Child Molester Glorified by Dateline NBC...

Ms.Bubbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!"
 
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
 
Last edited:
S.A. said:
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!
Click to expand...


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.
 
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:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
nursie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
when i first read the thread title i thought what sick person would molest a cichlid?
 
Ms.Bubbles said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
:laugh: :joke: :laugh: :joke: :laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom