And again, no jail time. Just probation and therapy. I just love the message that's being sent. Oh, and the long-term, four-year relationship that resulted in "mutual contact" 25 - 50 times started when the kid was 14, and went to the youth pastor for help with his homosexual urges to get better.
Quote31 year old Brent Girouex was arrested on 60 counts of suspicion of sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist.
The former youth counselor told police he did it to "help with homosexual urges by praying while he had sexual contact with [them]."
He claimed the acts would give his victims "sexual purity."
Making matters even worse, Girouex has four children of his own and now his estranged wife Erin is speaking out against him now.
Girouex admitted having sexual relations with at least four young men but as many as eight have now stepped forward claiming abuse.
The man told cops one of his relationships lasted four years and there was "mutual" contact 25 to 50 times.
The victim is an adult now, he told police the real number was between 50 and 100 times.
Several of the victims told investigators the encounters with the former Council Bluffs, Iowa youth pastor took place at Girouex's house.
Girouex is said to have told detectives "when they would ejaculate, they would be getting rid of the evil thoughts in their mind."
Last week a judge handed down a 17-year prison sentence but promptly suspended it to allow Girouex to get sex offender treatment and probation.
As long as Girouex doesn't violate the terms of his probation, he won't do any jail time.
That's pretty messed up.
Detectives don't have evil thoughts. :rolleyes:
You need more judges from Alberta
Did the "treatment" work?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 12:52:53 PM
You need more judges from Alberta
You are perhaps unfamiliar with the decision of R v Ewanchuk, where the SCC (and L'Hereux-Dube in particular) crapped all over several Alberta judge fors the decision in a sexual assault case. In particular, the Court of Appeal justice who commented that the complainant was not dressed "in a bonnet and crinolines" was been repeatedly denounced from coast to coast...
Quote from: merithyn on September 12, 2013, 12:31:06 PM
Making matters even worse, Girouex has four children of his own and now his estranged wife Erin is speaking out against him now.
This is a very poorly written sentence. /languishaspergers
Something about this story doesn't make sense. How is homosexual sex supposed to cure you of homosexuality?
A friend of mine used to be an Assistant DA back in the Philly area till he got caught having sex with a teenage boy in his car. I can't remember if the kid was legally of consenting age or not.
Anyway, people screamed for blood in terms of the punishment when he pled guilty, but the judge sentenced him to house arrest, and then due to the outcry it was revoked and he got thrown in regular jail.
On top of that, he was disbarred and his wife divorced him, so it seemed to me like more than ample punishment as his life is totally wrecked, especially given that the relationship was consensual. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on September 12, 2013, 01:51:08 PM
A friend of mine used to be an Assistant DA back in the Philly area till he got caught having sex with a teenage boy in his car. I can't remember if the kid was legally of consenting age or not.
Anyway, people screamed for blood in terms of the punishment when he pled guilty, but the judge sentenced him to house arrest, and then due to the outcry it was revoked and he got thrown in regular jail.
On top of that, he was disbarred and his wife divorced him, so it seemed to me like more than ample punishment as his life is totally wrecked, especially given that the relationship was consensual. :hmm:
DA in gaol? I'm sure that was fun. :(
Poor guy.
Yeah, this was a few years back and he's out. Last I heard he's a waiter now.
If the kid was of age, what would he have pled guilty to?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 02:05:16 PM
If the kid was of age, what would he have pled guilty to?
He gave him drugs or something like that.
Ah, the Polanski Gambit.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
Something about this story doesn't make sense. How is homosexual sex supposed to cure you of homosexuality?
Well, if it was with
some folks, it would have that effect. :D
Yeah, it was pretty bad. His dad had died a few years before, which I was kind of glad about because his dad was a judge AND a really great guy to boot, and it would have been really hard on him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 02:05:16 PM
If the kid was of age, what would he have pled guilty to?
I would've guessed public indency or some variation, since he was banging him in a car, but drugs also work.
I'm kind of fuzzy on the details now, but he gave him drugs and I think booze, and probably some indecent exposure stuff due to it being in a car (I think the car was parked behind a strip mall).
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 01:09:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 12:52:53 PM
You need more judges from Alberta
You are perhaps unfamiliar with the decision of R v Ewanchuk, where the SCC (and L'Hereux-Dube in particular) crapped all over several Alberta judge fors the decision in a sexual assault case. In particular, the Court of Appeal justice who commented that the complainant was not dressed "in a bonnet and crinolines" was been repeatedly denounced from coast to coast...
You are right. I am not.
Let me rephrase. You need less judges like the ones from Alberta.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
Something about this story doesn't make sense. How is homosexual sex supposed to cure you of homosexuality?
The beating aftwards has Pavlovian effects.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 01:09:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 12:52:53 PM
You need more judges from Alberta
You are perhaps unfamiliar with the decision of R v Ewanchuk, where the SCC (and L'Hereux-Dube in particular) crapped all over several Alberta judge fors the decision in a sexual assault case. In particular, the Court of Appeal justice who commented that the complainant was not dressed "in a bonnet and crinolines" was been repeatedly denounced from coast to coast...
You are right. I am not.
Let me rephrase. You need less judges like the ones from Alberta.
In case you're curious.
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii711/1999canlii711.html
All counseling/therapy of youth should be supervised or at least video-audited.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 12, 2013, 03:26:38 PM
All counseling/therapy of youth should be supervised or at least video-audited.
Usually counseling requires a qualification and professional standards of some sort, at least the regular secular ones do. Religious organizations get exemptions for this and don't have to meet any requirements for qualifications and professional standards. In any organization other than a church you would have to prove that you actually have skills and knowledge before being let anywhere near children or young adults.
I can't find any justification or reasoning for freeing a man sentenced to 17 years prison on parole immediately. Is this standard practice?
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2013, 03:31:31 PM
I can't find any justification or reasoning for freeing a man sentenced to 17 years prison on parole immediately. Is this standard practice?
As a guess I'd say it's mandatory minimums + alternative sentencing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 03:34:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2013, 03:31:31 PM
I can't find any justification or reasoning for freeing a man sentenced to 17 years prison on parole immediately. Is this standard practice?
As a guess I'd say it's mandatory minimums + alternative sentencing.
so, it's a case of "the laws says you should go to prison for 17 years but I'm going to let you go immediately"?
Edit: doesn't the judge have to explain himself when he goes off script?
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2013, 03:45:01 PM
so, it's a case of "the laws says you should go to prison for 17 years but I'm going to let you go immediately"?
I'm guessing it's a case of "if you go to prison, you have to do at least X, but we have this option whereby you can undergo deprogramming to avoid prison."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 03:46:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2013, 03:45:01 PM
so, it's a case of "the laws says you should go to prison for 17 years but I'm going to let you go immediately"?
I'm guessing it's a case of "if you go to prison, you have to do at least X, but we have this option whereby you can undergo deprogramming to avoid prison."
Yeah, I can see that being the case for a first time offense or somebody who handed himself in, but neither applies in this case. Systematic long term use of a privileged position to conduct repeated molestation and sexual assault (not rape rape if I understand the case correctly, just circle jerks) of minors entrusted to his care in my mind qualifies for some prison time.
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2013, 02:07:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
Something about this story doesn't make sense. How is homosexual sex supposed to cure you of homosexuality?
Well, if it was with some folks, it would have that effect. :D
Exactly. :D
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2013, 03:54:48 PM
Yeah, I can see that being the case for a first time offense or somebody who handed himself in, but neither applies in this case. Systematic long term use of a privileged position to conduct repeated molestation and sexual assault (not rape rape if I understand the case correctly, just circle jerks) of minors entrusted to his care in my mind qualifies for some prison time.
No, no. Don't confuse the issue. He had full-penetration sex with these kids who were entrusted to his care to help them.
And no jail time because he just needs therapy and he'll be fine. Like the guy in Montana.
That's just Iowa, Jake.
Let me be clearer: west of the Mississippi and east of the Rockies, you take your life into your own hands.
Quote from: Scipio on September 12, 2013, 07:04:17 PM
That's just Iowa, Jake.
Let me be clearer: west of the Mississippi and east of the Rockies, you take your life into your own hands.
Yeah whereas is in MS, all is dandy.
Mississippi is green, making it superior to the brown West.
Quote from: merithyn on September 12, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2013, 03:54:48 PM
Yeah, I can see that being the case for a first time offense or somebody who handed himself in, but neither applies in this case. Systematic long term use of a privileged position to conduct repeated molestation and sexual assault (not rape rape if I understand the case correctly, just circle jerks) of minors entrusted to his care in my mind qualifies for some prison time.
No, no. Don't confuse the issue. He had full-penetration sex with these kids who were entrusted to his care to help them.
And no jail time because he just needs therapy and he'll be fine. Like the guy in Montana.
Really?
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2013, 07:16:07 PM
Quote from: Scipio on September 12, 2013, 07:04:17 PM
That's just Iowa, Jake.
Let me be clearer: west of the Mississippi and east of the Rockies, you take your life into your own hands.
Yeah whereas is in MS, all is dandy.
Nah, we're just much less rapey.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2013, 07:30:19 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 12, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
No, no. Don't confuse the issue. He had full-penetration sex with these kids who were entrusted to his care to help them.
And no jail time because he just needs therapy and he'll be fine. Like the guy in Montana.
Really?
Actually, yeah. He had sex with these boys, all the while "praying away the gay".
I am never going to understand the no jail thing on this kind of crime.
I'm not sure publishing all of these sexual abuse stories isn't becoming counter-productive; I'm beginning to find them rather wearing and am beginning to ignore or trying to 'tune them out'.
Do they often tell us much about the world we live in, especially as we may well live in a time when sexual exploitation of minors/children is at a historic low level ?
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 09:08:23 PM
I'm not sure publishing all of these sexual abuse stories isn't becoming counter-productive; I'm beginning to find them rather wearing and am beginning to ignore or trying to 'tune them out'.
Okay, Jadey McJade.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2013, 09:11:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 09:08:23 PM
I'm not sure publishing all of these sexual abuse stories isn't becoming counter-productive; I'm beginning to find them rather wearing and am beginning to ignore or trying to 'tune them out'.
Okay, Jadey McJade.
What?
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 09:17:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2013, 09:11:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 09:08:23 PM
I'm not sure publishing all of these sexual abuse stories isn't becoming counter-productive; I'm beginning to find them rather wearing and am beginning to ignore or trying to 'tune them out'.
Okay, Jadey McJade.
What?
What? You're the one advocating not to publish stories about sexual abuse because you now just tune them out. :mellow:
/the one who thinks it is typical to have a story where a male pastor has sexual contact with young males to cure them of homosexuality.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2013, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 09:17:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2013, 09:11:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 09:08:23 PM
I'm not sure publishing all of these sexual abuse stories isn't becoming counter-productive; I'm beginning to find them rather wearing and am beginning to ignore or trying to 'tune them out'.
Okay, Jadey McJade.
What?
What? You're the one advocating not to publish stories about sexual abuse because you now just tune them out. :mellow:
/the one who thinks it is typical to have a story where a male pastor has sexual contact with young males to cure them of homosexuality.
That's not what I said.
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 09:22:18 PM
That's not what I said.
