Reports of sex in classroom investigated

Dallas Star-Telegram ^ | 10-31-2003 | Mary McKee

[iconoclast]

I'd start by locking up her MOTHER!

And her father too, if you can find him.

[TheCrusader]

"cause the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor;"

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.

[TheCrusader]

"Any child under the age of 14 CANNOT give consent, even if they're a willing participant; this law pertains to boys and girls."

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.