Should this guy have served time?

And thus a wide range between knowing whether the ruling was "just" or not. I might add I din't even know if it was oral sex. Fondling (him touching her or her touching him) can count as rape as well. What I find funny is I said I don't know, not I know that the sentence was unjust because the guy should have been let go. Its very possible I think this guy should have gotten a lot more jail time.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Really? Show me the evidence for that conclusion. On top of human prepubescents engaging in sexual play with themselves and each other, one can find post-prepubescent sexual behavior in other animal species. I have already submitted evidence of this to you.Puberty indicates that reproduction is possible, and there is certainly a heightened sexual response in both partners. There is no evidence of total loss of sexual interest before that time.Oh yeah not to mention that gays often use the fact that they have sexual attraction to same sex partners at very young ages as indication that it is not a choice. I assume you reject such claims as erroneous? Push? I have spent several posts explaining that parents can deny their children's sexual activity and children should be empowered to deny it in a way they do not have at this point in time. What I have been arguing for is that the State mechanisms, that is the state determining when someone is ready, shift to the parents and the child.I did not suggest it should shift to the people that want to have sex with children. The fact that you continue to use a strawman of my position to create a guilt by association and emotional appeal argument is baffling and disappointing. The fact that you insist and wish to enforce the idea that children are not physically or hormonally (???) equipped to engage in sexual play, despite evidence to the contrary, is creepy.My position may make noncriminals out of some adults who have sex with children. Your position makes aberrations and criminals out of children, simply because you want to believe in political and moral propaganda. Really, kids engage in it on their own. Open some sexological texts or research on the subject.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That's not what I said at all. Indeed that is a gross misrepresentation of my position. Once more:1) I could not tell if the sentence was "just" because I did not know what happened. Ironically mods supported that position earlier, but refuse to now.2) It is common for children to engage in sexual play. That is a fact and one you have not bothered to try and counter. This fact may be new to other readers, but it shouldn't be to you since I have supplied the evidence before.3) The question of "often" is vague and you still have not suggested a way to quantify it in order to have any meaning. You have shifted to "as often as" and now "common". I have given you counterexamples to show why frequency, comparative frequency, and knowledge of comparative frequency is insufficient to draw conclusions of if an individual could or did consent.4) The issue of consent is not that people are incapable of voicing consent, or that we are incapable of trying to determine consent. The issue is that one cannot assume consent based on miscellaneous pieces of data as you have been doing. You have been pointed to threads with full scientific evidence on this matter already. It is the latest and fullest state of knowledge on this subject. Hence your pretense to use science is fully rebutted. You don't even try when it is your "god" on the chopping block.5) You called the girl a slut, if she wanted sexual contact. That pretty much reveals your hangup with sex. Really, kids have and do engage in sexual play. Read sexological literature as well as anthropological literature on the subject. Is that how you are going to view your child when you catch them playing with themselves and others?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I originally wrote a pretty sarcastic reply, but after lunch decided to change the tone. You are relatively new, and I have no reason to expect a certain level of argument from you one way or the other. Let me try and do this nicely.My argument was not that no one could reply to me unless they were raped. If you went to the link I was referring to (the one crash cited), that should have been abundantly clear, though I would think you should have understood anyway if you are good with reason and argument analysis.Crash presented a bare link, acting as if it created a rebuttal to what he implied was my position regarding consent. On top of his being incorrect about my position regarding consent (thus making the rebuttal a strawman), he was essentially making an emotional appeal, or perhaps a guilt by association argument... both fallacies.That is because the link was to a site for people who had been assaulted/raped. Thus they must (though he provided no evidence) be against what I said, or I must in some way be against them.My point was that such usage of that link was offensive to me personally. That would be because (beyond it being entirely not against my position) I am a member of the community being represented by that site. Crash (IIRC) has stated that he has no such experiences. That means that he is exploiting members of a community I happen to be a part of, simply throwing their existence at me as a shield against my position.I hope you can understand how that would be both "over the top" as a form of argument in general, and offensive to me personally.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-23-2006 06:39 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

grumble grumble... I posted some evidence detailing sexual development of children, but it was long, and unfortunately as long as it was it did not hit everything I wanted to. And of course that means a long post which is essentially OT. Nevermind...This message has been edited by holmes, 01-23-2006 08:22 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

A lot of women are serving hard time for having sex with teen males.Page not found - WND

Well it's a WorldnetDaily link so we can count on the presentation to be biased, but even so It doesn't support the claim that a lot of women are serving "hard time" - no sentence is mentioned on most of the reports, even for worse cases than the one in the OP.Some examples of where the sentence is reported:A woman convicted of having sex with 3 students was sentenced to a suspended nine-year sentence and possibly faces 1 year in jail - although it may be simply a year under house arrest.One teacher was sentenced to 1 year for a sexual relationship with a 14 year oldThere's a 1-year suspended sentence for a relationship with a 16 year old.These are all reasonably in line with the sentence in the OP. The last is a lighter sentence in a less serious case, the other two cases are more serious and recieved harsher, but still not heavy, sentences.In short this link indicates that the sentence in the case given in the OP is reasonable. It might be considered light, if it were granted that homosexual cases deserved harsher punishment - but even then it is not necessarily unreasonable in the light of the info in the link.l