"I'm not sure publishing all of these sexual abuse stories isn't becoming counter-productive; I'm beginning to find them rather wearing and am beginning to ignore or trying to 'tune them out'."
Quote from: merithyn on September 12, 2013, 08:55:18 PM
Actually, yeah. He had sex with these boys, all the while "praying away the gay".
I am never going to understand the no jail thing on this kind of crime.
:yes: That kind of logic is just criminal.
Quote from: merithyn on September 12, 2013, 08:55:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2013, 07:30:19 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 12, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
No, no. Don't confuse the issue. He had full-penetration sex with these kids who were entrusted to his care to help them.
And no jail time because he just needs therapy and he'll be fine. Like the guy in Montana.
Really?
Actually, yeah. He had sex with these boys, all the while "praying away the gay".
I am never going to understand the no jail thing on this kind of crime.
I meant that the comparison to the Montana case is spurious. Which, again, we don't really know
that much about. But viewing the facts of the Montana case which we do know in the light most favorable to the defendant,* which I think we have to do--they share some surface similarities, but this is really very
clearly a case of resistance being overwhelmed by authority and of inability to consent. Homosexuality can be cured through homosexuality? This is 100% what stat rape laws are designed to stop: children who through a combination of ignorance and oppression being coerced into sex.
*Of course, all the caveats I've previously made are still in effect. If it is more similar to this case than has been reported, well, it's more similar to this case than has been reported.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2013, 09:57:03 PM
I meant that the comparison to the Montana case is spurious. Which, again, we don't really know that much about. But viewing the facts of the Montana case which we do know in the light most favorable to the defendant,* which I think we have to do--they share some surface similarities, but this is really very clearly a case of resistance being overwhelmed by authority and of inability to consent. Homosexuality can be cured through homosexuality? This is 100% what stat rape laws are designed to stop: children who through a combination of ignorance and oppression being coerced into sex.
*Of course, all the caveats I've previously made are still in effect. If it is more similar to this case than has been reported, well, it's more similar to this case than has been reported.
:mellow:
Montana - teacher has "consensual sex" with an emotionally fragile 14-year-old girl
Iowa - pastor has "consensual sex" with an emotionally fragile 14-year-old boy
Help me out here with the difference.
Wasn't the girl experienced at sex? -_-
Quote from: The Brain on September 12, 2013, 02:37:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
Something about this story doesn't make sense. How is homosexual sex supposed to cure you of homosexuality?
The beating aftwards has Pavlovian effects.
I feel terrible for laughing at that
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2013, 10:51:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 12, 2013, 02:37:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
Something about this story doesn't make sense. How is homosexual sex supposed to cure you of homosexuality?
The beating aftwards has Pavlovian effects.
I feel terrible for laughing at that
As you should. According to Seeds, beating is an integral part of the sex act.
So...the idea was to make the sex so bad they wouldn't want to do it again?
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2013, 10:45:11 PM
Wasn't the girl experienced at sex? -_-
We don't know the boy wasn't. -_-
Quote from: Tyr on September 12, 2013, 10:53:46 PM
So...the idea was to make the sex so bad they wouldn't want to do it again?
Eventually. Sounds like it was a slow process.
Quote from: merithyn on September 12, 2013, 10:54:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2013, 10:45:11 PM
Wasn't the girl experienced at sex? -_-
We don't know the boy wasn't. -_-
I'm sure he was after the first 20 times.
Quote from: merithyn on September 12, 2013, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2013, 09:57:03 PM
I meant that the comparison to the Montana case is spurious. Which, again, we don't really know that much about. But viewing the facts of the Montana case which we do know in the light most favorable to the defendant,* which I think we have to do--they share some surface similarities, but this is really very clearly a case of resistance being overwhelmed by authority and of inability to consent. Homosexuality can be cured through homosexuality? This is 100% what stat rape laws are designed to stop: children who through a combination of ignorance and oppression being coerced into sex.
*Of course, all the caveats I've previously made are still in effect. If it is more similar to this case than has been reported, well, it's more similar to this case than has been reported.
:mellow:
Montana - teacher has "consensual sex" with an emotionally fragile 14-year-old girl
Iowa - pastor has "consensual sex" with an emotionally fragile 14-year-old boy
Help me out here with the difference.
The girl was reportedly having sex for pleasure, the boy in order to battle Satan. It is completely clear in the latter case that no real consent was ever manifested, whereas in the former case it is completely
unclear.
The logic is bizarre but I suspect it is a result of having minimum sentencing so draconian that the judge chickened out on it. This is a huge problem with this sort of thing: we build this caricature of the sub-human vile sex predator and pass laws based on stopping that person...so when confronted with actual complex people that are actual sex predators we chicken out because our laws were not designed to stop them just those other people.
But it is fucked up this dude is not getting some significant jail time. Only after that should he be getting probation with a sex offender program.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2013, 07:31:41 AM
The logic is bizarre but I suspect it is a result of having minimum sentencing so draconian that the judge chickened out on it. This is a huge problem with this sort of thing: we build this caricature of the sub-human vile sex predator and pass laws based on stopping that person...so when confronted with actual complex people that are actual sex predators we chicken out because our laws were not designed to stop them just those other people.
But it is fucked up this dude is not getting some significant jail time. Only after that should he be getting probation with a sex offender program.
What is the minimum in this case? And if a judge can opt not to impose it, can it really be said to be mandatory?
Quote from: merithyn on September 12, 2013, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2013, 09:57:03 PM
I meant that the comparison to the Montana case is spurious. Which, again, we don't really know that much about. But viewing the facts of the Montana case which we do know in the light most favorable to the defendant,* which I think we have to do--they share some surface similarities, but this is really very clearly a case of resistance being overwhelmed by authority and of inability to consent. Homosexuality can be cured through homosexuality? This is 100% what stat rape laws are designed to stop: children who through a combination of ignorance and oppression being coerced into sex.
*Of course, all the caveats I've previously made are still in effect. If it is more similar to this case than has been reported, well, it's more similar to this case than has been reported.
:mellow:
Montana - teacher has "consensual sex" with an emotionally fragile 14-year-old girl
Iowa - pastor has "consensual sex" with an emotionally fragile 14-year-old boy
Help me out here with the difference.
I'm 100% on board with this.
But, just confirmation here, did the pastor have intercourse with the boys?
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2013, 11:22:38 AM
I'm 100% on board with this.
But, just confirmation here, did the pastor have intercourse with the boys?
Yes, from what I understood by the news sources, he did. Multiple times over the course of many years.
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2013, 11:22:38 AM
I'm 100% on board with this.
But, just confirmation here, did the pastor have intercourse with the boys?
Yes, from what I understood by the news sources, he did. Multiple times over the course of many years.
From the story in the opening post, I'm not sure that there was actual penetration. I kind of got the impression that it was mutual masturbation. I'm not sure it makes any difference. Actually, I don't really think it does morally or ethically. It might legally.
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2013, 11:35:42 AM
From the story in the opening post, I'm not sure that there was actual penetration. I kind of got the impression that it was mutual masturbation. I'm not sure it makes any difference. Actually, I don't really think it does morally or ethically. It might legally.
There are multiple news stories that say that Girouex admitted to having had sex with the boys. I took that to mean penetration.
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 12:09:44 PM
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2013, 11:35:42 AM
From the story in the opening post, I'm not sure that there was actual penetration. I kind of got the impression that it was mutual masturbation. I'm not sure it makes any difference. Actually, I don't really think it does morally or ethically. It might legally.
There are multiple news stories that say that Girouex admitted to having had sex with the boys. I took that to mean penetration.
I gotta go with dps here, I got the impression that it was either mutual masturbation/circle jerks or communal masturbation (no touching just jerking off while being next to each other). With his admission of sex I took that to mean the circle jerk, not anal penetration.
Though, I must say, I have no fucking clue what these overlapping, unclear and diffuse euphemisms for inappropriate conduct are supposed to mean. Because, to be honest I need some means of calibrating my outrage. Cause the communal masturbation is merely inappropriate and wierd, the mutual masturbation is bad enough, but anal rape would get me hoping there was a hell for this fucker to go to. The sentence suggests rape, the coverage suggests fondling and the leniency suggests merely exposing himself while masturbating himself.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2013, 12:20:26 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 12:09:44 PM
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2013, 11:35:42 AM
From the story in the opening post, I'm not sure that there was actual penetration. I kind of got the impression that it was mutual masturbation. I'm not sure it makes any difference. Actually, I don't really think it does morally or ethically. It might legally.
There are multiple news stories that say that Girouex admitted to having had sex with the boys. I took that to mean penetration.
I gotta go with dps here, I got the impression that it was either mutual masturbation/circle jerks or communal masturbation (no touching just jerking off while being next to each other). With his admission of sex I took that to mean the circle jerk, not anal penetration.
Though, I must say, I have no fucking clue what these overlapping, unclear and diffuse euphemisms for inappropriate conduct are supposed to mean. Because, to be honest I need some means of calibrating my outrage. Cause the communal masturbation is merely inappropriate and wierd, the mutual masturbation is bad enough, but anal rape would get me hoping there was a hell for this fucker to go to. The sentence suggests rape, the coverage suggests fondling and the leniency suggests merely exposing himself while masturbating himself.
It does not (or should not) make any difference if there was anal penetration or not.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2013, 12:23:29 PM
It does not (or should not) make any difference if there was anal penetration or not.
It does.
Physical trauma and disease risk mean nothing to Machiavellian law.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2013, 12:28:21 PM
Physical trauma and disease risk mean nothing to Machiavellian law.
Of course they do, traumatized and diseased peasants pay no taxes.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2013, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2013, 12:23:29 PM
It does not (or should not) make any difference if there was anal penetration or not.
It does.
I feel safe saying that under Canadian law, someone who molests boys by "mutual masturbation", and someone who molests boy by anal penetration, is going to be treated the same way.
So why exactly are you saying it makes a difference?
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2013, 12:33:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2013, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2013, 12:23:29 PM
It does not (or should not) make any difference if there was anal penetration or not.
It does.
I feel safe saying that under Canadian law, someone who molests boys by "mutual masturbation", and someone who molests boy by anal penetration, is going to be treated the same way.
So why exactly are you saying it makes a difference?
I just looked up the canadian law in question, am I correct in understanding in that under canadian law Rape is not a separate crime and sexual contact with penetration is treated no differently than sexual contact without penetration and the only aggrivating circumstances (within that statute) are threats of violence and use of violence?
Why am I saying it makes a difference? Because I don't live under canadian law, which is stupid on this point. I live in a country where groping a sleeping woman and fucking a sleeping woman are punished differently.
I'm with Puff on this one. Nobody ever talks about getting traumatized by prison cell circle jerks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 12:56:27 PM
I'm with Puff on this one. Nobody ever talks about getting traumatized by prison cell circle jerks.
This is a usual topic of conversation? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 12:56:27 PM
I'm with Puff on this one. Nobody ever talks about getting traumatized by prison cell circle jerks.
We're talking about kids here.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 01:25:35 PM
This is a usual topic of conversation? :hmm:
Becoming Bubba's prison bitch sure is. The fact that becoming Bubba's erotic massage partner is not is telling.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:29:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 01:25:35 PM
This is a usual topic of conversation? :hmm:
Becoming Bubba's prison bitch sure is. The fact that becoming Bubba's erotic massage partner is not is telling.
Since there's little reason for Bubba to stop at petting in prison, we may never know if a circle jerk would be just as traumatizing.
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 01:26:34 PM
We're talking about kids here.
Reinforces my/Puff's point. Kids have tighter bung holes-->proportionally more trauma.
[insert joke about Yi's knowledge of prepubescent bung holes]
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 01:26:34 PM
We're talking about kids here.
Reinforces my/Puff's point. Kids have tighter bung holes-->proportionally more trauma.
[insert joke about Yi's knowledge of prepubescent bung holes]
I think that you're focusing too much on the physical trauma, maybe. The trauma comes as much from the absolute lack of control as it does from the physical trauma. Yes, there's a physical component that has to be overcome, but the mental and emotional trama can be just as bad, and it doesn't have to come from being physically harmed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:32:57 PM
Reinforces my/Puff's point. Kids have tighter bung holes-->proportionally more trauma.
[insert joke about Yi's knowledge of prepubescent bung holes]
If I understand correctly, lasting physical damage would be considered an aggravating factor under Canadian law (as it should be IMO) but physical damage is not the main reason society considers sexual assault bad.
Meri: Sure. And I promise you that if you ran a poll asking the straight males on Languish if they were forced to choose between a circle jerk and getting fucked in the ass, every single one would choose the circle jerk.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:39:33 PM
Meri: Sure. And I promise you that if you ran a poll asking the straight males on Languish if they were forced to choose between a circle jerk and getting fucked in the ass, every single one would choose the circle jerk.
The problem is the word "choice".
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 01:47:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:39:33 PM
Meri: Sure. And I promise you that if you ran a poll asking the straight males on Languish if they were forced to choose between a circle jerk and getting fucked in the ass, every single one would choose the circle jerk.
The problem is the word "choice".
It means main dish?
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 01:47:08 PM
The problem is the word "choice".
No it's not. We're comparing two guys stroking each others' weenies with one guy assfucking the other. Choice is a constant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:50:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 01:47:08 PM
The problem is the word "choice".
No it's not. We're comparing two guys stroking each others' weenies with one guy assfucking the other. Choice is a constant.
Okay, but that doesn't mean that one is rape and the other isn't. For instance, I could be raped vaginally or anally. One is, in my opinion, far worse than the other and will cause more damage physically, but both are rape. The same for being forced to give a blowjob.
All of those are sex acts against my will. Sure, I'd much prefer one over another, but it doesn't change the fact that all of them are rape.
It would probably help if you guys discussed the same thing.
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 02:00:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:50:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 01:47:08 PM
The problem is the word "choice".
No it's not. We're comparing two guys stroking each others' weenies with one guy assfucking the other. Choice is a constant.
Okay, but that doesn't mean that one is rape and the other isn't. For instance, I could be raped vaginally or anally. One is, in my opinion, far worse than the other and will cause more damage physically, but both are rape. The same for being forced to give a blowjob.
All of those are sex acts against my will. Sure, I'd much prefer one over another, but it doesn't change the fact that all of them are rape.
You have to understand that a better analogy is not front or back rape or forced analsex. If you want a proper analogy for women (or if it makes no sense to you just remember that your analogy makes no sense to us) then emotionally it is a choice between being fingered and given a hysterectomy.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2013, 02:05:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 02:00:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:50:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 01:47:08 PM
The problem is the word "choice".
No it's not. We're comparing two guys stroking each others' weenies with one guy assfucking the other. Choice is a constant.
Okay, but that doesn't mean that one is rape and the other isn't. For instance, I could be raped vaginally or anally. One is, in my opinion, far worse than the other and will cause more damage physically, but both are rape. The same for being forced to give a blowjob.
All of those are sex acts against my will. Sure, I'd much prefer one over another, but it doesn't change the fact that all of them are rape.
You have to understand that a better analogy is not front or back rape or forced analsex. If you want a proper analogy for women (or if it makes no sense to you just remember that your analogy makes no sense to us) then emotionally it is a choice between being fingered and given a hysterectomy.
WTF?
Linesman pulled the switch and Puff and I are no longer riding the same track.
Sexual assaults are not considered horrific because of the physical damage involved. It's the mental anguish. In that, being forced to participate in a circle jerk is bad - perhaps even worse since you're being forced to actively participate.
An unwanted grope of the ass or a sqeeze of a tit, while illegal, are treated with much less severity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 02:08:41 PM
Linesman pulled the switch and Puff and I are no longer riding the same track.
:lol: I'm guessing it was an attempt at an emasculation analogy, which I think fails for a number of reasons.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2013, 02:05:54 PM
You have to understand that a better analogy is not front or back rape or forced analsex. If you want a proper analogy for women (or if it makes no sense to you just remember that your analogy makes no sense to us) then emotionally it is a choice between being fingered and given a hysterectomy.
:blink:
No.. no it's not.
Even if you went with the idea of a woman being groped while a man ejaculated, that's still pretty damn traumatizing when it's done against her will.
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 02:00:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:50:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 01:47:08 PM
The problem is the word "choice".
No it's not. We're comparing two guys stroking each others' weenies with one guy assfucking the other. Choice is a constant.
Okay, but that doesn't mean that one is rape and the other isn't. For instance, I could be raped vaginally or anally. One is, in my opinion, far worse than the other and will cause more damage physically, but both are rape. The same for being forced to give a blowjob.
All of those are sex acts against my will. Sure, I'd much prefer one over another, but it doesn't change the fact that all of them are rape.
This is tangential, but I would assume vaginal rape is worse, due to the prospect of a resulting pregnancy.
