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  
•       •       •

15127 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 | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-25 11:01:02 AM  
bigwf2007: Desire. Infatuation. Obsession.

The new fragrance from Calvin Klein.
 
2013-05-25 11:01:26 AM  
Sometimes it's worth breaking things down. People are trying to ruin a teenage girl's life over a high school sexual experience. Done. Anyone thinking that's a worthy goal is either an idiot or a genuinely evil person, or both. There's nothing "bad" that's happened here that can't be worked out without trying to put someone in jail.
 
2013-05-25 11:14:45 AM  

VendorXeno: Anyone thinking that's a worthy goal is either an idiot or a genuinely evil person, or both.


Calling someone an idiot or evil for arguing a certain position is irrelevant to the argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Attacks

(when the argument devolves into ad hominem then it's time for bed.)
 
2013-05-25 11:20:15 AM  

bukijin: Man - you didn't answer any of my points - only linked to another website. That's not an argument. Do you expect me to refute the entire website ?

Let's get down to basics here.

Is sex ok between children and adults ?
Is a 14 yr old an adult ?


There is a third category - the young adult. Also it has nothing to do with if sex is ok, but if it is illegal. Sex between two children isn't ok, yet we don't jail them for it.
A 14 year old is a young adult (13-18) and should be allowed to have sex with other young adults.

Anyway, I've really been arguing this all night, and all my arguments can be found in my many responses above. I'm tired of restating the same thing in different words.
 
2013-05-25 11:21:10 AM  

WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?


I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.
 
2013-05-25 11:22:00 AM  

bukijin: VendorXeno: Anyone thinking that's a worthy goal is either an idiot or a genuinely evil person, or both.

Calling someone an idiot or evil for arguing a certain position is irrelevant to the argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Attacks

(when the argument devolves into ad hominem then it's time for bed.)


No, it is actually in the definition of evil to wish to cause harm to people.
And if, on the contrary you haven't thought this out, you're an idiot.
 
2013-05-25 11:22:55 AM  

Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.


You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.
 
2013-05-25 11:34:48 AM  

kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.


Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.
 
2013-05-25 11:42:35 AM  

Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.


No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.
 
2013-05-25 11:57:49 AM  

WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.


They are actually both young adults, and to be fair, the legal system should recognize this. That it does not is the entire point of the debate.

Let me give you a personal example. I turned 18 in a children's hospital. I had, over the past few weeks made friends with a young girl of about 10. She was very sick; I was too, bit she was in worse shape. We enjoyed each others' company and her mom was there with us most of the time. (in case you're wondering, nothing sexual ever crossed mind, god forbid.) Well, you can guess what happened when I turned 18. While I remained in the children's wing (I couldn't interrupt treatment with my team if doctors, anyway), I was no longer allowed to interact with any other patients. There literally had to be a certain distance between me and her, like a restraining order. Obviously, I understood the hospital had to do this to cover their ass legally. But was it a fair or rational policy? I don't think so. I'd ask the young girl if she agrees, but you know, she died before I ever had a chance to talk to her again.
 
2013-05-25 12:08:50 PM  

kazikian: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.

They are actually both young adults, and to be fair, the legal system should recognize this. That it does not is the entire point of the debate.

Let me give you a personal example. I turned 18 in a children's hospital. I had, over the past few weeks made friends with a young girl of about 10. She was very sick; I was too, bit she was in worse shape. We enjoyed each others' company and her mom was there with us most of the time. (in case you're wondering, nothing sexual ever crossed mind, god forbid.) Well, you can guess what happened when I turned 18. While I remained in the children's wing (I couldn't interrupt treatment with my team if doctors, anyway), I was no longer allowed to interact with any other patients. There literally had to be a certain distance between me and her, like a restraining order. Obviously, I understood the hospital had to do this to cover their ass legally. But was it a fair or rational policy? I don't think so. I'd ask the young girl if she agrees, but you know, she died before I ever had a chance to talk to her again.


Well, they applied it to all patients who turned 18, so yes it was a fair policy. And as we've seen, 18 year old adults will molest underage children, so a rational policy. Also, having worked in a children's hospital, I strongly doubt your story to being with.
 
2013-05-25 12:12:23 PM  

WhippingBoy: coffemonster: I dont know how they could prosecute this - where is the evidence for a sexual encounter? presumably neither party involved is inclined to describe what they did in private... and without any taped or dna evidence, how can they prove anything?

Ms. Hunt described what they did in private on several occasions.


why would she do that? she deserves to be in prison for that kind of stupidity alone
 
2013-05-25 12:17:17 PM  
From the previous thread, Kate's Uncle posted on the Free Kate Facebook page:
Thank you all for supporting my niece Kate Hunt. As much as we want your support, we also want to keep things accurate and free of exaggeration, even when it engenders sympathy. There has been quite a bit of accidental misinformation spreading around on this page and other sites. This post will hopefully clarify a few things.

First, to be clear, we are not arguing that Kate is being prosecuted by the State of Florida because of her sexual orientation. The law is the law, but the law is unjust. Many 18-year-old men have also been unjustly prosecuted for dating underage girls in their high schools. We are arguing that it is unfair to expect high school students in the same school not to fraternize. It certainly shouldn't be grounds for criminal prosecution.

Second, we do not want to argue that the age difference here is insignificant. The two girls were about 3 years and 7 months apart in age, and Kaitlyn turned 18 in August of last year. Kate, however, is a very small, young-looking senior in high school, and her girlfriend was much taller freshman, older in appearance, an IB student enrolled in courses with upper classmen, and played on the same Varsity basketball team as Kate. They were peers in the same social circle with the same friends. I'm not sure age ever entered into either of their minds. Kate was later kicked off the basketball team for fear that two girls dating each other would cause "drama."

Finally, we've seen many people claim that Kate was arrested the day she turned 18. This is not true. Kate wasn't arrested until February of this year.

That is the rough timeline. We want your support based on the facts involved, not on any false interpretation of those facts. We hope you will continue to help us fight to free Kate and to help us make the laws more just for high school students across America. It would be great if teenagers always thought about the law before they acted on their feelings, but we know this is unrealistic. These issues need to be dealt with between families, not in a court of law.


The Free Kate Facebook page has been changed to a closed group. I can verify I read the above on that page before that change.
From that post, the main post(that you can still read), plus the affidavit, the facts that cannot be in dispute are:
Kate was 18 in August.
They didn't start dating until September.
Kate is 3 years and 7 months older, meaning their entire relationship happened when the ages were 18 and 14.
Kate's parents knew their 18 y/o was "being intimate" with a 14 y/o.

All the Farkers coming in here using the discredited 17-14 18-15 arguments are speaking from ignorance and should enlighten themselves. The change.org petition site still has the discredited statements by Kate's mother that they started dating when Kate was 17 and that the other girl's parents "waited" till she was 18. That is a bold-faced lie.
 
2013-05-25 12:24:57 PM  

desertfool: A girl who was a Freshman on the same Varsity basketball team as the Senior? So, yeah, peers.


To a freshman on a varsity team, a senior in not a peer but a mentor. Seniors do not treat freshmen as peers, they treat them as underlings who need to be taught the game. That made Kate an authority figure to the younger girl. Kate was kicked off the team by the coach for abuse of that higher position.
 
2013-05-25 01:13:32 PM  
bukijin: mainly bad points built on appeal to authority/status quo
kazikian: continued reasonable points

That's not what society thinks. But really it depends what the victim thinks and how it affects their life. If force is used or even talking someone into doing something they don't want to then that isn't sex it becomes abuse. The thing about children below the age of consent (defined as 16) is that they don't have the means to resist such force or even such persuasion. So they are simply an object for another's gratification ?

kazikian: Would you confess to a crime you didn't commit just to save your skin?

That she committed the crime (as defined by the law obviously) isn't in dispute. She also admitted it more than once. I doubt I would commit the crime, but if I did and I was caught - then yes I believe I would confess to mitgate my sentence (which also protects the victim from having to be dragged through the court process).

kazikian: The maximum sentence is 15 years in prison. The very existence of that possibility is a perversion of justice.

Of course sentencing guidelines have to be given. You quoted the maximum - what is the minimum ? How can sentencing guidelines be a perversion of justice ? But I do believe that what the 18 yr old did was wrong and needs some kind of punishment (if found guilty) - but I don't think anyone including the authorities involved would suggest that 15yrs is appropriate. The plea bargain offered seems fair to me.

kazikian: the worst thing is the arbitrary 18 year old mark where everything changed to adulthood.

It isn't arbitrary. i don't actually know what arbitrary means


I have to call you on what is either a lack of rigor in your thought processes, an intentional deception, or, more likely, an inability to understand your emotional reactionism. The 18/adult line is, actually, arbitrary. It is arbitrary because there is no hard science - biological, neurological, psychiatric, psychological, physical - that can be tested and demonstrated to validate such a line. In fact, the hard science we DO have points everywhere but 18; menstruation beginning 4-6 years prior to turning 18, and neural pathway growth continuing until the early to mid 20s. 15 would not be arbitrary, nor would 24, but 18 sure as hell is. The fact that a group of human beings had a debate and specifically chose an arbitrary number does not make said number any less arbitrary.

While we're on the subject, you, bukijin (and entirely too many others) have, multiple times, rested your arguments on the mechanisms of our government and legal system. I'm not sure which bothers me the most - that you don't appear to understand that law is merely a collection of fictions, that you don't understand these fictions are not static, or that you believe that merely applying a valid process results in a contextually valid outcome. Wielding the letter of the law as proof towards questions of moral difficulty is not only futile but foolish. Acting as if the law always has been and always will be right is an idiocy of the highest order.

The law is living thing; it is designed to grow and adapt in response to the evolution of the society by which it was created. What is our history, as a society, if not a rapidly evolving body of law meant to guide us towards whatever social ideal we currently hold? Can you not look through our history and stand agape with amazement at the ridiculousness of so many laws of our past? Can you not see how these statutory rape laws, as currently written, will be fodder for future law students as examples of how the law should not ever be applied?

The point is, the law is not meant to be a temporal absolute, so I find myself absolutely flummoxed when otherwise normal people switch off their critical thinking abilities and merely proclaim "THIS IS THE LAW!!," as if this statement is all we need, as if it is some physical absolute, inviolable and eternal, and even worse, objectively right.  These statutory rape laws, as they apply to situations similar to the one in question, are malfeasances of justice. An argument that they are not, merely because they arelaw, is a brutish tautology, and whosoever commits such fallacy should be beaten about the head until their face is the consistency of a rich paste. I would volunteer, but we have non-arbitrary laws that disallow me to do so.

Also, I have two reasonable answers to some of these questions regarding the difficulty of creating intelligent legal guidelines: 1.) STOP BEING STUPID, LAZY AND EMOTIONAL.  If we can get that out of the way, we can move to step 2.) Create quantitive legal levels of statutory rape/exploitation of a minor/child abuse. This situation would be a petty offense; a teacher banging the 14yo girl would be a felony, a teacher banging the 18yr old would be a misdemeanor, etc. etc. Until the people of the US can drop their puritanical airs and begin speaking about sex as a biological imperative and not some moral transgression, this is the best I can offer.
 
2013-05-25 01:15:42 PM  
We get it Kazikian. You think having sex with children should be okay, as long as they consent.
 
2013-05-25 01:18:25 PM  

muck4doo: We get it Kazikian. You think having sex with children should be okay, as long as they consent.


You too Holographic Shimmering Pork.
 
2013-05-25 01:19:16 PM  

bukijin: VendorXeno: Anyone thinking that's a worthy goal is either an idiot or a genuinely evil person, or both.

Calling someone an idiot or evil for arguing a certain position is irrelevant to the argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Attacks

(when the argument devolves into ad hominem then it's time for bed.)


No position has devolved into ad hominem. A position is being expressed that bad behavior is bad behavior.

See, it works like this. People are capable of doing bad things and being bad people, and it's possible to accurately point this out. If someone regularly lies, pointing out that they're a liar isn't an ad hominem argument; you're not trying to undermine a position by a personal attack, rather you are accurately presenting the reasonable position that they are liars. Same here, I'm not trying to use a fallacy to ignore some relevant argument, I am accurately pointing out that anyone who would want to try and ruin a teenage girl's life over something like a high school romantic/sexual experience is an idiot or an evil twit or, in all likelihood, both. Perhaps if you disagree you'd be better served coming up with some reasoning to defend your position instead of misusing the term ad hominem.
 
2013-05-25 01:20:32 PM  

WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.


No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.
 
2013-05-25 01:26:17 PM  

Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.

No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.


Isn't it early to be huffing paint? You don't get to touch the 14 year olds. Not yours.
 
2013-05-25 01:27:37 PM  
I see this thread has gotten even derpier than when I went to bed. Now we're judging the older of the two young ladies by the 'look in her eyes' in a booking photo. Holy shiat.

When I was a freshman in high school my first sexual experience was with a boy only a year older than me. Not intercourse, but he did go down on me and gave me my first orgasm that wasn't by my own hand.

Then after that I started dating a senior who was nearing his 18th birthday. He came over and met my parents before taking me out. Nobody even blinked at us dating when it started, or after he turned 18. And, you know what, while we did everything short of intercourse, it was because I decided to hold off on that and he was fine with my decision. That was a mature decision I made at 14 years old.

Either of those boys could've been legally thrown in jail for their contact with me but I assure you I was in full possession of my faculties and equally eager for the experiences. Thank the gods people weren't so nutty about these things in the 80s.

/yes, yes, the plural of anecdote isn't data
 
2013-05-25 01:36:10 PM  

Holographic Shimmering Pork: No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.


At what age does science say a child should take full responsibility for their life? What age does Evolution say? What age does medicine say? Law says 18. At 18 you can be kick out of the house by your parents and no law is broken. Would anyone really advocate that a parent's legal responsibility to their child should be released at a younger age?
 
2013-05-25 01:36:50 PM  

muck4doo: muck4doo: We get it Kazikian. You think having sex with children should be okay, as long as they consent.

You too Holographic Shimmering Pork.


Here, let me pack this up for you in a way you might be able to understand:

You are idiot. You no have think. You no can make decide. Big Man must give you decide. You shout Big Man's decide, or might do what Big Man say NO - think! But you try think, you confuse. Hurts!! Fall out tree!!  Why? Why only for Big Man's brain decide. Big Man SAY, is WHY. Big Man say go fark yourself. You try!
 
2013-05-25 01:39:50 PM  
So at 16 you can consent to having sex with someone up to the age of 23, but not a 24 year old. Come on. Please tell me everybody sees how arbitrary and retarded that is. The hypothetical 16 year old know what's she's doing with her body when the partner is 23 and 364 days, but not a day later. Jesus Christ deep fried at the fair!
 
2013-05-25 01:48:09 PM  

Holographic Shimmering Pork: muck4doo: muck4doo: We get it Kazikian. You think having sex with children should be okay, as long as they consent.

You too Holographic Shimmering Pork.

Here, let me pack this up for you in a way you might be able to understand:

You are idiot. You no have think. You no can make decide. Big Man must give you decide. You shout Big Man's decide, or might do what Big Man say NO - think! But you try think, you confuse. Hurts!! Fall out tree!!  Why? Why only for Big Man's brain decide. Big Man SAY, is WHY. Big Man say go fark yourself. You try!


This is awesome.

The dudes only arguement is to call anyone who disagrees with him a child rapist.
 
2013-05-25 01:53:23 PM  
Kate's Uncle posted on the Free Kate Facebook page:
Thank you all for supporting my niece Kate Hunt. As much as we want your support, we also want to keep things accurate and free of exaggeration, even when it engenders sympathy. There has been quite a bit of accidental misinformation spreading around on this page and other sites. This post will hopefully clarify a few things.

First, to be clear, we are not arguing that Kate is being prosecuted by the State of Florida because of her sexual orientation.


"It's horrible. For my daughter's sexual preferences, she's getting two felony charges. It could possibly ruin her future," Steve Hunt told The Associated Press in a phone interview Tuesday.
 
2013-05-25 01:56:24 PM  

MarkEC: Holographic Shimmering Pork: No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.

At what age does science say a child should take full responsibility for their life? What age does Evolution say? What age does medicine say? Law says 18. At 18 you can be kick out of the house by your parents and no law is broken. Would anyone really advocate that a parent's legal responsibility to their child should be released at a younger age?


The point I've made is that the law itself is confused on the matter of adulthood, and you've reinforce your absolute argument with examples of that very confusion. The metamorphosis from child into adult is gradual and consists of much more than some abstract "full responsibility" metric. The laws should recognize this.
 
2013-05-25 01:57:06 PM  

bigwf2007: Kate's Uncle posted on the Free Kate Facebook page:
Thank you all for supporting my niece Kate Hunt. As much as we want your support, we also want to keep things accurate and free of exaggeration, even when it engenders sympathy. There has been quite a bit of accidental misinformation spreading around on this page and other sites. This post will hopefully clarify a few things.

First, to be clear, we are not arguing that Kate is being prosecuted by the State of Florida because of her sexual orientation.

"It's horrible. For my daughter's sexual preferences, she's getting two felony charges. It could possibly ruin her future," Steve Hunt told The Associated Press in a phone interview Tuesday.


Yeah, it's pretty solidly established now that her family are liars.
 
2013-05-25 02:00:28 PM  

Holographic Shimmering Pork: MarkEC: Holographic Shimmering Pork: No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.

At what age does science say a child should take full responsibility for their life? What age does Evolution say? What age does medicine say? Law says 18. At 18 you can be kick out of the house by your parents and no law is broken. Would anyone really advocate that a parent's legal responsibility to their child should be released at a younger age?

The point I've made is that the law itself is confused on the matter of adulthood, and you've reinforce your absolute argument with examples of that very confusion. The metamorphosis from child into adult is gradual and consists of much more than some abstract "full responsibility" metric. The laws should recognize this.


It does. It leaves it to the younger child's parents to pursue charges or not, as they would be the ones most able to care for and most liable for the child's welfare. In this case they tried twice to persuade Kate Hunt to stop committing sexual crimes against their daughter, and she refused to do so and started escalating her behavior.
 
2013-05-25 02:03:29 PM  
It's called 'jailbait' for a reason.
 
2013-05-25 02:05:03 PM  

Internet Meme Rogers: He came over and met my parents before taking me out. Nobody even blinked at us dating when it started, or after he turned 18.


Do you notice a slight difference between your personal experience and that of Kate Hunt?

Here's a hint, your story didn't begin with "he introduced me to sex in the school bathroom" among other important details.
 
2013-05-25 02:05:04 PM  

Boojum2k: bigwf2007: Kate's Uncle posted on the Free Kate Facebook page:
Thank you all for supporting my niece Kate Hunt. As much as we want your support, we also want to keep things accurate and free of exaggeration, even when it engenders sympathy. There has been quite a bit of accidental misinformation spreading around on this page and other sites. This post will hopefully clarify a few things.

First, to be clear, we are not arguing that Kate is being prosecuted by the State of Florida because of her sexual orientation.

"It's horrible. For my daughter's sexual preferences, she's getting two felony charges. It could possibly ruin her future," Steve Hunt told The Associated Press in a phone interview Tuesday.

Yeah, it's pretty solidly established now that her family are liars.


For fark's sake, her family are horrified that she is being charged with a felony for sexual contact with her high school sweetheart. Yeah, they're casting about and feeling persecuted. Because they're being persecuted.

I love how everybody is so completely certain that the younger woman's family was not at all concerned with the fact that she was with another female. Oh no, there's no evidence of homophobia here, without having any clue what they may have stated to the 18 year old in question or her family. Can the possibility be entertained that the 18 year old's family may have said such things because the 14 year old's family's disapproval of the homosexual nature of the relationship was stated at some point?
 
2013-05-25 02:05:08 PM  

Mugato: It took me a half hour and most of my bodily fluids to just get through that headline.


this
 
2013-05-25 02:06:46 PM  

Boojum2k: Internet Meme Rogers: He came over and met my parents before taking me out. Nobody even blinked at us dating when it started, or after he turned 18.

Do you notice a slight difference between your personal experience and that of Kate Hunt?

Here's a hint, your story didn't begin with "he introduced me to sex in the school bathroom" among other important details.


Now it's a question of etiquette? What a stupid thing for you to say.
 
2013-05-25 02:08:06 PM  

Internet Meme Rogers: there's no evidence of homophobia here,


You're right, there isn't. The only link to homophobia is the claim made by the Hunt's, said claim including a long list of outright lies. If their daughters behavior was defensible, they'd have stuck with the truth.
 
2013-05-25 02:10:43 PM  

Internet Meme Rogers: Boojum2k: Internet Meme Rogers: He came over and met my parents before taking me out. Nobody even blinked at us dating when it started, or after he turned 18.

Do you notice a slight difference between your personal experience and that of Kate Hunt?

Here's a hint, your story didn't begin with "he introduced me to sex in the school bathroom" among other important details.

Now it's a question of etiquette? What a stupid thing for you to say.


Are you really that dense? That stupid? Or do you feel you are that worthless? I'm sorry you had shiatty parents but honestly most people don't.
 
2013-05-25 02:14:15 PM  

Holographic Shimmering Pork: MarkEC: Holographic Shimmering Pork: No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.

At what age does science say a child should take full responsibility for their life? What age does Evolution say? What age does medicine say? Law says 18. At 18 you can be kick out of the house by your parents and no law is broken. Would anyone really advocate that a parent's legal responsibility to their child should be released at a younger age?

The point I've made is that the law itself is confused on the matter of adulthood, and you've reinforce your absolute argument with examples of that very confusion. The metamorphosis from child into adult is gradual and consists of much more than some abstract "full responsibility" metric. The laws should recognize this.


The laws do recognize it. You can get  drivers license and sign a contract at 16 in most states. As parents we give our children more and more freedom as they get older. What you advocate would be far too difficult a task to legislate. As a society we have decided that 18 is the age of majority. Below 18, parents not only have responsibility for their children's welfare, but have rights over what their children do, and not allowing an adult to have sex with them is one we've decided is important enough to pass into law. While I agree a 40 y/o having sex with a 14 y/o is worse and the punishment should be more severe, there must also be a bottom limit to that law. I have yet to see anyone post an alternative to the current law other than "But they're both teenagers!".
 
2013-05-25 02:18:22 PM  
Since we're inventing totally fictitious scenarios about the whole thing, let's go with this:

A girl enters high school and turns 14. She's in turmoil because her burgeoning sexuality is making her feel attraction towards the 'wrong' gender. Her parents are religious and every Sunday the preacher tells them all how evil and wrong homosexuality is and how marriage is between one man and one woman.

She joins the basketball team and meets a senior who is an out lesbian, a girl who went through the same thing but perhaps had a more supportive family. She lives as who she is and is confident. They begin a relationship. Furtive encounters behind the dumpsters and in the bathrooms. The younger lady begins saying things at home that disturb her parents. They see her running out to spend time with this short haired butch older girl...

I don't need to finish that. But why not that made-up sequence of events? Why the absolutely certainty that the 14 year old was coerced in some way and not able to decide to engage in sex? I just don't understand. I think it has to be that for some people, the notion of a 14 year old expressing her sexuality is just too icky, or perhaps too secretly arousing, for them to deal with, hence the vehemence. Protesting a little too much is always a good clue.
 
2013-05-25 02:18:27 PM  

Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.

No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.


Stop beating your dead horse.  Obeying the law, laws which as a whole society has agreed to abide by, is not being lazy and obtuse.
 
2013-05-25 02:22:03 PM  

Boojum2k: Internet Meme Rogers: Boojum2k: Internet Meme Rogers: He came over and met my parents before taking me out. Nobody even blinked at us dating when it started, or after he turned 18.

Do you notice a slight difference between your personal experience and that of Kate Hunt?

Here's a hint, your story didn't begin with "he introduced me to sex in the school bathroom" among other important details.

Now it's a question of etiquette? What a stupid thing for you to say.

Are you really that dense? That stupid? Or do you feel you are that worthless? I'm sorry you had shiatty parents but honestly most people don't.


That response makes no sense. Which I'm beginning to expect from you. How do you go from my parents meeting my new boyfriend to them being shiatty?That's a personal attack, and a sad one, because you didn't have a counter argument. Fark off.
 
2013-05-25 02:22:16 PM  

MarkEC: Holographic Shimmering Pork: MarkEC: Holographic Shimmering Pork: No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.

At what age does science say a child should take full responsibility for their life? What age does Evolution say? What age does medicine say? Law says 18. At 18 you can be kick out of the house by your parents and no law is broken. Would anyone really advocate that a parent's legal responsibility to their child should be released at a younger age?

The point I've made is that the law itself is confused on the matter of adulthood, and you've reinforce your absolute argument with examples of that very confusion. The metamorphosis from child into adult is gradual and consists of much more than some abstract "full responsibility" metric. The laws should recognize this.

The laws do recognize it. You can get  drivers license and sign a contract at 16 in most states. As parents we give our children more and more freedom as they get older. What you advocate would be far too difficult a task to legislate. As a society we have decided that 18 is the age of majority. Below 18, parents not only have responsibility for their children's welfare, but have rights over what their children do, and not allowing an adult to have sex with them is one we've decided is important enough to pass into law. While I agree a 40 y/o having sex with a 14 y/o is worse and the punishment should be more severe, there must also be a bottom limit to that law. I have yet to see anyone post an alternative to the current law other than "But they're both teenagers!".


I think the idea is that the DA has discretion over what they choose to prosecute (with taxpayer money), and some people would like the collective consciousness to shift such that crimes like this, between two consenting teenagers, are not prosecuted, since locking up this girl (or any other teenager, boy or girl, in the same situation) does nothing to increase public safety, which is arguably the only reason for a criminal justice system.

It's like grandma always said, "the less sexual repression pervading society, the better off we'll all be."
 
2013-05-25 02:30:44 PM  

Mock26: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.

No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.

Stop beating your dead horse.  Obeying the law, laws which as a whole society has agreed to abide by, is not being lazy and obtuse.


I'm expecting the Fark Pedobear brigade to set up camp & start singing "We shall overcome" while they display their NAMBLA cards over this shiat.

/Sure, critical thinking is great when it comes to law (we're not talking Justice, but Law)... but the law is there for a decent reason, and getting rid of age of consent is just stupid/creepy.  Not sure why people are arguing so harshly over this... the "lust for jailbait" angle makes about as much sense as any.
 
2013-05-25 02:32:24 PM  

Internet Meme Rogers: Boojum2k: Internet Meme Rogers: Boojum2k: Internet Meme Rogers: He came over and met my parents before taking me out. Nobody even blinked at us dating when it started, or after he turned 18.

Do you notice a slight difference between your personal experience and that of Kate Hunt?

Here's a hint, your story didn't begin with "he introduced me to sex in the school bathroom" among other important details.

Now it's a question of etiquette? What a stupid thing for you to say.

Are you really that dense? That stupid? Or do you feel you are that worthless? I'm sorry you had shiatty parents but honestly most people don't.

That response makes no sense. Which I'm beginning to expect from you. How do you go from my parents meeting my new boyfriend to them being shiatty?That's a personal attack, and a sad one, because you didn't have a counter argument. Fark off.


There must be some damage to you that you believe Kate Hunt treating this younger girl like a piece of meat in a bathroom is perfectly okay, at worst a failure of "etiquette." Add to that your inclination to believe the demonstrably lying Hunt's over the parents of the 14 year old, and it sounds like parental issues. Your entire line of bull this entire thread has been to associate yourself in her place, but changing the parameters so it is acceptable. It's not about you at all. You're not the point. You aren't an important example for the discussion. Kate Hunt did not molest you at 14. Stop acting like you are speaking for the victim's state of mind, she has family and the law for that.
 
2013-05-25 02:32:51 PM  
My question to all is, if by state law a 14yo can consent to sexual activity with someone close in age, why not someone older?  I guess what I'm asking is irregardless of the potential for an older person to coerce the younger in to it, they are admitting in their law that the 14yo has the ability to consent to sex because they can consent to it if the person is close in age.  So what they are saying is that she can consent to it but only with certain people. And by saying she can consent they are saying she has the understanding necessary to give that consent. So if she could legally consent with a younger person why not an older person, is the act of sex different?

