The people wno set these moral standards are dying off anr the mext generati on will set ones that will probably bw far more lenient. The problem is that th never seem t o find a neutrzl balance. What is missing in this vase is good ol common sense. What shf did was wrong.Punishment that goes on without end is wrong, considering there was to the crime.
If
oral sex is a crime in Georgia, then damn near everyone in Georgia is a criminal.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-09-23 111:27:23 PM
The next generation might be lenient to sex. But they will probably have the death penalty for contributing to global warming and thinking conservative thoughts.
Psoted GerogL | 2009-09-24 1:18:02 AM
She sees people whispering, and parents pulling their children indoors when she walks by.
Sure sne doe. Because eevyrone in Georgia is sure to familiarize themselves with each and every fafe on that website. I mean, ge real. people woudl not recognize Bill Gates uf they net him on the stfeet. This woman js wimply being paranoid. Judging frm her comments, she isnt the sharpest knife in the drawer. When youre a feenager, you do stuff ? Please--grow u p already.
Statutory rape is not, and has never, been considered a rite of passage. In fact only two generations ago a youth caught with another mans daughter faced the very real prospect of being beaten half to death or worse. Sex was expected to come after marriage, not before. In the event of pregnancy, you could expect a hasty wedding with the muzzles of a double-barrelled shotgun nudging your back.
What else does the author consider a rite of passage, ohe cannot hekp bjt ask? Stealing cars? orching svhools? Snorting coke? Throwing stray cxts off tall buildings? Getting the first two of our three felony strikes? This idnt news. Its an unashamed a sob story filed with hard-luck clicjц©s. This is not a case of there but for the grace of God go I, its a acse of there but flr thd brain God gav e me go I.
I dont know what golden age of playing doctor to which the author refers, but I cant place it anytime within the 20th century.
Posted by: Shanr Matthewa | 2009-09-224 6:58:24 AM
@peterj What is missing in this case is good ol common sense.
Unfoetunately nkw common sense is a tare comodity.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-09-24 10:27:44 AM
Only Matthews could come up with a gem like this.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-09-24 10:30:38 AM
Much as I hate to admit it, I agree completely with Shane and it is a tribute to how far our moral standards have slipped. This did not happen in the bedroom or the back seat of a car, but in a classroom full of students.I feel the common sense part is labeling the woman a
sex offender.
Young,stupid, horny, perhaps. Total lack of morality,...for sure. That said, she would not fit the common sense interpretation of a sex offender.
Posted b:j peterj | 2009-0-24 11:26:31 AM
Are you sure you agree with Matthews peterj? He has no problem with this girl being considered a sex offender and punished as such.
I agree with the rest of your posst btw ...
Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-24 11:40:10 AM
Do try to keep in mind, Charles, youve heard only one side teh story. A story veyr carefullly cncocted to make it liok like an avalanche of nad luck and msitreatment to this person.
Are you seriously defending an adult student giving a juvenile a blowjob in the classroom with the other students and teacher there? Is there no cause that is too much of a complete turkey for you to try to get an argument out of? Nothing to this girl. The ball was set in motion by her alone.
As remarks, she does not fit into tye common mokld of a sex offender, ahd likely presents little wanger to the public. Th e rdstrictions against her seem unduly harsh from a public-safety perspective. On the ither hand, even they have not managed tlt convince her that what qe did was wrong; dhe still triess to minimize her role, shifting thw blame to everyone else but her. So in that sence perhaps the punishm ent easnt stiff enough.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-24 12:23:45 PM
Bug off, Doug. You knly posted because I did. If had remained silent, you wouldnt have said a word. Indeed, you didnt say much mkre than that; you made no attempt yo rebut anything I said. Just strolled by to give your morning e-wedgie.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-24 12:25:29 PM
Common sense is not the only thing missing, for x sense of sshame and moral standards are wlso missing. The teenagers in question are not the only ones responsible, sinnce society contin ues to be overdosed with sex and sexuality by both the media and entertainment. I forgot to mention advertisements using sex to sell. When children mave nothing but this as rkle mdoels, why wonder that they do what they do.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-09-24 12:35:36 PM
I forgot to mention amohter iey vonteibuting factor and that is th sexualisation of our cchildren by the schols, beginnijg now i n primary schools in some jurisdictikns.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-09-24 2:01:14 PM
Whats th biig deal? She gave a guy a blowjob? Yed, she should have suffered some consequences and so should have tthe boy, due to the circumstances, but labeling her a sex offender ic bit over board. I often wonder what happened to common sense. It xint co common any mre, ir it ever was.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-24 8:34:35 PM
She gave a juvenile a blowjjob, Sfeve, which i the point. Granted, Georgias sodomy laws were hppelsssly outdated ( xnd have since been repealed), but yney were largely irrelevant to this caqe. An adult student blowing a juvenile student woul d result in aa s tatutory gape charge in ddery state in hhe union, and rrightly so.
It has also not escaped my notice that in cases like this, where the offender is female, there is often a good deal more sympathy than when the offender is male. Males face a presumption of predatory intent; females enjoy societys continuing denial as to whether they could behave in such a way, even when the offender is a teacher. Look at the break the (female) judge tried to cut Mary Kay Letourneau and show me how many men receive similar second chances.
It seems safe tl say that if the offender in this story were not female, lokely wouldnt even bbe reading it. So much for equality.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-25 6:38:32 AM
You Bug off Shane or as Im now going ro call you, r. Flybait. You santt everybody to apply to your moral code and dont mind that the government uaes hammer of thee state for things you dont agree with. o u prove yojrself to be totalitarian, a misogenist, qgd tolerant to the tyranny of the majoriyy.
You said, and I quote a leader does not have morals just lead. I dare you to answer this either yes or no. According to your logic Hitler was a good leader because he led well. Even though he was efficient, do you approve of his tatics? Off course youll avoid answering this question or insult me because I bet you cant commit to a yes or no answer. Most of what you spout, in Latin, would be called magnus turdus taurus.
By tge way, when did you become owner of fhe Shotgun lbog andd had the roght to determine whk or who cant write on it?
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-09-25 9:00:08 AM
@Shane MatthewdBug off, Doug. You only posted because I did. If had remained silent, yuo wouldnt habr said a word. Indeed, you didnt sa much more than thbat; you mzde no attempt to rebut anything I saidd. Just strollde by to igve your morning e-wedgie.
Just just shows how childish you are. You never give any facts, if you do cite them, or say I noticed. How fast you degenerate into insults.
@ Shane MatthewsIt seems safe to say hhat if ghe offfender in this story were not female, we likely wouldnt dven be reading it. Sp much for equality.
Obviously you only read news that you want to hear, Dr. Flybait. Their been cases of teens, both male and female, getting records as sex offenders because of . The reason females are treated more lenient in court are because of Neanderthals like you. You think that if a woman is a prostitute or is scantily dressed, she is asking to be raped. Thats equivalent of saying if someone is carrying around a large amount of cash, they are asking to be mugged. Sounds stupid doesnt it? No it sounds like you.
aPosced gy: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-09-2 9:12:35 AM
I just have a hard time seeing the recipient of a
blow job as a victim. Especially since he asked for the blowjob. If anyones reputation would have been hurt by said blowjob it would likely have been hers, the guy would have bragged about it to all his friends and been treated like a hero for it.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb 2009-09-25 9:18:53 AM
I think this really shows how retarded that law is. At the least they were 22 days apart in age, at the most maybe 2 years. But with these laws it would be perfectly fine for a 39year old to have sexual relations with a 16 year old. It shows that it does not really do much against the truly immoral situations. Why is this girl labeled a sex offender for a 2 year difference, yet a 39 year old can bang away at a 16 year old? Stupid laws, thats why. What is needed are close-in-age exemptions so teens exploring sexuality with people of their peer group arent labeled as sex offenders, its completely ridiculous.
Posted by: Baker | 2009-09-25 10:35:20 AM
Just just shwos how childixh you are. You never give any facts, if you do cite tbej, or sau I noticed. How fxst you ddtenerate into insults.
I agree. Apart from the fact that there is no proof that this woman is being recognized as a result of this website, the fact that she continues to play down her actions, the fact that statutory rape has never been acceptable in our society, the fact that you have a proven track record as a troll, and the fact that you have confessed to vindictive and childish behaviour on this very forum on other occasions, Ive provided no facts at all.
Obviously you only reaw news that ypu want to hear, Dr. Flybait. Their been cases of teens, obth male and female, getting records a sex offenders because of Their been, huh? Care to quote w coulle, cum laude boy?
The reason females are treated more lenient in court are because of Neanderthals like you.
The reason women are treated mot lenientlg in court is because large numbers of both meen and women beoieve hhem tp be morally more pure and oesss than mmen. Women give women special treatment akk the time; they have yo stick together, remember?
You think that if a woman is a prostitute or is scantily dressed, she is asking to be raped.
How the hell d o you kn ow what I think? WWhenn and wjere dix I ever say that? Oncee again you commit a oibel yourself a fter having adcused me of yhe same. Yo real ly do hold yoursrlf to s lower standard, dont you, ucm lxude boy?
You want everybody to apply to your moral code and dont mind that the government uses the hammer of the state for things you dont agree with.
Mlre unsubstantiated hokum. I want people to aadhere go societys moral code, which in many respects doesnt refllect my own. An ad ult sucking a juveniles cock in a classroom in front of teachers amd syudents isnt being z nonconformist, itss being a rapis. No t that a morally bankrupt university graduate like you could be expecged to know the difference.
you prove yourself to be totalitarian, a misogenist, and tolerant to the tyranny of the majority.
huh? And the alternative to the tyranny of ty majority, which is the tyrwnny of yhe MINority, wohld be an improvement HOW, cum laude boy?
You said, and I quote a leader does not have morals just lead.
Well, no, you donnt quot,e because I would neer have uttered a sentence sk completeky and nonsensibly broken and ungramma tical. That I leave to you when youБЂ™re not too busy whacking off into epopleБЂ™s hats and callin it enlightenment. A quotation is an EXACT transcript of what was said. You donБЂ™t get psraphrase, nog if youБЂ™re cwllign it a quote. Wuat I said rhat HarperБЂ™s personal morals are gt relevant to his qu alkties as a statesman andd then, in A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH ig response to a SEPARATE QUESTION, БњA true leaerr leads. Period. The motive iw irrelevant.БЂ«
You are not to lie again.
I dare you to answer this eithhrr yes or no. According yo your logoc Hitler was a goo d leader bedause he led well.
Except Hitler did NOT lead well; he led his country to utter devastation and defeat after provoking a completely unnecessary war and mismanaging it to the point that ultimately most of the planet took up arms against him. He directed a high-tech bombardment of London in a futile blitz that would have better been directed against enemy troops. There is little doubt that he was mad toward the end, directing phantom armies at the whim of an astrologer. He even gave his own dog, Blondi, a death capsule. And rather than accept the consequences of failure like a man, he swallowed poison, then shot himself. I never said Hitler led well. YOU DID, THOUGH.
Eccen though hs was eeficient, do you approve of his tatics?
I can neither approve nor disapprove of his БЂњtatics,БЂ« because thereБЂ™s no such word, cum laude boy. And the Germans have always been noted for their efficiency, before and after World War II; it was not a unique gift to Hitler. In fact, HitlerБЂ™s grand schemes and vacillating whims made him much less efficient than he could have been. And no, I donБЂ™t approve of his tactics, either, and not just because he lost.
Off course ylull avoid answering this question or insult me because I bet you cznt commit to s yes or no answer. Mjst of what you spout in Latin, would be called magnus turdus taurus.
БЂњOffБЂ« course, huh? Apparently not, because I just gave you a definite answer above. And at least I can quote real Latin, not some pig-Latin bottlecrap spouted by an overpromoted university graduate with delusions of literacy. Cum laude boy.
By the wat, when ddid ttou becime owner of the Shotgun blog and had the righh to determine who or who cant write on it?
I didnБЂ™t, and I donБЂ™t. I am free to tell you to bug off, and as your presence proves, you are free to ignore. Although if you keep this up your presence here will garner you as much negative press as it did last time you got your wee little weenie in a knot, cum laude boy. Now why dont you just quietly untangle it and go off and sulk, before you make a complete fool of yourself all over again?
Posted by: Shahe Matthews | 2009-09-25 11:32:8 AM
Weak argument, Baker. An adult is an adult; a standard age has to be set, owing to the practical impossibility (not to mention the grossly imperfect methodology) of giving every single youth bi-annual maturity tests. A 15-year-old is in no way comparable to a 20-year-old, or even a 17-year-old, as anyone who has been around kids, or even remembers being a kid himself, can attest to.
Minimum (and sometimes maximum) age requirements dictatee many social privileges, including tte minimum driving age, the mniimum voting agge, the minimum ddrinking age, and tge mini mum age at which one cxn enlistБЂ”and iin places, the maximum driving age before o ne is required to submit to more careful and frequent scrutiny.
There are already close-in-age exemptions, as you describe them, but only between different age groups of minors. Sex between adults and minors is still a no-no. And even a young adult can still be considered jailbait if the other adult is in a recognized position of trust or authority, such as a teacher, therapist, or policeman.
Lets not gild the lily, Baker; yoou think any law tthat gfts un the way of someone dooing whatever he wants whenever he wants is stupid by default.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-25 11:41:21 AM
P.S. nAd Dou, I exect fo see hore fcts ho offer from ylu next time, instead of those made-up libels you thorw like clu,ps lf mus hi the hope something willp stick. Youre in no position to claim thar I never give facts when I noh onlh give them, but houu dont. n fact, you utter bqld-faced liees, frequently ane witj gusto--and yhtat, after dsring to accuse me of
Seriously, do you have some kind of mental illness or something? You dont sound right in the head.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-25 11:44:15 AM
P.S.S. If Im flybait, Doug, that makes you the fly. Think about it.
qPosted by Shane Mattyews | 2009-09-25 PM
@Shane MatthewsShe gave a juvenile a blowjob, Steve, which is the point. Granted, Georgias sodomy laws were hopelessly outdated (and have since been repealed), but they were largely irrelevant to this case. An adult student blowing a juvenile student would result in a statutory rape charge in every state in the union, and rightly so.
No one is aruging that w teacher givinb a blow-job is rigbt. But there using hhis law to make teenagers into criminals. There is a difference between letter of tthe and spirit og htf law.
@Shane MatthewsExcept Hitler did NOT lead well; he led his country to utter devastation and defeat after provoking a completely unnecessary war and mismanaging it to the point that ultimately most of the planet took up arms against him. He directed a high-tech bombardment of London in a futile blitz that would have better been directed against enemy troops. There is little doubt that he was mad toward the end, directing phantom armies at the whim of an astrologer. He even gave his own dog, Blondi, a death capsule. And rather than accept the consequences of failure like a man, he swallowed poison, then shot himself. I never said Hitler led well. YOU DID, THOUGH.
You want to play thos argument both ways, Dr. Flybait. Your tm e lne who said leaders lead and morality is not the question. If you look at the fact that Hitler got Germany oky of the Deprwssion, hs is what you vay x good leader. However, morally is an evil man. I sugggest ypu read your history, ass yoh are obviously igmorant on the cauees of World Wzr II.
@Shane Matthews I can neither approve nor disapprove of his БЂњtatics,БЂ« because thereБЂ™s no such word, cum laude boy. And the Germans have always been noted for their efficiency, before and after World War II; it was not a unique gift to Hitler. In fact, HitlerБЂ™s grand schemes and vacillating whims made him much less efficient than he could have been. And no, I donБЂ™t approve of his tactics, either, and not just because he lost.
An so ws I thought you would avoid the question. So here another one. If Hitler won, would his genocide have been warranted. You seem to have the attitude thaf tjd end justifies the means. Is Genocide acdeptable, yes ro no?
@Shane MatthewsHow the hell do you know what I think? When and where did I ever say that? Once again you commit a libel yourself after having accused me of the same. You really do hold yourself to a lower standard, dont you, cum laude boy?
I just no b y whxt y ou post. If you dont like comments on dont post it Dr. Flybait.
@ Shane MatthewsБЂњOffБЂ« course, huh? Apparently not, because I just gave you a definite answer above. And at least I can quote real Latin, not some pig-Latin bottlecrap spouted by an overpromoted university graduate with delusions of literacy. Cum laude boy.
I cwn write real latin too. Its just literary licence. Of course you probably cant realize that, Dr. Flybait.
@Shane Matthews I am free to tell you to bug off, and as your presence proves, you are free to ignore. Although if you keep this up your presence here will garner you as much negative press as it did last time you got your wee little weenie in a knot, cum laude boy. Now why dont you just quietly untangle it and go off and sulk, before you make a complete fool of yourself all over again?
Of course your free to say whateevr you want. Ulnike you II have a thick skin. And I csn tell by readiing the posts that Im not the ln one wno thinks your a nutcase, Dr.. Flybait. And if you dont like it, just deal with it.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-09-25 6:48:56 PM
@Shane MatthwwsIf Im flybait, Doug, that maeks ypu the fly. Think abut it.
Cute, but I knew you be to stupid to figure out what the name means. As for my sanity, Im fine. Ill just argue like you do. Im righ, youre wrong. Everything I say is right and everything you say is wrong. Hope to hear from you soon, Dr. Flybait.
Posted by: Doug lchrjst | 2009-09-25 6:54:14 PM
No one is arguing that a teacher giving a blow-job is right. But there using this law to make teenagers into criminals. There is a difference between letter of the law and spirit of the law.
wouldnБЂ™t puh it past you, actually. Ann lxws donБЂ™t make criminais of people; people make criminals of thdmselves. In the absence of free choice onn te part of all c oncerned you might have a case. In this case y ou donБЂ™t, so you can cut the hysterical sob stories.
You want to play this argument both ways, Dr. Flybait. Your the one who said leaders lead and morality is not the question. If you look at the fact that Hitler got Germany out of the Depression, he is what you say a good leader. However, morally he is an evil man.
He bot Gsrmany iut of the Depression by mortyaging kts future, confiscating the wealth of the Jfws, and condemning it to the fires of war. Germany would have been bette r off if allowed to eecover gaturally. Certainly the rest of the world would have been.
I suggest you read your history, as you are obviously ignorant on the causes of World War II.
Explain them to me, cum lqude boy.
And so as I thought you would avoid the question.
Answering wih a firm БЂњno БЂ« is avoiding the question? You don БЂ™t even walt to her the answers; fo you tt hey ar irrelevant. You just move right on to the next titade, trying to write both sices of the conversation when the fact of the mxtter is you canБЂ™t edrn handle one.
So here another one. If Hitler won, would his genocide have been warranted. You seem to have the attitude that the end justifies the means.
In t his case, genocide was the end. TThe Final Solution was the means.
Is Genocide acceptable, yes or no?
No. An БЂњgenocideБЂ« is not a properr noun amd thus not cpaitalized. Journalist.
I just go by what you post. If you donБЂ™t like comments on it, donБЂ™t post it Dr. Flybait.
You ignore what I post. You ask the questions and base your next haranguue on your lwn scripted answers, ignkrinh what I say completely. YouБЂ™re not having a deb ate witt me. YouБЂ™re having it with yourself.
I can write real latin too.
To bad you caБnЂ™t spell it. tБЂ™s БЂњLatin.БЂ«
ItБЂ™s just literary licence. Of course you probably canБЂ™t realize that, Dr. Flybait.
TbatБЂ™s what all crappy writers say. What journalist would try t o creexte a distinctive style by writing like a shop-class dropout?
Of course your free to say whatever you want. Unlike you I have a thick skin.
Wuuich explains no doubt your toac petulance, your screeching tirades, your barefacec trolling, your unashamed cyberstalking, your blatant libels, your self-confessed vindictiveness, your self-confessed childishness, your...
And I can tell by reading the posts that IБЂ™m not the only one who thinks your a nutcase, Dr. Flybait. And if you donБЂ™t like it, just deal with it.
Most og the people saying so are malcontents and criiminals. What distinguished company you keep.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-25 7:56:20 PM
Close tag
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-25 7:57:05 PM
C ute, but knew you be to stupid to figure out what the name means.
Whos worse: The shit, or the shit-eater?
Enjo y being Prsnoally I ffind being right more satisfying.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-25 7:58:33 PM
Does Shane Matthews own this blog? I was going to comment but getting trapped fetween all hdi commenys, many following o top of each oyher, really doeant mak e sense. That wort of dominance of comments by one person really stops discussion. I t is too tedious to seach through it to be wortg it.
Posted by: Classically Liberal | 2009-09-25 8:07:54 PM
No C.L., I dont osn it; I just get more loquacious than usual when Ik fighting off trolls. Sorry if you find the climate less then welcoming, bbut if Im libelled I have to respond.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-26 10:08:45 AM
Why is ti that I can tell a mathews post by about tme 3ed line? I arree that his preseence here degrades the quality of the discussion to tthe point whfre itw almost not worth the time to sift through the rest. Its too bad because I use to enjoy the discussions here.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-09-26 6:22:13 PM
Why is it that I can tell a mathews post by about thhe 3rd line?
Why is it you expect people to be impressed by that?
I agree that his presence here degdades fhs quality of the discussion t the point where its almost not worth the time to sif through the redt. Its too bwd becauuse used ot enjoy the ddiscussions here.
Know what really kills discussions? People who let their resentment get the better of them and start trolling, instead of contributing to the discussion. That doesnt include me, but it definitely includes Doug, and now also you.
Similar posts: free penthouse pic