If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WPBF West Palm Beach)   Lesbian teen arrested for sex with underage girlfriend refuses to take plea deal. Says she's not licked yet   (wpbf.com) divider line 1323
    More: Followup, plea deal, WPBF 25 News, sex scandals, underage, girlfriend, refuses, lesbians, teens  
•       •       •

15122 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 May 2013 at 6:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1323 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-25 01:24:16 AM  

Christian Bale: jayphat: runescorpio: hardinparamedic: FTFA:  By accepting the plea deal, Hunt would have been placed on house arrest for two years.

House arrest for two years, no felony conviction, and no requirement to register as a sex offender? I understand the want to fight for a statement, but I have to say that in that position, I might just take the deal.

Thats still 2 years of her life for being in a relationship that started out as legal. Letter of the law people are the reason western society is crumbling around the edges. There is no leeway for circumstance. No mercy for petty issues.
Making someones way of life illegal simply because they had a birthday and the law says that makes them an adult to me screams ignorance and for the most part indicates a broken legal system.

Their relationship never started out as legal ever. She was 18, the other girl was 14. At no point in time was this ever legal.

Except for when she was 17 and the girl was 14.


Ding ding ding. Winrar is you!

Anyway, I have no idea why I decided to join in this particular underage sex laws debate. I've seen countless others to know they all degenerate into accusations of child molestation.
 
2013-05-25 01:24:50 AM  
Grand_Moff_Joseph:

2.  A massive assumption that a person who is even one second under the age of 18, or some other magical number, is completely incapable of making conscious choices.  Therefore, any behavior undertaken by these teens (see #1) is immediately a probable crime.


This depends on their race and sex though. A 14 year old Black Male is always an adult if they commit a crime, whereas a 19 year old White Female is always a child or teen unless it involves sex with a person under 18.
 
2013-05-25 01:25:06 AM  

chatikh: jayphat: dlp211: jayphat: dlp211: BarkingUnicorn: dlp211: You want to prevent your daughter from seeing the other girl fine, but don't go ruining peoples lives because they happened to go to the same school.

And how shall parents prevent kids who attend the same school from seeing each other?  Restraining order that forces one girl to switch schools?

So instead let's throw one in jail.  If you are that hell bent on being a dick of a parent, figure it out and be a parent, you are just going to destroy your relationship with your kid.

You do realize the 18 got the 14 year old to run away, right? What are you supposed to do at that point but get the law involved?

OMG a 14 year old ran away because that has never happened in the history of teenagers.

A 14 year old ran away with a legal adult and performed sex acts on one another. You don't see a problem there?

Either you're talking about an entirely different case, or a 17-year-old is a legal adult. Because in this case, there was never a time when one girl was 14 and the other was 18. The article is cleverly worded so that people who don't know this story already, like most people commenting on this thread, are getting very confused on the details. The article says the girl was 14 when the relationship started. It doesn't mention that the older girl was 17 at this time. It doesn't mention that the younger girl turned 15 before the older girl turned 18.

Read about this on another site, it's ridiculous how much they leave out. I first read this story on Theblaze.com (Which is highly conservative and has left out details to make things seem worse than they are to their conservative readers) and I still got more details on this story than from this article. The Blaze article also came out before this one, so there's really no excuse.


Kate Hunt turned 18 in August 2012. She met the 14 year old in November 2012. At no point did Kate even know the girl while there was less than 4 years between them until the girl recently turned 15, long after Kate had been arrested for having sex with her.
 
2013-05-25 01:25:15 AM  

chatikh: there was never a time when one girl was 14 and the other was 18.


The stupid. It burns bright.

Look at previous posts in this thread. The affidavit that has been linked multiple times clearly states that the relationship didn't start until one girl was 14 and the other was 18. The one girl turned 18 in August. The relationship started in November.
 
2013-05-25 01:25:42 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Grand_Moff_Joseph: There are really two roots to this whole thing (imo):

1.  Overszealous DAs and PR addicted politicians have succeeded in criminalizing at least half of the behaviors and activities that teens regularly engage in.

2.  A massive assumption that a person who is even one second under the age of 18, or some other magical number, is completely incapable of making conscious choices.  Therefore, any behavior undertaken by these teens (see #1) is immediately a probable crime.

Number 2 is related to parents' desire to control their kids.  Quite few would like to extend the age of consent to 30 or more.


And this case is essentially about parents wanting to control their kid and as much as I hate to say it, it's probably about parents not wanting to face the fact that their precious snowflake is gay.

I HATE to say this but I do have to wonder if the 14 year old's mom would have called the police had the 18 year old been a guy?  It doesn't matter if she's gay or straight, the 18 year old shouldn't be charged with a crime.  I'm just saying, I wonder if this would have been a "case" at all had they not been gay.
 
2013-05-25 01:25:45 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: carrion_luggage: Sounds like she was called on the carpet for this one. That being said, I've got a munch she'll make the rug decision.

Carpet puns are obsolete, aren't they?  Don't girls start getting Brazilians with their first periods now?


I blame Bush.

Adolescent, sweaty Bush. And vajayjay.
 
2013-05-25 01:26:16 AM  

Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Internet Meme Rogers: redslippers: Fourteen year olds are still children. They are children just figuring out how to deal with periods and excited about their first crush. Their breasts are still developing. They are still children, just wearing bras and learning how to be responsible enough to make it to class on time. They aren't ready for sex.

That's a pretty vast and rather stupid generalization.

He or she is out to protect their precious snowflake. Let them believe it will keep their 14 yr old from having this problem.

I know someone with a very intelligent and mature daughter who happens to be 15 now. Her behavior is exactly as I have stated before, she will not have sex with someone, or even be in a situation where that might be implied, if it will put them in legal danger, and she is fully aware of the risks of any sexual relationship. She's a damnsight more mature than the Kate defenders in this thread.

Too many people in this thread are equating throbbing hormones with maturity. They are not the same, and that is the reason for legal ages of consent amongst teenagers.

I know you believe that, and good job if you've taught your kid to be safe and all, and as I have said I'm not saying it's right for an 18 yr old to be with a 14 yr old but it can and does happen. What happens after that (whether they be male or female shouldn't mater but) varies widely on who the parents are.

Yeah, the girl I speak of is a pretty rare sort, and so is her mother. I'm putting them in charge in event of zombie apocalypse.
From all the signs in the Hunt case though, Kate sounds like a distaff counterpart to a senior jock, deciding to get some easy piece off a freshman girl. I'm not a huge fan of the manipulative sort, and given the outright lies and distortions her parents have been spreading in the media, I think it's a safe assumption it's a family trait.


Well except for the fact that this 18 yr old in the case is 5'1" so really how many jock boys do you know that tall that can force a girl to do something?
 
2013-05-25 01:26:55 AM  

Internet Meme Rogers: It's interesting that the posters in this thread who are obviously women have related either that they were fully aware, able to, and did consent to sex around the age of 14, or that they felt not ready at that age and chose to wait until they were older. I have yet to see one say they were children incapable of making that decision for themselves.


Careful, now.

If you got something reasonable to say, you can just go ahead and take that shiat somewhere else...
 
2013-05-25 01:27:48 AM  

Puckmarin: WhippingBoy: Puckmarin: muck4doo: Hey guys! I'm sure according to Puckmarin you guys would all have a problem with an 18 year old guy sticking his dick in your 15 year old daughter, but a lesbian sticking her tongue in your 14 year old shouldn't be a problem at all. Unless you are racist.

/Get a clue.
//Child molesting is child molesting


Except that this is clearly NOT a case of child molestation.  The 14 year old willingly engaged in sexual activity with someone she was dating.  She gave what you would call "enthusiastic consent."

That's what all child molesters say. "She wanted it"

In this case she clearly did.  Your argument is invalid.  It was invalid the moment you tried to brand the 18 year old as a child molester.


No. My argument is not invalid, no matter how badly you wish it was.
 
2013-05-25 01:27:55 AM  
Why won't this story just die already. Leave my town alone. >_>
 
2013-05-25 01:28:02 AM  

muck4doo: kazikian: muck4doo: redslippers: kazikian: I don't see why we haven't built ranges into child protection laws yet. Five years seems reasonable. (ie. 18-13 ok, 18-12 not, 22-17 ok, 23-17 no). Or if we were really going to reform the system we might make onset of puberty the cut-off since that's really the defining moment. But how would you go about standardizing that, I dunno. No one wants medical tests to get involved.

You do realize that the onset of puberty can, and is with increasing regularity, as young as 5 or 6, with onset of menses as early as 7 years old?

So no, onset of puberty is in no way a defining hallmark of readiness for sex.

You are all sounding like you want "grass on the field" laws, and that is wrong on a multitude of levels.

13 and 14 year olds are CHILDREN.

Voted for "Smart". I can't believe there are idiots here trying to defend adults having sex with 14 year olds.

Do you realize that the definition of adult and child is highly subjective? Why is there a magical line at 18, as if someone matures a decade over their birthday? Am I defending an adult having sex with a child? If that adult is 18 and the child is 14, fark yes I'm defending that. If the adult is 60 and the child is 8, hell no. The problem is that it's very difficult to draw the line. Is 22-16 ok? 23-18? 20-16? 18-14? These are borderline cases, and everyone will have a different opinion. But I think everyone will agree that these laws were not meant to stop consensual relationships. Of course now, you can say anyone under 18 can't consent. And again, we have a point for debate, because while legally true we all know that in some cases that's bullshiat. Think back to your mid-teens; would you have defended a law that tells you who you can and can't fark? Would you have obeyed such a law?

