Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A question of sex acts among the very young
Waterbury Republican-American ^ | December 16, 2006 | Taryn Plumb

Posted on 12/16/2006 7:20:34 AM PST by Graybeard58

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last
To: Myrddin

"It's slippery slope you're advocating."

The history is the opposite of your opinion.

A "slippery slope" would imply a change leading to another change, etc., etc. And, as I noted to another poster on this thread; if it was truly "unconstitutional" you would think you would find less "blue laws" the closer you got in time to the first generation after the founding (they ought to know, they voted on the Constitution and its amendments).

But, in fact, "blue laws" and similar regulations regarding "business hours" were quite common in the history of the nation, not only common but prevalent and more prevalent the closer you get to that first generation. So, you know the Constitution that they wrote better than they did??

If there has been a "slippery" slope it would be the gradual abandonment of "blue laws" and the like, in favor of the retail industries and their consumer society. Nineteen states still maintain laws regulating business hours on Sundays, and there is movement in Texas to bring some of them back (it did not end its Sunday sales restrictions until 1985).

Many states, in addition to the 19 with general "blue laws" still keep liquor stores closed on Sunday. In Massachusettes stores have to be closed on Thanksgiving and Christmas and in Minnessota you are not only prevented from buying liquor on Sunday, you can't buy a car either (nor in NJ). While many of the laws began with religious motives in the colonies, others continued as instruments of labor regulation - with intentions of favoring the workers.


61 posted on 12/17/2006 6:23:41 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The repressive culture of the 1950s that socons yearn for included censoring books, Sunday blue laws, not allowing married couples to be portrayed as sleeping in the same bed, and forced the word 'pregnant' off of television. We won't be revisiting those social norms anytime soon, I hope.

At least when you turned on your TV you were more likely to see "Leave it to Beaver" than the beaver.

I had not seen the comment made so I will. For many kids, four years old is just a couple of years past looking at a bosom as lunch. It is a warm and safe place to feel sheltered from the world, to feel safe and loved--especially for a little boy.

It is not the hysteria of those who see depravity around every corner. One seldom has to look that far.

It is the projection of depravity onto those who probably do not have a clue what the adults are talking about that is the measure of the depravity in our society.

It is the adults seeing 'sex' in everything, as they have been programmed to do by everything from TV to Psych 101.

Church attendance is way down, but this nonsense has gone off the charts in recent years, not because of churchgoers, who have always been able to identify depravity and tell the difference between it and the affection of a child.

It is this specific issue, one of an affectionate child hugging those whom they like being written up for sexual harrassment/contact, which has led me to forego retirement to send my grandchildren to parochial schools, where a little child can still hug a teacher without some nitwit crying rape.

62 posted on 12/17/2006 6:27:08 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alouette

Rent it; the scene is there; I may have paraphrased the description of it without 100% accuracy, but it is there.

And, why would any mother of a five your old girl want Disney selling that girl the notion to ask: "mommmy, can you buy me a thong" like the Princess in Shrek???" Its makes me shrek.


63 posted on 12/17/2006 6:29:04 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Kids that young shouldn't be taken to R rated movies, nor allowed to see them on TV.

A whole lot of parents see nothing wrong with a kid -- even a very young one -- having a TV in his or her room hooked up to cable, and later on, a computer hooked up to the Internet.

And even if there's filtering/blocking going on, it's never foolproof. Some of the stuff on "kid's channels" intended for young teenagers is amazingly sleazy.

64 posted on 12/17/2006 6:31:43 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

But can we give him the death penalty if he rubbed his head one time too many ?

This and the courts are getting out of hand. A 4 year old is a 4 year old and knows nothing about Sex or Harassment.

Forgive me as I am a Texan in a state that would pursue something as stupid as this.


65 posted on 12/17/2006 6:39:03 PM PST by Dov in Houston (Hmmmm....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson