Skip to comments.Mom indicted for hiring stripper for son's birthday
Posted on 05/28/2005 12:23:27 PM PDT by SmithL
Anette Pharris, 34, hired a stripper, Cassandra Joyce Park, 29, to dance at son's 16th birthday.
Can't excerpt from the Tennessean, but here's a link:
If she is coming up on her 18th wedding anniversary and has a 16 year old son, she got married when she was 16 and started her family soon after.
Maybe she felt her son was getting a little long in the tooth.
I find it unclear just what DID happen. She "danced" (sounds like with her clothes on) for a couple hours before stripping:
"Cassandra Joyce Park, 29, who police say used the stage name "Sassy," danced for a few hours before "the guys" took up a collection and paid her $150 more to fully disrobe, Landon's mother said."
She went into another room for the "adult" show although at least one minor (the photographer) went into the room.
It is what went on in that room that is the basis for the charge. Yet he could go to nudist summer camp without his parents and not face a "minimum age".
No he is not permitted to buy Playboy, but the American Library Association will let him thumb through it all day long (and his little brother) without any chages against the librarians. The ALA's position is that there is no such thing as age appropriate material and that kids should have access to everything in a library (including "adults only" materials).
(Deep sigh) I just hate it when these people try to justify their immoriality by using that citation from the New Testament. I really wish they would keep on reading the passage, understand that after refusing to condemn the aldulteress, the four most important words of the entire story come from Jesus when He says: "Go, and sin no more."
Not all parents use good judgement, as for the stripper, did they indict her also?
Well if we rewrite the bible so that same sex sodomy is not a sin, then we "must have" same sex marriage so that same sex couples don't live in "sin" for being unmarried. < /loopy liberal logic >
After seeing her face, they naturally assumed that she'd already been punished.
Isn't that the truth!!!!
Some NEVER learn!
That bugs me, too. Although where you have a community that takes an active interest in what's going on in their local library, a library will make certain restrictions such as not letting children check out adult materials, or will put some items in a locked bookcase.
Maybe she's an alcoholic when she's off duty.
Ugh, that is nasty.
Some states have laws against what is called "corrupting the morals of a minor". It's likely that a bible belt state like TN has such a law, and that the mother violated that law. Whether a prosecutor will want to bring her case before a jury in today's "anything-goes" libertine culture is another matter.
She was never a single mother and is not shoving "what got her into trouble IN HIS FACE."
Re-check your numbers. She was not 24 when she got married. She was 16, and didn't have her son until she was 18.
Nothing in the article suggest any kind of immorality by any of the defendants. The only immorality here is on the part of the government officials, the grand jury, and possibly the drug store employees who lacked enough self control to mind their own business.
This thing called a "mother" is 34. She's about to celebrate her 18th wedding anniversary.
Let's see 34-18=26!
Her son is 16 years old.
She didn't marry till she was 26 and had her creepy son at 18 so that leaves a gap of a few years. Duh!
"Nothing in the article suggest any kind of immorality by any of the defendants. The only immorality here is on the part of the government officials, the grand jury, and possibly the drug store employees who lacked enough self control to mind their own business."
It's AGAINST THE LAW to have a stripper perform for a minor.
GEESH! You're as nutty as the "mother" is.
It's the same crap that got her in trouble and she is now misleading her son.
OOOPS my numbers were off!
You are right.
She was SIXTEEN when maried and then at 18 birthed this "son".
Yeah, she's setting the right example all right.
I'd bet the "mother" looks something like the stripper she hired for the brute.
This example shows why a father should hire a female stripper for his son't birthday party. Mom rolled the dice in picking "Sassy" and it came up snake eyes.
My comment directly referred to morality, not the law. People have a legal right, in many cases even a duty, to disobey immoral statutes. In this particular case, the parents are charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor and involving a minor in obscene acts." What delinquency? What obscene acts? It is the so called law in this case which is delinquent and obscene. If their is any justice here, the entire case as well as the statute, will get tossed out as being grossly unconstitutional.
Just because the mother may not have been gifted with the looks that other women have, is hardly grounds to discredit her for practicing a little envy avoidance by hiring the ugliest stripper she could find. The mother may have been born that way due to no fault of her own, and thereby should be commended for having the common sense to hire a stripper uglier than herself, if envy be a problem she's having trouble dealing with.
So what? So did I.
I agree with you.
yeah, lets not start judging people based on when they have kids.
You assume to know what I do not want to hear quite incorrectly. Your claim to being clairvoyant is quite typical of those who promote hocus pocus science and morality. A civil society will by law protect your right to promote yourself that way, as your claims are not falsifiable. What is amazing however, is that you are not appreciative of the higher morality which protects your right to practice hocus pocus. Instead you seek to impose your hocus pocus on others by using the law to make illegal that very morality which protects you. I find that absolutely incredible.
What I do know is that she does NOT think much of herself or other women.
I of course don't claim to know what she thinks as I don't claim to be a mind reader. I'm almost sure if we were to ask her, she would say she disagrees with you. But I doubt she could even come close to proving you wrong, as your claims are not falsifiable. Thus, the higher morality, protects your right to tell the world what she thinks even over her objections. Morality is not always fair, nor reasonable, and shouldn't be.
I doubt that she is a very happy camper. She reduced herself indirectly to s smutty lust object.
Now this is an opinion (not a claim to special powers and abilities) that we can disagree on. I didn't see any evidence of her not being a happy camper. I do however say that very rational people might see her as reducing herself indirectly into smutty lust object. But others might see her as celebrating and sharing with her son a wonderful beauty where others are only able to see ugliness. If were so inclined to purchase the service of a stripper for this purpose, I would have picked a better looking one.
Its amazing to me that here in the 21st century, there are people who are so all immoral as to believe that government should be able to invade into peoples private affairs and criminalize objectively harmless activities. What they fail to understand is that they have many allies who would join them in a campaign to advance their subjective truths who are forced to remain silent out of fear that such campaigns would seek the force of law. I know of many who very reluctantly vote democrat for just this reason.
Laws DO legislate morality, as they should.
Thank you for taking your apparent favorite saying out of meaningful context, thereby allowing it to stand on its own merit. I erred in finding no disagreement here when you first put it forth. Blinded by the untruthful context that I would not want to hear it, I jumped to the conclusion that I agreed that "laws do legislate morality."
Now seeing your little slogan free of surrounding content, I feel a bit embarrassed to say that I had agreed with you. Laws do not legislate morality. My temporary blindness here that led me to assuming the opposite, appears only surpassed by your complete lack of comprehension of what law can and can not do.
Laws do not legislate morality - such a capability is far beyond its obvious limited potential.
white trash alert
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.