/ not trying to excuse the situation.
//just find the close in age laws ridiculous.
/// either you can or you can't have sex.
 
2013-05-25 02:34:17 PM  

FraggleStickCar: I think the idea is that the DA has discretion over what they choose to prosecute (with taxpayer money), and some people would like the collective consciousness to shift such that crimes like this, between two consenting teenagers, are not prosecuted, since locking up this girl (or any other teenager, boy or girl, in the same situation) does nothing to increase public safety, which is arguably the only reason for a criminal justice system.

It's like grandma always said, "the less sexual repression pervading society, the better off we'll all be."


I actually agree with your sentiment. The problem is, this case does not fit your narrative. Kate knew what she was doing was illegal when she was caught and kicked off the basketball team for it. That didn't dissuade her and she aided and abetted the younger girl running away from home and having sex with her again at her house. That is the straw that broke the camels back and caused the whole thing to escalate to criminal charges. When you have a daughter that is 14, you have the right to tell an 18 y/o to stay the fark away from her, and to then press charges when she doesn't.
 
2013-05-25 02:34:56 PM  

Mock26: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.

No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.

Stop beating your dead horse.  Obeying the law, laws which as a whole society has agreed to abide by, is not being lazy and obtuse.


Refusing to acknowledge that the law needs improvement is, in fact, lazy and obtuse. Addressing salient, important questions with "obey! law!!" is also lazy and obtuse. Failing to offer insight or suggestion on how to better address these problems is lazy and obtuse.

Writing one line responses is lazy and obtuse. You are lazy and obtuse. And an insipid bore.
 
2013-05-25 02:37:04 PM  

meintx2001: if by state law a 14yo can consent to sexual activity with someone close in age


They cannot. The statute under which Kate Hunt has been charged applies to sexual conduct with a minor ages 12-15. It is always a felony. The minimum age of consent in Florida is 16.
 
2013-05-25 02:38:18 PM  

meintx2001: My question to all is, if by state law a 14yo can consent to sexual activity with someone close in age, why not someone older?  I guess what I'm asking is irregardless of the potential for an older person to coerce the younger in to it, they are admitting in their law that the 14yo has the ability to consent to sex because they can consent to it if the person is close in age.  So what they are saying is that she can consent to it but only with certain people. And by saying she can consent they are saying she has the understanding necessary to give that consent. So if she could legally consent with a younger person why not an older person, is the act of sex different?

/ not trying to excuse the situation.
//just find the close in age laws ridiculous.
/// either you can or you can't have sex.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us /statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute &URL=0800-0899/0800/Sections/0800.04.html
 
2013-05-25 02:39:40 PM  

Boojum2k: Stop acting like you are speaking for the victim's state of mind,


Why? You're doing that. Oh right. A daughter has never been made to do anything by her parents.

I'm actually not arguing whether or not this relationship was healthy or sick, good or bad. Just that it shouldn't be handled by throwing the older one in jail and making her a sex offender. But keep on foaming at the mouth, it seems to be your thing.
 
2013-05-25 02:40:15 PM  

MarkEC: FraggleStickCar: I think the idea is that the DA has discretion over what they choose to prosecute (with taxpayer money), and some people would like the collective consciousness to shift such that crimes like this, between two consenting teenagers, are not prosecuted, since locking up this girl (or any other teenager, boy or girl, in the same situation) does nothing to increase public safety, which is arguably the only reason for a criminal justice system.

It's like grandma always said, "the less sexual repression pervading society, the better off we'll all be."

I actually agree with your sentiment. The problem is, this case does not fit your narrative. Kate knew what she was doing was illegal when she was caught and kicked off the basketball team for it. That didn't dissuade her and she aided and abetted the younger girl running away from home and having sex with her again at her house. That is the straw that broke the camels back and caused the whole thing to escalate to criminal charges. When you have a daughter that is 14, you have the right to tell an 18 y/o to stay the fark away from her, and to then press charges when she doesn't.


This. Period farking dot.
 
Displayed 50 of 1323 comments

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report