Also: Martinus may be gone, but his spirit of terrible, terrible analogies lives on in Viking. :)
Two points:
1) A suspended sentence is not an imaginary sentence. Incarceration for a portion or the entirety of suspended sentences are routinely imposed on people for violating conditions of probation, which are often quite extensive/restrictive and can last for years and years. Having serious prison time hanging over your head is quite different than a straight probationary sentence.
2) Most American states do make a distinction between penetrative and non-penetrative sexual assault, or something along those lines. In Vermont, for instance, the sexual assault statute includes this definition: A "sexual act" means conduct between persons consisting of contact between the penis and the vulva, the penis and the anus, the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or any intrusion, however slight, by any part of a person's body or any object into the genital or anal opening of another. Otherwise, the charge would be Lewd and Lascivious Behavior (with a Child). Or "L'n'L" as it's known in the biz.
So were the boys cured?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 13, 2013, 07:55:30 PM
Two points:
1) A suspended sentence is not an imaginary sentence. Incarceration for a portion or the entirety of suspended sentences are routinely imposed on people for violating conditions of probation, which are often quite extensive/restrictive and can last for years and years. Having serious prison time hanging over your head is quite different than a straight probationary sentence.
Yeah. Good luck with that. I think I said that about fifty fucking times in the Montana case thread. People don't understand what they don't want to understand--no matter how simple it is.
Viking, it really isn't necessary for you to take up Martinus' horrible analogy banner.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 13, 2013, 07:55:30 PM
Two points:
1) A suspended sentence is not an imaginary sentence. Incarceration for a portion or the entirety of suspended sentences are routinely imposed on people for violating conditions of probation, which are often quite extensive/restrictive and can last for years and years. Having serious prison time hanging over your head is quite different than a straight probationary sentence.
BFD
The guy in Montana had "serious prison time" hanging over his head, and he ended up with 30 days when he fucked that up, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't weep for either of these two.
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:58:21 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 13, 2013, 07:55:30 PM
Two points:
1) A suspended sentence is not an imaginary sentence. Incarceration for a portion or the entirety of suspended sentences are routinely imposed on people for violating conditions of probation, which are often quite extensive/restrictive and can last for years and years. Having serious prison time hanging over your head is quite different than a straight probationary sentence.
BFD
The guy in Montana had "serious prison time" hanging over his head, and he ended up with 30 days when he fucked that up, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't weep for either of these two.
That was quite clearly an exceptional situation (thus the legitimate outrage nationwide), and it seemed like his violation was, at the risk of being tarred as a minimizer, fairly technical (IIRC he had done the bulk of his required sex offender classes and was "kicked out" for missing a few for scheduling reasons, but I could be wrong), rather than e.g. picking up a new sex charge, failing to report to his PO for weeks, etc.
I have very little interest in defending the short incarceration sentence the Montana dirtbag received, and even less in defending this guy's sentence. I certainly have no interest in trying to get you to weep for them.
But I do have an interest in helping Americans better understand the nature of a criminal punishment system that is, outrageous anomalies aside, excessively punitive and, especially, excessively reliant on incarceration as a solution.
In North Carolina, for instance, stat rape was treated the same as forcible rape; for an adult (>19 or maybe 20) who had "consensual" sex with a 15 y.o., the presumptive sentence was 240 months imprisonment, to serve. So 15 would quite literally get you 20.
Just to provide a broader perspective on the system that occasionally produces these admittedly lenient sentences that get people overly riled up and willing to endorse a generally very harsh system (mandatory minimums, excessive sex offender registry requirements, and excessive punishments for e.g. failing to update your address within 14 days when your sex offense occurred 30 years ago. [I saw that scenario in Knoxville, where a man who plead guilty to accessory to rape as a 16 year old in 1980 served 8 years of a 20 year sentence in the state pen, did the rest on parole without an incident, and only got a single marijuana charge around 2002 in the whole time from 1988 onward. For the registry violation in 2011, when he moved into his girlfriend's retirement community and the cop couldn't get through the gates to the complex and reported, he served 120 days in the county jail -- after pleading to a felony violation to avoid the full 2 years behind bars he faced under the statute.]
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2013, 10:58:21 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 13, 2013, 07:55:30 PM
Two points:
1) A suspended sentence is not an imaginary sentence. Incarceration for a portion or the entirety of suspended sentences are routinely imposed on people for violating conditions of probation, which are often quite extensive/restrictive and can last for years and years. Having serious prison time hanging over your head is quite different than a straight probationary sentence.
BFD
The guy in Montana had "serious prison time" hanging over his head, and he ended up with 30 days when he fucked that up, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't weep for either of these two.
The guy in Montana wasn't a faggot.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 13, 2013, 09:09:11 PM
Viking, it really isn't necessary for you to take up Martinus' horrible analogy banner.
The place just hasn't been the same since he left... :cry: :lmfao:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 15, 2013, 07:09:04 PM
That was quite clearly an exceptional situation (thus the legitimate outrage nationwide), and it seemed like his violation was, at the risk of being tarred as a minimizer, fairly technical (IIRC he had done the bulk of his required sex offender classes and was "kicked out" for missing a few for scheduling reasons, but I could be wrong), rather than e.g. picking up a new sex charge, failing to report to his PO for weeks, etc.
I have very little interest in defending the short incarceration sentence the Montana dirtbag received, and even less in defending this guy's sentence. I certainly have no interest in trying to get you to weep for them.
But I do have an interest in helping Americans better understand the nature of a criminal punishment system that is, outrageous anomalies aside, excessively punitive and, especially, excessively reliant on incarceration as a solution.
In North Carolina, for instance, stat rape was treated the same as forcible rape; for an adult (>19 or maybe 20) who had "consensual" sex with a 15 y.o., the presumptive sentence was 240 months imprisonment, to serve. So 15 would quite literally get you 20.