Or, you can agree on a date of 18 or 21  to give the most assurance that the person has matured, or act like a personal judge should tell you that 11 or 12 is old enough so you can rape little girls. Don't give me that shiat about how you or someone else should be judges if the little girl is old enough for sex in pre-teen or early teen years. I can't believe there are douches on fark who defend this shiat.


It's easy to decide what's right and wrong at 21 or 12. It's the in-between that's contentious. That's the whole point.
 
2013-05-25 01:28:36 AM  
Puckmarin, the 14 year olds parents gave an interview where they said they would have called the cops if it were a guy.  I would find the link but no one in this thread is reading links with pesky things like facts in them anyway
 
2013-05-25 01:28:53 AM  

Internet Meme Rogers: It's interesting that the posters in this thread who are obviously women have related either that they were fully aware, able to, and did consent to sex around the age of 14, or that they felt not ready at that age and chose to wait until they were older. I have yet to see one say they were children incapable of making that decision for themselves.


It's because people are capable of making that decision at that age.

Plus this is the internet.  Half of the posters on here have little to no experience with sex or relationships.  Their jealousy takes the form of punishing people for having sex.
 
2013-05-25 01:29:20 AM  

chatikh: jayphat: dlp211: jayphat: dlp211: BarkingUnicorn: dlp211: You want to prevent your daughter from seeing the other girl fine, but don't go ruining peoples lives because they happened to go to the same school.

And how shall parents prevent kids who attend the same school from seeing each other?  Restraining order that forces one girl to switch schools?

So instead let's throw one in jail.  If you are that hell bent on being a dick of a parent, figure it out and be a parent, you are just going to destroy your relationship with your kid.

You do realize the 18 got the 14 year old to run away, right? What are you supposed to do at that point but get the law involved?

OMG a 14 year old ran away because that has never happened in the history of teenagers.

A 14 year old ran away with a legal adult and performed sex acts on one another. You don't see a problem there?

Either you're talking about an entirely different case, or a 17-year-old is a legal adult. Because in this case, there was never a time when one girl was 14 and the other was 18. The article is cleverly worded so that people who don't know this story already, like most people commenting on this thread, are getting very confused on the details. The article says the girl was 14 when the relationship started. It doesn't mention that the older girl was 17 at this time. It doesn't mention that the younger girl turned 15 before the older girl turned 18.

Read about this on another site, it's ridiculous how much they leave out. I first read this story on Theblaze.com (Which is highly conservative and has left out details to make things seem worse than they are to their conservative readers) and I still got more details on this story than from this article. The Blaze article also came out before this one, so there's really no excuse.


Here's a quote from Hunt's lawyer to CNN:

"If this incident occurred 108 days earlier when she was 17, we wouldn't even be here."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/justice/florida-teen-sex-case/index.ht ml
 
2013-05-25 01:30:03 AM  

muck4doo: kazikian: muck4doo: Puckmarin: muck4doo: Puckmarin: I'm 35 and I have a 19 year old f*ck buddy.  That's a 16 year old age difference.  I'm technically old enough to be her father.  There's nothing wrong with this scenario legally or morally.

We are freaking out when two people with a 4 year age difference had sex because one of them happened to be past an arbitrary age that was set years ago by people who know nothing about the two girls having sex with each other.  How is that fair?

Yes, we already know you are all for child molesting if the 13 year old or whatever looks like they want it. Listen, go back to your sick little world of molesting the kids is okay.

No.  I'm not advocating for molesting children.  I'd advocating for giving teenagers the right to choose what they do with their bodies and who they have sex with.  I'm also stating that statutory rape laws are stupid because they are all based around an arbitrary age set by people who have no insight on the individual situation.

No, you are advocating adults be allowed what they want to do with kids bodies, and treat the kids like they are adults for your own personal perverted ideals.

See, people like you just won't get it. And yet I'm sure you're in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.

Decriminalizing marijuana is the same exact thing as decriminalizing statutory rape from your idiotic expression.

Please come back when you have an intelligent view to express.


Some people believe that marijuana is as bad as statutory rape.
 
2013-05-25 01:30:27 AM  

Brostorm: Puckmarin, the 14 year olds parents gave an interview where they said they would have called the cops if it were a guy.  I would find the link but no one in this thread is reading links with pesky things like facts in them anyway


They kinda have to say that though, don't they?  Can you imagine the backlash if they had said something different?
 
2013-05-25 01:30:46 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Internet Meme Rogers: redslippers: Fourteen year olds are still children. They are children just figuring out how to deal with periods and excited about their first crush. Their breasts are still developing. They are still children, just wearing bras and learning how to be responsible enough to make it to class on time. They aren't ready for sex.

