Posted on 11/01/2003 3:37:20 AM PST by NCjim
And her father too, if you can find him.
Yeah, the 'actor' got his zipper pulled down by the lecherous 'child', and then the 'child' enthusiastically put her mouth on his sexual organ. But somehow the "law" claims the boy was the "cause of penetration". And this isn't about feminism? Give me a break, please.
There can be no doubt in eyes of logic, honesty and common sense that the girl was the "cause" of the sexual contact. This law deals with 'consent', but she sodomized her classmate and apparently did not ask his consent to do this. If anything, in the eyes of reason, I would say that at the adolescent age of 14, the boy was under the age of legal consent to give permission to her to perform oral sex on him. He was the one that got sexually exploited and sodomized. Hence, springing the "age and consent" law on this boy smacks of the typical anti-male sentiment in our morally rotting nation. And the fact that this "law" removes the discernment and assessment of a Judge by making him "automatically" guilty is the final nail on the coffin of fairness in law.
Frankly, I don't give sh-t anymore about this case. We live in an age of twisted, inverted logic and "law", and the brainless boobs that have been produced in this generation are just too damned shallow and confused to figure it all out. The boy will be charged with a crime and he will never even know that he was the victim. This is exactly the way they want it.
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.