Now I’m REALLY lost. Who said that? I didn’t get that from this thread at all.
I got the impression that I was being called a “cum bag” because I did not feel sorry for a statch perp.
But “cum dumpster” has a nicer ring to it.
My personal favorite: “cum bubble.”
The original topic was “what to say to a friend who is facing prison”, but the thread turned into “The guy should do whatever it takes to afford a lawyer good enough to get him off.” neuroman then wrote that he was going to offer to help with the lawyer bills. At this point, the thread was no longer neutral. I held my tongue because neuroman had requested it, but I kept thinking what a different thread it would be if it was “My 15-year-old daughter got drunk at a party and some guy in his 20s had sex with her in front of other people.” I don’t think anyone would be suggesting that the rapist get the best possible lawyer.
neuroman, once you took sides in the thread, you lost your right to criticize others for taking the opposite side.
And Harborwolf, by definition there is no consensual sex when one party is below the age of consent. There is a huge maturity difference between 15 and 20. That’s why the 20-year-old gets to drive and vote.
You know, you’re showing the same kind of fundie single mindedness about this that you so rightly despise in our President. You’ve made up your mind about this issue without bothering to research the case, and have automatically assumed that the laws we have about at what age one can engage in sexual acts with another individual are correct (despite the fact that these laws vary from state to state and are, at best, only selectively enforced).
I would. Everyone should be entitled to the best defense possible. That they’re not (often to an extreme) is a major failing of our criminal justice system. His case hasn’t even gone to trial yet, and yet you think it’s OK for people to tell neuroman that his friend should rot simply because neuroman wants to help his friend? :rolleyes: Personally, I think it’s never OK to say “let him rot,” even if he’s guilty, but to say it of someone who hasn’t been proven guilty, in a case that you only have a vague description of, is especially disgusting.
Fundy signgle-mindedness? I don’t thinks so. This is not an issue of personal “morality” which doesn’t harm anybody. As soon as a person starts adding victims to his behavior he loses my support. A man in his 20’s who publicly has sex with a drunk 15 year old girl is a fucking scumbag- no exceptions.
You don’t know that. For all we know he got drunk, took some girl to bed, and then found out that she was 15 after the fact. Stupid, but it hardly makes him a perv or a predator.
Instead of realizing that you didn’t know enough about the situation, you eagerly rushed to wish ill on his friend. At some point in your life someone you love may screw up pretty bad, I hope that the people you turn to for advice and comfort are not so joyfull in passing judgement as you have been.
I’m not Harborwolf, but when I spoke of consensual statuatory rape, I was speaking from a non-legal definition of “she agreed to have sex”. We don’t know to what extent the girl did consent (in the non-legal way), so we don’t know if neuroman’s friend is a predator, perv, rapist (again, non-legal definiation) or not. All we knew in the original thread is neuroman wants to be a good friend. Maybe when he knows more about the situation that will change. For now he doesn’t know enough, and neither do we, to decide to write the guy off.
Hrm. That’s not what I thought the OP said. Either you misread it, or you’re willfully putting melodramatic words in the OPs mouth. Since I can’t see what is to be gained from the latter, I’m assuming it’s the former. And I’m sure you have re-read it by now, but to recap, the OP was annoyed because he felt that his disclaimer and his request that all such comments go in the pit was ignored.
There was no part of the OP that suggested that one must endorse “child rape” or be pitted.
Wahh…the poor rapist. 
At some point in your life, someone you love may get sexually exploited at a party. I hope the people you turn to for comfort and advice will be sympathetic to the victim rather than the criminal.
Being drunk is no excuse, by the way…and neither is “I didn’t know she was 15, yer honor.” Every statch perp says that and it doesn’t fly. It’s his responsibility to know- not guess- what he’s sticking his dick in.
If you’ll scroll up a little, you’ll see that I already acknowledged having simply overlooked the request in the other thread and that I apologized to neuroman, I am now simply taking advantage of his invitation to express my opinion of his friend in the Pit.
Ummmm, when did it become “sex in front of a crowd” with a “drunk” 15 year old?
I’m of the opinion;
-
that the accused should get a good lawyer and borrow the money if need be.
-
the girl should get counseling.
-
innocent until proven guilty.
-
sometimes older guys take advantage of younger girls.
-
sometimes younger girls take advantage of older guys.
-
15 year old girls sometimes look and act way older than 15 and sometimes (close your eyes fundies) even lie about their age (but I have no idea based on the OP if this in the case in this instance.)
-
sometimes guys (of all ages) take advantage of younger girls.
-
you should stick by your friends (you go neuroman). What? We should stone the guy? Yeah that’s the ticket.
Consent makes no difference to whether it is predatory to have sex with children.
Men in their 20’s who bang 15 year old girls are predatory scumbags- no exceptions.
Dio’s absolutely right. Screw her on November 14th, 2004, and you’re a sick, disgusting perv with no humanity. Rot in hell, your friends have abondoned you, as they should have.
November 16th, 2004, and then relax, kids, it’s no big deal, I’m sick of the Religious Right’s continual intrusions into the sex lives of sixteen-year-olds, why weren’t they given free condoms, blah, blah, blah.
Of course she didn’t agree to it! It says right here in the law that they can’t agree to it!
Why is the Bible true? The bible says it is!
Yes, I do think so. Fundies make their decision based on the Bible, because they believe that it’s the word of God. You’re basing your decision based on the laws of the society you grew up in, you’re not taking into account the fact that other societies both presently and in the past have different definitions of what is correct. Hell, even different states in the US have different definitions as to what constitutes statutory rape, and yet you’re still willing to appoint yourself supreme arbitor of what’s right and wrong.
You’ve labeled the girl a “victim” without ever meeting her. Do you know that she was traumatized by the event? Do you know if she’s ever had consentual sex with someone her own age prior to this?
When I was in my early 20s, I was banging girls who were 16 and 17 (along with the occassional 30 year old), every one of those girls had more sexual partners than I did, and I treated them better than their partners who were their peers. I didn’t simply sleep with them, I took them places, listened to them talk about their hopes and dreams and treated them with the same kind of respect a person should treat anyone they love. Does that make me a bad guy, simply because of a law, which is more likely to be enforced against a man, who crosses an arbitrary barrier than a woman who does the same? Perhaps it’s the law that’s wrong.
I’m not advocating adults sleeping with young children, but that’s beside the point. Why should it be perfectly legal for a 17 year old guy to have sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, but the moment he turns 18, it’s suddenly illegal (as it is in someplaces)?
So long as people look at issues with the attitude that, “Well, it’s the law!” [dum-da-dum!], then we’re not going progress to a civilized society where consensual sex between adults of the same gender is accepted, or where we look to something besides war to settle our differences.
Even if girl pulled a Traci Lords?