That's a pretty vast and rather stupid generalization.

He or she is out to protect their precious snowflake. Let them believe it will keep their 14 yr old from having this problem.

I know someone with a very intelligent and mature daughter who happens to be 15 now. Her behavior is exactly as I have stated before, she will not have sex with someone, or even be in a situation where that might be implied, if it will put them in legal danger, and she is fully aware of the risks of any sexual relationship. She's a damnsight more mature than the Kate defenders in this thread.

Too many people in this thread are equating throbbing hormones with maturity. They are not the same, and that is the reason for legal ages of consent amongst teenagers.

I know you believe that, and good job if you've taught your kid to be safe and all, and as I have said I'm not saying it's right for an 18 yr old to be with a 14 yr old but it can and does happen. What happens after that (whether they be male or female shouldn't mater but) varies widely on who the parents are.

Yeah, the girl I speak of is a pretty rare sort, and so is her mother. I'm putting them in charge in event of zombie apocalypse.
From all the signs in the Hunt case though, Kate sounds like a distaff counterpart to a senior jock, deciding to get some easy piece off a freshman girl. I'm not a huge fan of the manipulative sort, and given the outright lies and distortions her parents have been spreading in the media, I think it's a safe assumption it's a family trait.

Well except for the fact that this 18 yr old in the case ...


Maggie, you seem pretty smart. So I am going to assume you read only up to the word "jock" and breathlessly typed in your response before anything else caught your attention. Manipulators don't need to be violent, or use roofies, they coerce, they make you want to do something, just for their own personal gratification.

You know, exactly what her parents are doing with all the FUD they've thrown up with this Free Kate crap, and given the reactions we catch glimpses of from the younger girl, exactly what she did to her.
 
2013-05-25 01:31:34 AM  

Boojum2k: chatikh: Descartes: I'm a big believer in equal rights.... if a 18 year old boy had been having sex with my 14 year old daughter, I'd had pressed charges too.  Boy, girl, don't matter, leave your adult hormones away from my underage daughter.

It would only be equal rights if that's actually what happened. There is a less than three year gap between the two girls, there was never a time when one girl was 18 and the other 14.

This is how it went:

Older was 17, younger was 14.
Older was 17, younger turned 15.
Older turned 18, younger girl's parents went after older girl for a relationship they already knew about but disapproved of, using the law.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit- Re dacted

[liveforfilms.files.wordpress.com image 846x352]


Apparently the three other articles I found on this were wrong. But usually when pointing that out for others, I stick with the philosophy of having a big dick, not being one.
 
2013-05-25 01:31:34 AM  

WhippingBoy: Puckmarin: muck4doo: Hey guys! I'm sure according to Puckmarin you guys would all have a problem with an 18 year old guy sticking his dick in your 15 year old daughter, but a lesbian sticking her tongue in your 14 year old shouldn't be a problem at all. Unless you are racist.

/Get a clue.
//Child molesting is child molesting


Except that this is clearly NOT a case of child molestation.  The 14 year old willingly engaged in sexual activity with someone she was dating.  She gave what you would call "enthusiastic consent."

That's what all child molesters say. "She wanted it"


In truth, all we really know is that she's not claiming to have been coerced.

OTOH, that "intensive therapy" that someone mentioned she's in may be "cure the gay" therapy, or addressing the trauma inflicted by everyone except her lover.

As usual, there's a lot we don't know that a lot of us pretend we do.
 
2013-05-25 01:32:06 AM  

cybrwzrd: kazikian: Because while legally that is so, it's idiotic to say a 14 year old cant give consent. Now, some can, some can't. If coercion is a factor, that's to be considered. Other factors, like power balance must be consideref. It's a complicated issue butting up against a simple law. The real point I want to make us this: we have a blanket law, where the only fair way to deal with this is on a case by case basis. In some cases an 18-14 relationship is abuse, in others it's not. But that has nil to do with age alone.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


Thank you.
 
2013-05-25 01:32:52 AM  

bigwf2007: chatikh: jayphat: dlp211: jayphat: dlp211: BarkingUnicorn: dlp211: You want to prevent your daughter from seeing the other girl fine, but don't go ruining peoples lives because they happened to go to the same school.

And how shall parents prevent kids who attend the same school from seeing each other?  Restraining order that forces one girl to switch schools?

So instead let's throw one in jail.  If you are that hell bent on being a dick of a parent, figure it out and be a parent, you are just going to destroy your relationship with your kid.

You do realize the 18 got the 14 year old to run away, right? What are you supposed to do at that point but get the law involved?

OMG a 14 year old ran away because that has never happened in the history of teenagers.

A 14 year old ran away with a legal adult and performed sex acts on one another. You don't see a problem there?

