, as felonies go.
Well, neither are most eighteen year olds, but they’re allowed to fuck like bunnies all over the great land of ours. At sixteen, I think most people are old enough to take responsibility for their actions. We trust them to drive cars, where the potential for harm both to themselves and others is far, far greater. I think they’re old enough to decide if they want to screw someone or not, even if the law occasionally disagrees with me.
I appreciate that.
Read betenoirs post again.
Child molestation is a horrible, hurtful thing that can scar the victims for life. Using such loaded terminology is a reprehensible tactic.
Teachers sleeping with students is a bit trickier, since there is a power/authority relationship there that puts the motives of both parties in question.
As for your other bit about 16 year old girls… so you think that my 18 year old boyfriend was a huge monster and criminal for having sex with me when I was 16? We’d been dating for over a year and a half, btw. Oh… and I could make rational decisions at 16 as could most of my peers. (and you still haven’t addressed the fact that in many states, 16 is the age of consent)
As for your ridiculous anti-Democrat spin on this whole thing… well it’s really just too silly for rebuttal. If you are that far out of the loop, I don’t have a hook long enough to bring you back.
Yea, and if you smoke pot you’re a terrorist too, right?
Equating consensual, recreational sex with a 16 year old with the nonconsensual fucking up a child for many many years (life in most cases) isn’t exactly what most people would consider “having a clue.”