Just to provide a broader perspective on the system that occasionally produces these admittedly lenient sentences that get people overly riled up and willing to endorse a generally very harsh system (mandatory minimums, excessive sex offender registry requirements, and excessive punishments for e.g. failing to update your address within 14 days when your sex offense occurred 30 years ago. [I saw that scenario in Knoxville, where a man who plead guilty to accessory to rape as a 16 year old in 1980 served 8 years of a 20 year sentence in the state pen, did the rest on parole without an incident, and only got a single marijuana charge around 2002 in the whole time from 1988 onward. For the registry violation in 2011, when he moved into his girlfriend's retirement community and the cop couldn't get through the gates to the complex and reported, he served 120 days in the county jail -- after pleading to a felony violation to avoid the full 2 years behind bars he faced under the statute.]
:mellow:
Okay? I'm pretty sure that I've never said that there should be mandatory sentencing for anyone. I said that I think these two particular scum bags didn't get anywhere near the amount of time that they deserved.
OK, Mom.
You are lucky I ain't starting.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 15, 2013, 08:37:36 PM
You are lucky I ain't starting.
I have an antidote for you:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc1.soap.com%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2Fp%2Fadh%2Fadh-005b_1z.jpg&hash=d85f3123e8d7b43d7eb350ff308acebda59edc55)
It doesn't work.
Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2013, 08:19:22 PM
:mellow:
Okay? I'm pretty sure that I've never said that there should be mandatory sentencing for anyone. I said that I think these two particular scum bags didn't get anywhere near the amount of time that they deserved.
I'm suggesting that getting overly exercised about very exceptional situations can and has lead to bad social consequences. I.e. the "tough on crime," "war on drugs," "no-frills prisons" wave of punitive legislation that took off during the mid-80s through the mid-90s.
For instance, your legitimate anger over the 30-day term in Mont., as well no immediate incarceration for this guy, seemed to have lead you to misunderstand and denounce suspended sentences as bullshit, while they are in fact quite real, especially for people -- unlike these two men -- with very few social/financial/educational resources.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 15, 2013, 07:09:04 PM
In North Carolina, for instance, stat rape was treated the same as forcible rape; for an adult (>19 or maybe 20) who had "consensual" sex with a 15 y.o., the presumptive sentence was 240 months imprisonment, to serve. So 15 would quite literally get you 20.
Good.
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2013, 09:58:27 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 15, 2013, 07:09:04 PM
In North Carolina, for instance, stat rape was treated the same as forcible rape; for an adult (>19 or maybe 20) who had "consensual" sex with a 15 y.o., the presumptive sentence was 240 months imprisonment, to serve. So 15 would quite literally get you 20.
Good.
Meh, enjoy funding the prison-industrial complex, what with our highest rate of incarceration in the world. :) We even beat Russia and PRChina!
And of course a rate ridiculously high for black men in general, and something insane for black male high-school dropouts.
And certainly 20 years in prison is a proportionate reaction to the crime committed. God knows there'll be plenty of opportunities for the offender to be rehabilitated and productive once he's 50 with no skills other than those he learned in prison (which is, of course, the most violent and misogynistic environment in America). :)
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2013, 09:58:27 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 15, 2013, 07:09:04 PM
In North Carolina, for instance, stat rape was treated the same as forcible rape; for an adult (>19 or maybe 20) who had "consensual" sex with a 15 y.o., the presumptive sentence was 240 months imprisonment, to serve. So 15 would quite literally get you 20.
Good.
:wacko:
This may be the only time since Mihali joined the dark side, but, I agree with Mihali. US mandatory minimum sentences, and sentencing regimes in general, and insane. I wish Canadian sentences were a little bit higher in general, but US sentences are orders of magnitude higher than what we hand out here.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 15, 2013, 09:29:31 PM
For instance, your legitimate anger over the 30-day term in Mont., as well no immediate incarceration for this guy, seemed to have lead you to misunderstand and denounce suspended sentences as bullshit, while they are in fact quite real, especially for people -- unlike these two men -- with very few social/financial/educational resources.
They are bullshit in these cases. These two men are still out, walking around, and fully capable of harming others again. On top of that, the victims are left to feel vulnerable all over again, as they feel like the courts have let them down. Because a suspended sentence isn't the same as jail time.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2013, 11:31:44 PM
This may be the only time since Mihali joined the dark side, but, I agree with Mihali. US mandatory minimum sentences, and sentencing regimes in general, and insane. I wish Canadian sentences were a little bit higher in general, but US sentences are orders of magnitude higher than what we hand out here.
Agreed.
Of course, there's an issue with those who deserve jail time not getting it, too. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Quote from: merithyn on September 16, 2013, 08:51:47 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 15, 2013, 09:29:31 PM
For instance, your legitimate anger over the 30-day term in Mont., as well no immediate incarceration for this guy, seemed to have lead you to misunderstand and denounce suspended sentences as bullshit, while they are in fact quite real, especially for people -- unlike these two men -- with very few social/financial/educational resources.
They are bullshit in these cases. These two men are still out, walking around, and fully capable of harming others again. On top of that, the victims are left to feel vulnerable all over again, as they feel like the courts have let them down. Because a suspended sentence isn't the same as jail time.
OK, I don't see you disputing anything I actually wrote, and you're agreeing with Barrister agreeing with me, so I guess we've wrapped it up. :mellow:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 16, 2013, 11:24:42 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 16, 2013, 08:51:47 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 15, 2013, 09:29:31 PM
For instance, your legitimate anger over the 30-day term in Mont., as well no immediate incarceration for this guy, seemed to have lead you to misunderstand and denounce suspended sentences as bullshit, while they are in fact quite real, especially for people -- unlike these two men -- with very few social/financial/educational resources.