Either you're talking about an entirely different case, or a 17-year-old is a legal adult. Because in this case, there was never a time when one girl was 14 and the other was 18. The article is cleverly worded so that people who don't know this story already, like most people commenting on this thread, are getting very confused on the details. The article says the girl was 14 when the relationship started. It doesn't mention that the older girl was 17 at this time. It doesn't mention that the younger girl turned 15 before the older girl turned 18.

Read about this on another site, it's ridiculous how much they leave out. I first read this story on Theblaze.com (Which is highly conservative and has left out details to make things seem worse than they are to their conservative readers) and I still got more details on this story than from this article. The Blaze article also came out before this one, so there's really no excuse.

Here's a quote from Hunt's lawyer to CNN:

"If this incident occurred 108 days earlier when she was 17, we wouldn't even be here."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/justice/flori ...


Given the text of the law she has been charged under, her lawyer is either an idiot or a liar. Possibly both.
 
2013-05-25 01:33:45 AM  

WhippingBoy: kazikian: ciberido: skozlaw: Ah, yes. The magical ages of 16, then 18, then 21 where you suddenly become responsible enough to engage in behaviors that were completely out of the question the day before.

/ if you have to place an arbitrary age limit on your law to enforce it, it probably shouldn't be a law

So you believe that 3-year-olds should be allowed to drive?  Or have you not thought through the logical consequences of your assertion?

Disingenuous rebuttal award goes to you! Who here is talking about 3 year olds?

I am. If a three year old gives consent, who am i to question?


I'm not dignifying that with a response.
 
2013-05-25 01:34:33 AM  

kazikian: muck4doo: kazikian: muck4doo: redslippers: kazikian: I don't see why we haven't built ranges into child protection laws yet. Five years seems reasonable. (ie. 18-13 ok, 18-12 not, 22-17 ok, 23-17 no). Or if we were really going to reform the system we might make onset of puberty the cut-off since that's really the defining moment. But how would you go about standardizing that, I dunno. No one wants medical tests to get involved.

You do realize that the onset of puberty can, and is with increasing regularity, as young as 5 or 6, with onset of menses as early as 7 years old?

So no, onset of puberty is in no way a defining hallmark of readiness for sex.

You are all sounding like you want "grass on the field" laws, and that is wrong on a multitude of levels.

13 and 14 year olds are CHILDREN.

Voted for "Smart". I can't believe there are idiots here trying to defend adults having sex with 14 year olds.

Do you realize that the definition of adult and child is highly subjective? Why is there a magical line at 18, as if someone matures a decade over their birthday? Am I defending an adult having sex with a child? If that adult is 18 and the child is 14, fark yes I'm defending that. If the adult is 60 and the child is 8, hell no. The problem is that it's very difficult to draw the line. Is 22-16 ok? 23-18? 20-16? 18-14? These are borderline cases, and everyone will have a different opinion. But I think everyone will agree that these laws were not meant to stop consensual relationships. Of course now, you can say anyone under 18 can't consent. And again, we have a point for debate, because while legally true we all know that in some cases that's bullshiat. Think back to your mid-teens; would you have defended a law that tells you who you can and can't fark? Would you have obeyed such a law?

Or, you can agree on a date of 18 or 21  to give the most assurance that the person has matured, or act like a personal judge should tell you that 11 or 12 is old enough so you can r ...


No, that is not the point, no matter how much the child molesters wish. There is a huge difference between making choices at 21 and 12.
 
2013-05-25 01:34:59 AM  

Puckmarin: It's because people are capable of making that decision at that age.


Oh yes, I know. I did. : )
 
2013-05-25 01:35:07 AM  

Puckmarin: Brostorm: Puckmarin, the 14 year olds parents gave an interview where they said they would have called the cops if it were a guy.  I would find the link but no one in this thread is reading links with pesky things like facts in them anyway

They kinda have to say that though, don't they?  Can you imagine the backlash if they had said something different?


Yes, the people with police affidavits and no history of lying are the liars.  Ok, cool story.
 
2013-05-25 01:35:07 AM  

kazikian: Because the law is wrong.
News flash: sometimes laws can be unjust!


That law was around looong before I was 18 and I'm no spring chicken. If it were wrong it would have been fixed by now.

kazikian: It's so easy to make personal attacks, isn't it? I don't know about Puckmarin, but I prefer older ladies. For the same reason that I prefer fair and reasonable laws: maturity.


If you had read his reply you would have seen that he said that he thought that 30 and 14 was ok. It's not a personal attack when it's true.
 
2013-05-25 01:35:57 AM  

chatikh: Boojum2k: chatikh: Descartes: I'm a big believer in equal rights.... if a 18 year old boy had been having sex with my 14 year old daughter, I'd had pressed charges too.  Boy, girl, don't matter, leave your adult hormones away from my underage daughter.

It would only be equal rights if that's actually what happened. There is a less than three year gap between the two girls, there was never a time when one girl was 18 and the other 14.

This is how it went:

Older was 17, younger was 14.
Older was 17, younger turned 15.
Older turned 18, younger girl's parents went after older girl for a relationship they already knew about but disapproved of, using the law.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit- Re dacted

[liveforfilms.files.wordpress.com image 846x352]

Apparently the three other articles I found on this were wrong. But usually when pointing that out for others, I stick with the philosophy of having a big dick, not being one.


If we took the number of morons who have already entered the thread with the same misinformation as you, and made it someone's age, they'd be close to retirement. The only big dick here is on your neck. Pull your head out of your ass and at least peruse previous comments before you assume you have some amazing new insight none of  had already.
 
2013-05-25 01:36:13 AM  

Radioactive Ass: kazikian: Because the law is wrong.
News flash: sometimes laws can be unjust!

That law was around looong before I was 18 and I'm no spring chicken. If it were wrong it would have been fixed by now.

kazikian: It's so easy to make personal attacks, isn't it? I don't know about Puckmarin, but I prefer older ladies. For the same reason that I prefer fair and reasonable laws: maturity.

If you had read his reply you would have seen that he said that he thought that 30 and 14 was ok. It's not a personal attack when it's true.


No, he said 35 and 19 is ok, which it is.
 
2013-05-25 01:40:39 AM  

Radioactive Ass: he said that he thought that 30 and 14 was ok.


I know you weren't talking to me, but yes he did say that, because logically if you're going to give a 14 year old young woman dominion over her sexuality, you have to go there. It has to be given completely. It doesn't make it not icky, but I find the reasoning sound.
 
2013-05-25 01:41:04 AM  

kazikian: Radioactive Ass: kazikian: Because the law is wrong.
News flash: sometimes laws can be unjust!

That law was around looong before I was 18 and I'm no spring chicken. If it were wrong it would have been fixed by now.

kazikian: It's so easy to make personal attacks, isn't it? I don't know about Puckmarin, but I prefer older ladies. For the same reason that I prefer fair and reasonable laws: maturity.

If you had read his reply you would have seen that he said that he thought that 30 and 14 was ok. It's not a personal attack when it's true.

No, he said 35 and 19 is ok, which it is.


Yeah, a high school senior was sure that freshman was between 19 and 35 before she started molesting her.
 
2013-05-25 01:41:18 AM  
I kinda wanna sum this up before I go to bed.

This is, bottom line, about one thing: spirit if the law vs. letter of the law. We should always strive to make the two as similar as possible. It's clear that here, the law being broken had little or nothing to do with the reason if the law. And that, ladies and gentlement, is the exact definition of "unjust."
 
2013-05-25 01:41:36 AM  

Brostorm: Puckmarin: Brostorm: Puckmarin, the 14 year olds parents gave an interview where they said they would have called the cops if it were a guy.  I would find the link but no one in this thread is reading links with pesky things like facts in them anyway

They kinda have to say that though, don't they?  Can you imagine the backlash if they had said something different?

Yes, the people with police affidavits and no history of lying are the liars.  Ok, cool story.


Their history doesn't matter.  They can't come out and say "we did this because it's a homosexual relationship" because then they have LGBT groups jumping all over them and suddenly they become the bigoted bad guys.

I'm just saying that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they did this because it was a homosexual relationship.  Regardless of what they say we'll never know for sure.
 
2013-05-25 01:42:34 AM  

Internet Meme Rogers: It's interesting that the posters in this thread who are obviously women have related either that they were fully aware, able to, and did consent to sex around the age of 14, or that they felt not ready at that age and chose to wait until they were older. I have yet to see one say they were children incapable of making that decision for themselves.


That's true, but I wouldn't say Fark women are representative of the general population.  This place is only for the strongest.

It would be instructive to see a study that tracked women who "gave in" during their minority and women who "saved it" until they were legal adults; say, up to age 30 or beyond.  Would there be any difference between the groups in terms of who still has sex because "he wants it" instead of because "I want it?"

In simple terms, does having sex while you're a minor increase your predisposition to let yourself be exploited?  (Exploitation can entail more than sex; that would be another interesting aspect of the study.)

Anybody got a link for me?  I can't think of how to google this  just now.
 
2013-05-25 01:43:24 AM  
Forget for a second protecting children. If I'm 18 or 19 or whatever, knowing that having sex with someone under 17 or 16 or whatever will land me in prison is a lot less scary than knowing that sleeping with someone of any age will land me in prison if they don't later pass some mental maturity test.
 
2013-05-25 01:44:36 AM  

Internet Meme Rogers: Radioactive Ass: he said that he thought that 30 and 14 was ok.

I know you weren't talking to me, but yes he did say that, because logically if you're going to give a 14 year old young woman dominion over her sexuality, you have to go there. It has to be given completely. It doesn't make it not icky, but I find the reasoning sound.


They were talking about me and you've perfectly summed up what I was trying to say.
 
2013-05-25 01:44:37 AM  

Puckmarin: And this case is essentially about parents wanting to control their kid and as much as I hate to say it, it's probably about parents not wanting to face the fact that their precious snowflake is gay.

I HATE to say this but I do have to wonder if the 14 year old's mom would have called the police had the 18 year old been a guy? It doesn't matter if she's gay or straight, the 18 year old shouldn't be charged with a crime. I'm just saying, I wonder if this would have been a "case" at all had they not been gay.


Apparently the parents of the 14 year old tried to settle this by talking to the other parents first. It's only when that failed did they go to the police. So I'm guessing that gay wasn't really a huge part of it. The mother of the 18 year old is the one who made a big deal out of it after her daughter was arrested. Most of what she has said was refuted by the police report.

Boojum2k: Given the text of the law she has been charged under, her lawyer is either an idiot or a liar. Possibly both.


I'm going with trying to spin the message in a reverse Zimmerman attempt to pressure the DA to not prosecute.
 
2013-05-25 01:45:25 AM  

Internet Meme Rogers: Puckmarin: It's because people are capable of making that decision at that age.

Oh yes, I know. I did. : )


Yep, some people forget some never knew but well.
/I lived through it.
 
2013-05-25 01:47:46 AM  

kazikian: I kinda wanna sum this up before I go to bed.

This is, bottom line, about one thing: spirit if the law vs. letter of the law. We should always strive to make the two as similar as possible. It's clear that here, the law being broken had little or nothing to do with the reason if the law. And that, ladies and gentlement, is the exact definition of "unjust."


Oh shut the fark up. The law is the law. If a man abuses an underaged girl it's against the law. If a woman ubuses an underaged girl it is still against the law. This biatch is trying to get a special exception because she abused her in a homosexual way. That is a bunch of crap. And anyone who thinks this should get special exception  is a tard as well. You aren't above the law for your sexual preferences.
 
2013-05-25 01:48:18 AM  

Boojum2k: At no point did Kate even know the girl while there was less than 4 years between them until the girl recently turned 15, long after Kate had been arrested for having sex with her.


LOL!   The difference between their ages is CONSTANT!  You made a rounding error.
 
2013-05-25 01:49:06 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Apparently the parents of the 14 year old tried to settle this by talking to the other parents first. It's only when that failed did they go to the police. So I'm guessing that gay wasn't really a huge part of it. The mother of the 18 year old is the one who made a big deal out of it after her daughter was arrested. Most of what she has said was refuted by the police report.


We'll never know what the conversation between the two parents was like.  It could have been civil or it could have been something akin to "Keep your perverted gay daughter away from our precious, straight snowflake."
 
2013-05-25 01:49:20 AM  

kazikian: No, he said 35 and 19 is ok, which it is.


No he did not. I asked if it was ok for a 30 year old and a 14 year old to have sex. he answered in the affirmative. His current girlfriend is 19 and he is 35. Read it again.
 
2013-05-25 01:50:41 AM  

kazikian: I kinda wanna sum this up before I go to bed.

This is, bottom line, about one thing: spirit if the law vs. letter of the law. We should always strive to make the two as similar as possible. It's clear that here, the law being broken had little or nothing to do with the reason if the law. And that, ladies and gentlement, is the exact definition of "unjust."


We have laws in a society. If there's grey area, there may as well be no boundary because nobody will understand it & it will be applied without equality.

Bright lines are there for a reason... so that the most stupid understands the rule. (If only we had brighter lines for banking regulations, but I digress)

Even without the bright line, the law seemed to be the last thing the 14-year old's parents turned to in order to address behaviors in their daughter (discipline issues, not lesbianism)... so I don't quite understand your outrage. There's hardly clarity in this issue to call the law unjust.

It's clear that you made up your mind before looking at the entirety of what is out there on this case, and convicted the parents of the 14-year old of being homophobes or ageist or something of that nature. The thing is, you are not emperor of the universe, free to pass your own laws and decisions. To assume that this case is clearly about injustice... it speaks volumes about you.
 
2013-05-25 01:51:33 AM  

bigwf2007: Forget for a second protecting children. If I'm 18 or 19 or whatever, knowing that having sex with someone under 17 or 16 or whatever will land me in prison is a lot less scary than knowing that sleeping with someone of any age will land me in prison if they don't later pass some mental maturity test.


Well, be scared of both.  Developmentally disabled people of any age can land you in jail.

"But I thought she talked that way because she was drunk, your Honor!"
 
2013-05-25 01:52:05 AM  

Diagonal: At what in any of this has anyone said that "they had sex"? Where is the evidence that intercourse or other similarly intimate contact was made?

Without evidence of sexual activity beyond "necking," then there is no case.


Hello??? Haven't you read the arrest affidavit, or any of the posts mentioning it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit- Re dacted
 
2013-05-25 01:53:20 AM  

Puckmarin: Radioactive Ass: Apparently the parents of the 14 year old tried to settle this by talking to the other parents first. It's only when that failed did they go to the police. So I'm guessing that gay wasn't really a huge part of it. The mother of the 18 year old is the one who made a big deal out of it after her daughter was arrested. Most of what she has said was refuted by the police report.

We'll never know what the conversation between the two parents was like.  It could have been civil or it could have been something akin to "Keep your perverted gay daughter away from our precious, straight snowflake."


Hunt's family tried to claim that the other girl's parents never even contacted them before she was arrested. Sort of undercuts their credibility doesn't it?
 
2013-05-25 01:53:30 AM  

Puckmarin: Internet Meme Rogers: Radioactive Ass: he said that he thought that 30 and 14 was ok.

I know you weren't talking to me, but yes he did say that, because logically if you're going to give a 14 year old young woman dominion over her sexuality, you have to go there. It has to be given completely. It doesn't make it not icky, but I find the reasoning sound.

They were talking about me and you've perfectly summed up what I was trying to say.


Clearly you were capable of answering for yourself, just wanted to note that I agreed with your logic.
 
2013-05-25 01:54:09 AM  

Radioactive Ass: kazikian: No, he said 35 and 19 is ok, which it is.

No he did not. I asked if it was ok for a 30 year old and a 14 year old to have sex. he answered in the affirmative. His current girlfriend is 19 and he is 35. Read it again.


She's not really my "girlfriend" per se, more like a friend with benefits.  We're both free to see other people but that's not really important to this discussion.

As someone else put it, my point is that if you're going to give someone control of their sexuality (i.e. it's "OK" for a 14 year old to have sex with another 14 year old) you have to give them complete control over their sexuality.  So, if it's OK for them to have sex with someone their own age then it must be OK for them to have sex with someone older.
 
2013-05-25 01:54:24 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Internet Meme Rogers: It's interesting that the posters in this thread who are obviously women have related either that they were fully aware, able to, and did consent to sex around the age of 14, or that they felt not ready at that age and chose to wait until they were older. I have yet to see one say they were children incapable of making that decision for themselves.

That's true, but I wouldn't say Fark women are representative of the general population.  This place is only for the strongest.

It would be instructive to see a study that tracked women who "gave in" during their minority and women who "saved it" until they were legal adults; say, up to age 30 or beyond.  Would there be any difference between the groups in terms of who still has sex because "he wants it" instead of because "I want it?"

In simple terms, does having sex while you're a minor increase your predisposition to let yourself be exploited?  (Exploitation can entail more than sex; that would be another interesting aspect of the study.)

Anybody got a link for me?  I can't think of how to google this  just now.


Not exactly what you are looking for but..http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/health/05baka.html?_r=0
 
2013-05-25 01:56:10 AM  

bigwf2007: Puckmarin: Radioactive Ass: Apparently the parents of the 14 year old tried to settle this by talking to the other parents first. It's only when that failed did they go to the police. So I'm guessing that gay wasn't really a huge part of it. The mother of the 18 year old is the one who made a big deal out of it after her daughter was arrested. Most of what she has said was refuted by the police report.

We'll never know what the conversation between the two parents was like.  It could have been civil or it could have been something akin to "Keep your perverted gay daughter away from our precious, straight snowflake."

Hunt's family tried to claim that the other girl's parents never even contacted them before she was arrested. Sort of undercuts their credibility doesn't it?


Their credibility has nothing to do with what actually happened or didn't happen.
 
2013-05-25 01:57:00 AM  

bigwf2007: Puckmarin: Radioactive Ass: Apparently the parents of the 14 year old tried to settle this by talking to the other parents first. It's only when that failed did they go to the police. So I'm guessing that gay wasn't really a huge part of it. The mother of the 18 year old is the one who made a big deal out of it after her daughter was arrested. Most of what she has said was refuted by the police report.

We'll never know what the conversation between the two parents was like.  It could have been civil or it could have been something akin to "Keep your perverted gay daughter away from our precious, straight snowflake."

Hunt's family tried to claim that the other girl's parents never even contacted them before she was arrested. Sort of undercuts their credibility doesn't it?


"Judge Judy, I called her fifty times to ask when I'd get my money back."
"That's a lie! You never called me!"
Judge Judy:  "I DON'T CARE! You OWE her the MONEY!"

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 50 of 1323 comments

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report