View Full Version : Child Molester Glorified by Dateline NBC...
125gJoe
06-02-2006, 8:06 PM
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/
They even mentioned "their first kiss"...
This is sick media ....again..
Even a song.. "let's do it again" is played on the show..
The woman said the childs "eyes were attractive"...
NBC says: "They gaze at each other as though they are teenagers.."
"The passion is very much alive!"
This is sick...... Thanks Datline NBC! ... Now you will get other (perverts) to sue for their rights to TV air-time..
_________
It is amazing how many people find this more acceptable than a 13 year-old girl and a 34 year-old guy.
I'm with you Joe. Either way it should never have happened and glorifying it just pathetic. It makes it look like child predation ends up with a happy ending when in fact it usually ends in lifelong scarring for that child.
Ms.Bubbles
06-03-2006, 12:32 PM
Sorry-- although dating a grade 6 student is illegal and arguably immoral to some, I cannot put this woman into the catagory of "child molester". The relationship was consensual at the time, and continues to be today. How is this molestation?
DeputyChiefJR
06-03-2006, 12:35 PM
The child is not old enough to make a decision like that in the same sore of frame of mind as the teacher...Besides, it's sick, you tell me if your kid was 13 you'd have no problem letting them date a 34 yr old????
Ms.Bubbles
06-03-2006, 12:43 PM
Although you can disagree, try to separate the couple, and punish the teacher, you ultimately cannot tell people who they can and can't love. I think the show was trying to illustrate this, albeit in a somewhat over-the-top sentimental way.
DeputyChiefJR
06-03-2006, 12:52 PM
She was supposed to be someone the child could trust....So you're saying if a 50 yr old man loved a 5 yr old and the 5 yr old felt the same way, it would be just fine?
Ms.Bubbles
06-03-2006, 12:56 PM
A 5 year old is not the same as a 13 year old.
DeputyChiefJR
06-03-2006, 12:58 PM
Where's the difference? You see many 13 yr olds out of school in the working world? Oh wait, not that's illegal due to child labor laws, just like age of consent laws....
Ms.Bubbles
06-03-2006, 1:03 PM
Sometimes the neighbourhood kid down my street asks to shovel my driveway to make a few bucks and I agree. Better call the cops on me!
DeputyChiefJR
06-03-2006, 1:09 PM
Right I'm sure he puts in a good 40 hrs a week on your driveway...
Speaking as a mother and a teacher in WA state (I currently work with a gal who worked in the same school as MKL):
NO IT IS WRONG! In WA we have a morals clause that as teachers we are entrusted with the lives of these children. Our job is to teach them. Yes you can love a student on a variety of levels, plutonic levels! This is wrong. One of my sons is a 6th grader. There would not be enough places to hide all the pieces of a teacher or any adult who would allow themselves or him to participate in a relationship of this nature. If she loved Villi (and her own family - remember she was an adulteress) she would have waited until he was of legal consenting age and maturity. I have read almost all the articles/books about her, and on every level it is wrong.
If you find you are "in love" with a child (anyone under 18) and you are an adult. You must love them enough to let them grow up and discover who they are. You must control yourself and act as a well balanced adult would and wait.
But it is still VERY disturbing!
Ms.Bubbles
06-03-2006, 1:52 PM
Our job is to teach them. Yes you can love a student on a variety of levels, plutonic levels! !
You mean platonic, right?
Diddling a student is illegal, no question. But this "child" is now an adult, with the right to make his own decisions, and he has decided to stay with his lover. He is not being coerced, or exploited or molested.
DeputyChiefJR
06-03-2006, 1:54 PM
As far as I know he's not an adult for another 5 years in our legal system
Ms.Bubbles
06-03-2006, 1:56 PM
According the show, he's old enough to buy wine. That would make him 21 in the US, right? He's also old enough to have custody of his children.
DeputyChiefJR
06-03-2006, 1:59 PM
I meant when the incident began, once he turned 18 i don't give a rat's butt what he does with his time as long as it's legal
Toirtis
06-03-2006, 2:02 PM
According the show, he's old enough to buy wine. That would make him 21 in the US, right? He's also old enough to have custody of his children.
Yes...I am surprised that after 8 years he is still interested in her.
Even in places like Canada, where our age of legal consent is 14, one cannot give legal consent to a person in a 'place of authority/trust' such as a teacher.
nursie
06-03-2006, 2:11 PM
I watched some of the show. I think the woman is a nut. If she genuinely had feelings for the kid...she should have been the adult and kept a lid on it until he was of age. Or even no longer her student.
Ms.Bubbles
06-03-2006, 2:47 PM
Yes, but what of the situation now? The crime is in the past. That's primarily what the Dateline show was there to depict--the fact that they are still together, still "in love", that they even have children now, despite her being sent to jail. An extraordinary situation.
rosita
06-03-2006, 3:46 PM
As a teacher of 25 years, this occurrence is a heinous breach of professonalism and tacit trust which is critical to an educational community. As others have stated here, a breach of conduct such as this is just not acceptable, even in 2006. Unfortunately, it has indeed been acceptable when the tables are turned--male teachers becoming sexually involved with female students. "Boys will be boys," "man, he's still got 'it,'" etc. I've known colleagues who had affairs and even married their students.
I'm fairly accepting of alot of things in this world, but to maintain a standard is important.
When approached by male students only 3-5 years my junior when I was a young assist. professor (@22-23), I continually turned them down, even when they came back AFTER the course ended, or they had graduated. Then, when I started teaching high school and still looked pretty darn good at 40, they hit on me--seriously. But my first thought, no matter how much I cared about my kids, was that they were "my children" too, and there was no interest or self-generated feelings of attraction--and I was always very clear about it. My brother's good looking and charming--would I have sex with him? Eeeuuuwwww."
Even when a colleague (lateral-entry teacher, 30 yo) was having sex with one of the top varsity basketbball players and got caught (but never outed in the press, as the principal paid someone off big time!!), all I could think was, "How could she betray the trust inherent in the position of an educator?" This is one of the primary problems, I believe, with having to hire lateral entry teachers in our teacher shortage (they have been in other fields, want to teach, so begin and take a few courses to become certified/licensed)--they haven't been through the multitude of courses and spent time immersed in the culture of education," so the transgression only seems like an "affair," rather than a moral breach. It's like putting a big ol' Oscar in a killie or guppy tank!!
Sorry for the soapbox, but sex aside, I think it is always inappropriate and morally bankrupt to become involved with one's students in such a manner. View them as your own kids, siblings, whatever, but not lovers. We have the capacity to control ourselves--just do it!!!
:shark:
nursie
06-03-2006, 5:21 PM
Yes, but what of the situation now? The crime is in the past. That's primarily what the Dateline show was there to depict--the fact that they are still together, still "in love", that they even have children now, despite her being sent to jail. An extraordinary situation.
IMO..the show was in bad taste. I think it did glorify the situation, and shouldn't have been done.
Yes, but what of the situation now? The crime is in the past. That's primarily what the Dateline show was there to depict--the fact that they are still together, still "in love", that they even have children now, despite her being sent to jail. An extraordinary situation.
I know you probably realize, but they do not have custody of the children yet. Villi's mom does, but they are working on all the strings attached and are in the process of having custody transferred. As far as "they even have children now"... they were children conceived before Villi was 15yo. In WA that is child rape, what she was convicted of, infact what she violated her parole with and was actually caught in the act of- hence landing her the 7yr sentence.
My revoltion is in the original acts. I feel she should have gotten a h*ll of a lot longer. Now that Villi is 21 (almost 22), he is a man. And if he wants to stay with a woman who is unstable (and she is), then he has every right. I really really wish the state would think twice about placing them back with MK though.
What the woman did was wrong. She abused her position and broke the law. But you can't act as though it was ENTIRELY her fault. The boy should've known better than to try to seduce his teacher (and please don't argue that at 13 you have no mental control over such things. 13 is not the same as 5, DeputyChiefJR). That said, it was ultimately her fault as she should have stopped him. If she cared about him enough then she would have waited till he was old enough.
I agree with Ms Bubbles that it was NOT molestation as it was consensual. Therefore it was not rape, either. But it was wrong. It is not wrong now, as both partners are over the age of consent (Idon't know what it is in the USA). There was a similar case in the UK a while back, involving a consensual relationship between a man and a 15 year old girl who are now married. It was described as 'indecent assault'. Indecent it may have been, but it was not assault.
As for the article, it does not glorify child molestation. It presents a balanced argument over a case which is not typical. I think its all too easy these days for the press to jump on the so-called 'moral bandwagon' and talk about cases such as this as though they are the same as non-consensual child abuse. This is not a case of 'child predation', which, as viboy said, does end in lifelong scarring for the child.
125gJoe: They mention their 'first kiss' because that's what it was - a consensual act initiated by the student. It is not describing an adult forcing herself on a child. Also, what's wrong with saying about a couple who are both over the age of consent at the time, as is the case here, that
"They gaze at each other as though they are teenagers.."
"The passion is very much alive!"
Native American
06-04-2006, 7:55 AM
I get so blamed tired of listening to people talk about the semantics of their "relationship." Just about every state in this country has a statute regarding inappropriate relations between an adult and minor...it's called statuatory rape, no matter what the semantics. Those are the laws, she was caught, tried with an abundance of evidence at hand, and convicted.
The law is based on the statute that states that a minor's saying "yes" cannot be considered consent, period. That's it. An unambiguous and fine line drawn in the sand of the legal code.
End of discussion, or it would be, were it not for some smarmy journalists who decided this would be a good story. It's not a good story. An overall tragedy? No, it's atrocious, and there is a difference.
These two screwed up as parents (duh) on their first at bat. Sure, the crime was in the past...aren't they all! Then find the kid somebody not so messed up to do the full-time job of child rearing. It's hard work to do it even half-correctly, and these two geniuses aren't up to the task.
Journalists...the people you can always count on to give a sordid story some ridiculous, twisted "feel good" slant. Just like the morons on Dateline who called 9/11 a "tragedy." Give me a break! 9/11 was an atrocity and Rhodesia was a tragedy.
A lot of people may not have liked Ted Koppel because of his dry delivery, but he could represent facts in a truthful balanced fashion like no other these days.
Rant mode off.
v/r, N-A
RockabillyChick
06-04-2006, 2:04 PM
If you find you are "in love" with a child (anyone under 18) and you are an adult. You must love them enough to let them grow up and discover who they are. You must control yourself and act as a well balanced adult would and wait.
But it is still VERY disturbing!
you are so right. my friend Chris recently started dating a girl who's 17. he ias 26. not as much of an age gap, but she is still under 18. and he refuses to touch her until she turns 18.
AgnesJG
06-04-2006, 3:15 PM
Very DISTURBING indeed! I don't care if you're in love, or not, if it's a minor and you love them so much then wait 'til they're of age and more aware of the choices and actions they are making. I have 2 kids and hearing stuff like this just pisses me off :mad2: i know when I was 13, I thought I was in love almost every week, but i wasn't , I was just young and naive like most 13 year olds. :p:
nursie
06-04-2006, 5:09 PM
Native American...you said exactly what I was going to say. It was statutory rape. Doesn't matter if the 13 yr old wanted it..initiated it, etc. Still rape.
The birden of the responsibility is on the adult. 13 yr old boys are hormonal horn-dogs. What woman in her right mind would take one seriously?
RC's example of the 17 yr old girl is different..IMO. There is a big difference between a 13 yr old and a 17 yr old.
Ms.Bubbles
06-04-2006, 5:19 PM
Native American...you said exactly what I was going to say. It was statutory rape. Doesn't matter if the 13 yr old wanted it..initiated it, etc. Still rape.
American Heritage Dictionary definition of rape:
" The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse."
Legal definition of rape:
RAPE - The carnal knowledge of a woman by a man (or vice versa) forcibly and unlawfully against her will.
This situation involved consensual sex between 2 people. Nothing was forced, here.
reichebrown
06-04-2006, 5:27 PM
when i first read the thread title i thought what sick person would molest a cichlid?
Native American
06-04-2006, 10:28 PM
American Heritage Dictionary definition of rape:
" The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse."
Legal definition of rape:
RAPE - The carnal knowledge of a woman by a man (or vice versa) forcibly and unlawfully against her will.
This situation involved consensual sex between 2 people. Nothing was forced, here.The essence of the law is consent. W/out it, rape is the explicit result. There is no gray area here where an adult and minor are concerned.
Any attorney walking in with the American Heritage Dictionary and/or Black's Legal Dictionary and citing those two definitions (in defense of an adult committing statuatory rape) would be laughed out of the courtroom...just prior to everyone putting back on their serious faces and applying a stiff and appropriate jail sentence to the offender.
For those who can't live with the law as written, there are other countries that overlook this sort of thing...these people should immediately apply for a visa.
v/r, N-A
Native American, you actually make a pretty good point - didn't think of all that legal stuff. Also, didn't actually see the show, just read the article. The show may well have been 'questionable' in coverage.
Originally posted by RockabillyChick
you are so right. my friend Chris recently started dating a girl who's 17. he ias 26. not as much of an age gap, but she is still under 18. and he refuses to touch her until she turns 18.
Good for him. Seriously.
Otherwise...
Originally posted by reichebrown:
when i first read the thread title i thought what sick person would molest a cichlid?
:laugh: :joke: :laugh: :joke: :laugh:
Ms.Bubbles
06-05-2006, 1:05 PM
Native American: The definitions I posted were primarily for the benefit of nursie, who stated that the boy was raped and that "it doesn't matter whether he wanted it, initiated it, etc. Still rape".
It does matter. Consent is required for the event not to be considered rape. The student clearly consented. Therefore it is not rape.
You said: "For those who can't live with the law as written, there are other countries that overlook this sort of thing...these people should immediately apply for a visa."
Laws are being re-written all the time. They are not written in stone. Do I need to remind you that it was not long ago that a relationship between an african-american and a white was once considered "sick" and was often illegal? That it was once a crime for homosexuals to be together? That it was once illegal for women to vote? Thank goodness all the americans that didn't agree with the old laws didn't just move to other countries that "overlooked that sort of thing", and instead stayed and fought for basic human rights.
If the 2 people involved are both adults, and the so-called "victim" is not only not laying charges, but is happily engaged in an ongoing relationship with the so-called "perpetrator", I'd say there isn't much to get excited about here.
OrionGirl
06-05-2006, 1:43 PM
No, by legal definition a minor can NOT give consent, hence any carnal knowledge is forced.
I can't really say much more. I dated guys well over 20 years my senior when I was 16-18. I knew they weren't interested in my scintillating conversation skills. To me the bigger issue is that she was his teacher--that's just unprofessional.
DaisyTattoo
06-05-2006, 2:06 PM
IMO this story began with a sick-literally sick teacher. No one in their right mind would do what she did. And then to keep doing it without thought of consequences. She needed medication seriously. But NOW they are adults, she has done her time...paid the price that society has given to her. I say let them be. If dateline wants to do a story on them so be it. If you don't like it, dont watch it. Dateline does their fare share of catching child predators. They catch more child predators than America's Most Wanted probably does. This is one of those very rare stories of a child and adult falling in love and remaining that way until the child is an adult. Look at Woody Allen. He married his step daughter right? I think that is sick too but not my life. I dont feel like MKL's lover is a victim, but her husband and children from her previous marriage, they are victims.
Ms.Bubbles
06-05-2006, 2:25 PM
No, by legal definition a minor can NOT give consent, hence any carnal knowledge is forced.
Sorry, but I see this as one of those legal/moral grey areas, since the person being "raped" denies that a crime had even been perpetrated.
DaisyTattoo
06-05-2006, 2:28 PM
Sorry, but I see this as one of those legal/moral grey areas, since the person being "raped" denies that a crime had even been perpetrated.
Legally it is statutory rape. Not the same as regular rape. Statutory rape is the act of sex with a minor, no matter if they consent or not. Rape is forcing sex on someone who doesnt consent. 2 different things.
Ms.Bubbles
06-05-2006, 3:30 PM
Legally it is statutory rape. Not the same as regular rape. Statutory rape is the act of sex with a minor, no matter if they consent or not. Rape is forcing sex on someone who doesnt consent. 2 different things.
Technically the situation could be seen as statutory rape. But these people are adults now, and by their own admission "in love". That's good enough for me.
DaisyTattoo
06-05-2006, 3:32 PM
These people are adults now, and by their own admission "in love". That's good enough for me.
I totally agree.
Sorry, but I see this as one of those legal/moral grey areas, since the person being "raped" denies that a crime had even been perpetrated.
In WA state (where the incident took place) the law states that it is a crime, even if both consent. If one partner is 18 and the other is under 16, it is a crime. If one partner is under 18 and the other is over, it is a crime. Semantics or not, those are the WAC's and RCW's (Washington Administrative Code and Revised Code of Washington).
It is frustrating on both ends. I was a younger gal who had older boyfriends. I didn't get it then, now that I have a 16yo daughter... boy do I get it. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite or just a seasoned mom. I know which one my daughter chooses ;) .
This is a very touchy topic. I think we can all see that there are grey areas and times when we feel the law shouldn't apply. But it is there to protect those who need it and it is a travesty when an innocent falls through the cracks. Maybe Villi wasn't a victim in many eyes, but according to WA state he was and she was the perpatrator.
My son will be 17 this September. I would not say that he is more or less mature than other boys his age. He still argues two or three times a week about why he should have to clean his room, why he should should do his homework, etc. When he has problems with school whose fault is it? In his opinion, it is always the teacher. He is never at fault for not handing in an assignment.
How can a child with this mentality be capable of making a decision about having sex with his teacher. As stated earlier - boys (and girls) are all hormones at this age. The laws protect them from people who take advantage of that child's sexual intuitiveness and lack of mature judgement.
To say that a 13 year old boy is mature enough to make this type of decision is ridiculous.
Viboy - good points, with a lot of truth in them. But it is a bit of a sweeping generalisation.
Native American
06-07-2006, 5:25 AM
You said: "For those who can't live with the law as written, there are other countries that overlook this sort of thing...these people should immediately apply for a visa."
Laws are being re-written all the time. .Gee, nobody on this forum would have figured that one out on their own...we had no idea that many countries have a legislative branch that does this sort of work (sarcasm for those who don't get it). That one isn't going to be re-written for a while, and we can only thank God for that. There are plenty of countries that approve of this sort of thing. If you don't want the negative attention and can't wait for new laws making statuatory rape an accepted form of behavior, head that way.
If you don't think it's rape, come on down and try it yourself in full view of the public and see what happens. That's the way the laws are written no matter what your personal view. Nursie is 100% correct. 99.9% (just my opinion of the numbers) of the people who argue in favor of this sick event would be afraid of trying it because of a certain rape conviction...and 0.01% of these people are sick and tupid enough to try it and most certainly end up in jail on a rape conviction. The inmates generally don't think highly of these folks, either.
How can a child with this mentality be capable of making a decision about having sex with his teacher. As stated earlier - boys (and girls) are all hormones at this age. The laws protect them from people who take advantage of that child's sexual intuitiveness and lack of mature judgement.
To say that a 13 year old boy is mature enough to make this type of decision is ridiculous.
My emphasis added. She took clear advantage of the situation. In case some are confused, the issue is crime and punishment. One happened, the other resulted, and the remanded convict is serving time.
v/r, N-A
Ms.Bubbles
06-07-2006, 8:57 AM
That one isn't going to be re-written for a while, and we can only thank God for that. There are plenty of countries that approve of this sort of thing. If you don't want the negative attention and can't wait for new laws making statuatory rape an accepted form of behavior, head that way.
I'm certainly not advocating legalizing statutory rape. But unlike you, I feel that when people reach adulthood, they have the right to make their own decisions whether I personally agree with them or not. If they're not doing anything illegal (which they aren't doing now) I must accept their choice. Sorry, but shipping people out of the country because you don't like their lifestyle reeks of intolerance to me. You can't seem to face the fact that both of these people are adults now (how mature they really are is another question). The NBC story concerns their life together now. Clinging only to the crime aspect of the story from 7 years ago entirely misses the point of the NBC show.
OrionGirl
06-07-2006, 9:21 AM
No one is saying the relationship NOW is illegal. The point is that the behavior THEN, which was being glossed over in the media, was illegal. The only reason this relationship is even news is because of how it started!
Ms.Bubbles
06-07-2006, 9:34 AM
I think everyone clings to the crime part because they can't accept or understand the "love" part of this story. Looking at the situation from where the couple stands now puts another spin on the story, which I believe people are deeply uncomfortable with.
OrionGirl
06-07-2006, 9:38 AM
No, not really. I know lots of people happily married with large age differences, and it's not a big deal, it's not news worthy. The ONLY thing that makes this newsworthy is the crime.
nursie
06-07-2006, 9:55 AM
As things are now it's a non-story, and IMO should have been allowed to sink into anonimity. Their poor children are going to have to live with the aftereffects of all this.
There are many other couples out there with large age differences. At this point..big deal. I'm sure they got a chunk of change for the interview. If they want to hang all their dirty laundry out there now for the world to see..fine.
Is it love? Who knows? Not us. Is it continued manipulation...someone wanting to "show people" it all meant something, or what..who knows..who cares. I'm betting it doesn't last. The lack of morality that went into the creation of this relationship doesn't lend itself to stability. I don't recall seeing it mentioned that this woman had a husband and children when this started. The 13 yr old boy didn't seem to care about them...nor did the wife/mother.
Ms.Bubbles
06-07-2006, 10:19 AM
No, not really. I know lots of people happily married with large age differences, and it's not a big deal, it's not news worthy. The ONLY thing that makes this newsworthy is the crime.
I don't mean it's just the age difference that bothers people. It seems that many people either can't accept or choose to overlook the fact that the "victim" was not some innocent child who was preyed upon, but rather a sexually confident and experienced young man who was determined to seduce his teacher. Not many people want to think of children (or their own sons) in that way.
nursie
06-07-2006, 11:58 AM
Well...I can rememeber hearing >20 yrs ago of a guy aquitted of child molestation because the judge bought the story that the 5 yr old girl behaved in a seductive and lavicious manner towards him.
Ms.Bubbles
06-07-2006, 12:20 PM
Here we are comparing 5-year-olds to 13-year-olds again. Come on nursie, do you really believe you were the same person at 5 than you were at 13? This is the thinking that I'm referring to--refusal to accept that some young people are very sexually mature for their age (not necessarily mature in other ways). Not only are they not traumatized by sexual experiences, they actively seek them out and can handle them. Not legal, but true nonetheless.
nursie
06-07-2006, 1:37 PM
I've worked in our local health depts STD clinic. I well know that 13 yr olds can be sexually experienced. They can and do seek out sexual experiences. You see girls that age pregnant. Do I believe that he could have set out to seduce the teacher? Absolutely.
Do I believe a 13 yr old is emotionally capable of a mature adult relationship? No. Do I think a 13 yr old is capable of fully understanding the ramifications of his actions? No. At age 21 can he now? I don't know. Doesn't really matter to me.
What I see is at the time this all started SHE was the adult..she was the person in authority and she should have put a stop to it.
Ms.Bubbles
06-07-2006, 2:04 PM
I agree, she should have put a stop to it.
DeputyChiefJR
06-07-2006, 2:30 PM
Here we are comparing 5-year-olds to 13-year-olds again. Come on nursie, do you really believe you were the same person at 5 than you were at 13? This is the thinking that I'm referring to--refusal to accept that some young people are very sexually mature for their age (not necessarily mature in other ways). Not only are they not traumatized by sexual experiences, they actively seek them out and can handle them. Not legal, but true nonetheless.
were you the same at 18 as you were at 13? Unlikely...
Cheech
06-07-2006, 3:19 PM
in my opinion, it was wrong in many different levels. Obviously cause of the ones that everyone's mentioned, but no one mentioned her ex husband, and the kids she had with her ex.
I have strong family values. the way I see it is, (and don't get me wrong, there are many exeptions), but, if you marry someone, and you are willing to have not 1, not 2, but 3 children with that person, you should have respect for your kids, and fix whatever's wrong with your marriage.
imagine how her son must have felt knowing that some kid, 1 year older than him, had sex with his mom? What must have been going through his mind when he found out that info?
Regardless of how you feel about that other person, she had priorities. At the time, those priorities should have been, respecting the fact that the kid was still in gradeschool, and regardless of whether or not he said he loved her, to wait until he's old enough to understand what he's getting himself into.. And the fact that she has a family of her own to love and respect.. It's hard enough on young children to have to go through seeing their parents split up, but having them split up for such a reason is just wrong.
DaisyTattoo
06-07-2006, 3:21 PM
in my opinion, it was wrong in many different levels. but no one mentioned her ex husband, and the kids she had with her ex.
I mentioned them in my first post ;)
I dont feel like MKL's lover is a victim, but her husband and children from her previous marriage, they are victims.
Cheech
06-07-2006, 3:23 PM
I mentioned them in my first post ;)
Oh ok, my bad. . . . Well, in that case, I agree with you!!! ;)
Native American
06-07-2006, 5:42 PM
Sorry, but shipping people out of the country because you don't like their lifestyle reeks of intolerance to me. You can't seem to face the fact that both of these people are adults now .I said nothing about shipping people out. Read the post. It said get a visa or just go, their choice.
Did not mention anything about the present. What they are doing now, I couldn't care less for. I do care that there is a standard (come to think of it, it's called a law), she broke it badly (is there any good way?), and that we've got the media glorifying it, using the present day to justify the crime in the past. Yes, it was in the past, and she was correctly convicted in the past.
v/r, N-A
125gJoe
06-11-2006, 4:44 PM
Technically the situation could be seen as statutory rape. But these people are adults now, and by their own admission "in love". That's good enough for me.Did I just read that?
A national TV show glorifies child molestation, and I hear mentions of "consent"?
A serious law, and human decency was violated.
Where do some want to draw the line on this issue? 10 years old? 12?
The media went off and over the deep end on this one!
__________
TheMightyQueenPixie
06-12-2006, 3:23 AM
Rosita nailed it... MKL is a selfish, deeply disturbed woman...She has stolen that kids life and ruined her first familys...
Bubbles, you cant tell me that your view of "love" is the same now as it was at 13... He was a lonely kid and she should of thrown the brakes on any "love" that she/he perceived existed...
"Morally bankrupt" is the perfect label for her- Thanks Rosita!
DaisyTattoo
06-12-2006, 9:24 AM
Although I feel what MLK did was morally disgusting and wrong, I thought I would throw this at ya. Let's say that MLK turned his advances down when he tried to hit on her. And lets say, for the sake of argument that he was very upset by this. Now, lets say that he decided to break into her house and rape her. And maybe he decided to kill her as well. Would he then become an adult? Would we decide to call him one in order to punish him like one? Probably. So when is it okay to bend the rules? Why is it okay to call a minor an adult because they have committed a serious crime? This has been done hundreds of times. We dont even stick to our own rules! Once again I want to say that I do feel what MKL did was a crime and that Villie or whatever his name is most likely wouldnt have done what I have suggested, but if he had, how quickly would we have called him an adult?
TheMightyQueenPixie
06-12-2006, 5:38 PM
Jodi- You have gone out on the "worlds biggest limb"...Are you saying her crime was justified so that another would/could/shouldnt/wouldnt whatever commit one? Your point is so severely off topic that there is little or no point in addressing it...
All I know is that if any adult woman tried to seduce my CHILD I would go completely snakey...
DaisyTattoo
06-12-2006, 5:45 PM
Oh I agree completely that if someone tried to seduce my son she had better hope the cops get her before I do. I am just saying that we shouldnt be able to call one "minor" a minor for doing adult things, but another "minor" an adult for doing something that is considered an "adult" crime.