They are bullshit in these cases. These two men are still out, walking around, and fully capable of harming others again. On top of that, the victims are left to feel vulnerable all over again, as they feel like the courts have let them down. Because a suspended sentence isn't the same as jail time.
OK, I don't see you disputing anything I actually wrote, and you're agreeing with Barrister agreeing with me, so I guess we've wrapped it up. :mellow:
I never understood the point of your posts at all, and said so. I assumed that you were arguing in general rather than with me since you kept it up after I asked.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 15, 2013, 11:13:22 PM
Meh, enjoy funding the prison-industrial complex, what with our highest rate of incarceration in the world. :) We even beat Russia and PRChina!
And of course a rate ridiculously high for black men in general, and something insane for black male high-school dropouts.
And certainly 20 years in prison is a proportionate reaction to the crime committed. God knows there'll be plenty of opportunities for the offender to be rehabilitated and productive once he's 50 with no skills other than those he learned in prison (which is, of course, the most violent and misogynistic environment in America). :)
None of which is new or likely to change substantially if NC changed its laws on sentencing.
Quote from: merithyn on September 16, 2013, 11:43:14 AMI never understood the point of your posts at all, and said so. I assumed that you were arguing in general rather than with me since you kept it up after I asked.
I
was arguing in general. :huh: You didn't ask me anything, or say that my posts were pointless; you wrote "BFD" under a quote from part of my post and made it specific to your points.
I truly have no beef with you on this (or in general) so I guess we were just talking past each other. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 11:45:36 AM
None of which is new or likely to change substantially if NC changed its laws on sentencing.
So?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 16, 2013, 03:16:21 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 16, 2013, 11:43:14 AMI never understood the point of your posts at all, and said so. I assumed that you were arguing in general rather than with me since you kept it up after I asked.
I was arguing in general. :huh: You didn't ask me anything, or say that my posts were pointless; you wrote "BFD" under a quote from part of my post and made it specific to your points.
I truly have no beef with you on this (or in general) so I guess we were just talking past each other. :hug:
[Meri] TTYN [/Meri]
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 16, 2013, 03:16:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 11:45:36 AM
None of which is new or likely to change substantially if NC changed its laws on sentencing.
So?
Then I don't see why that is relevant.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 16, 2013, 03:16:21 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 16, 2013, 11:43:14 AMI never understood the point of your posts at all, and said so. I assumed that you were arguing in general rather than with me since you kept it up after I asked.
I was arguing in general. :huh: You didn't ask me anything, or say that my posts were pointless; you wrote "BFD" under a quote from part of my post and made it specific to your points.
I truly have no beef with you on this (or in general) so I guess we were just talking past each other. :hug:
Okay. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 11:45:36 AM
Meh, enjoy funding the prison-industrial complex, what with our highest rate of incarceration in the world. :) We even beat Russia and PRChina!
That's the part that makes me really sick. Russia, sure, they're almost not even a big country anymore. But the PRC? That's awful.
I'm also unsure as to why garbon thinks that reducing sentences wouldn't reduce "demand" for prisons. It's possible that by reducing sentences across the board, fewer people will get suspended sentences, plea deals, etc. (which is in part a reaction to overcrowding), and the existing capacity will continue to be filled. But I don't feel that that's unavoidable.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2013, 03:43:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 11:45:36 AM
Meh, enjoy funding the prison-industrial complex, what with our highest rate of incarceration in the world. :) We even beat Russia and PRChina!
That's the part that makes me really sick. Russia, sure, they're almost not even a big country anymore. But the PRC? That's awful.
I'm also unsure as to why garbon thinks that reducing sentences wouldn't reduce "demand" for prisons. It's possible that by reducing sentences across the board, fewer people will get suspended sentences, plea deals, etc. (which is in part a reaction to overcrowding), and the existing capacity will continue to be filled. But I don't feel that that's unavoidable.
Now I'm getting quoted for things that I didn't say and then summarized in positions I didn't take?
Oops, sorry, dude.
I was quoting Mihali's post out of yours, but also referring to your stance here:
Quote from: garbonNone of which is new or likely to change substantially if NC changed its laws on sentencing.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2013, 04:01:46 PM
Oops, sorry, dude.
I was quoting Mihali's post out of yours, but also referring to your stance here:
Quote from: garbonNone of which is new or likely to change substantially if NC changed its laws on sentencing.
Yes on sentencing for stat rape.
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 04:00:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2013, 03:43:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 11:45:36 AM
Meh, enjoy funding the prison-industrial complex, what with our highest rate of incarceration in the world. :) We even beat Russia and PRChina!
That's the part that makes me really sick. Russia, sure, they're almost not even a big country anymore. But the PRC? That's awful.
I'm also unsure as to why garbon thinks that reducing sentences wouldn't reduce "demand" for prisons. It's possible that by reducing sentences across the board, fewer people will get suspended sentences, plea deals, etc. (which is in part a reaction to overcrowding), and the existing capacity will continue to be filled. But I don't feel that that's unavoidable.
Now I'm getting quoted for things that I didn't say and then summarized in positions I didn't take?
Next you are going to tell us that you are not anti French and that you did not purchase a 2000 dollar stroller. :rolleyes:
Why would garbon buy such a cheap stroller? :unsure:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 16, 2013, 03:19:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 03:18:45 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 16, 2013, 03:16:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 11:45:36 AM
None of which is new or likely to change substantially if NC changed its laws on sentencing.
So?
Then I don't see why that is relevant.
So why's the law good?
Because at 20, you've no business with a 14 year old? Now sure it may be overly draconian but if you are wanting to sleep with a 14 year old then - are you going to stop later?