Skip to comments.
Six years of hard labour. The crime? Oral Sex.
Deutsche presse - cut/paste - no url
| 10/25/01
Posted on 10/25/2001 8:34:14 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker
Lusaka (dpa) - A German tourist has been sentenced by a Zambian magistrates court to six years imprisonment with hard labour for having sex ``against the order of nature'' with a 22-year old Zambian woman, news reports said Thursday.
Wolfgang Seifarth pleaded guilty to having oral sex with Pumulo Mbangweta of Mazabuka, a small commercial farming town in southern Zambia, the independent Post newspaper reported.
Seifarth told the magistrate that as a foreigner he did not understand Zambian law, adding that such sex was legal in Germany. The magistrate said ignorance was no excuse to break the law.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121 next last
To: NativeNewYorker
So how do we get clinton to Zambia?
2
posted on
10/25/2001 8:41:12 AM PDT
by
Mike K
To: NativeNewYorker
What's the HIV infection rate there, something like 20 percent? There goes the argument that draconian sex laws prevent the spread of AIDS.
3
posted on
10/25/2001 8:41:17 AM PDT
by
Cu Roi
To: NativeNewYorker
So much for my Zambian vacation plans...
To: NativeNewYorker
As an African-American college friend once explained to me, "brothers don't eat p***y."
5
posted on
10/25/2001 8:53:44 AM PDT
by
IowaHawk
To: NativeNewYorker
How does a couple get caught doing this such that criminal charges can be lodged?
To: Britton J Wingfield
>So much for my Zambian vacation plans...Now, I don't want to get this thread pulled, but I'm going to try and say this...
Now, American girls are generally pretty clean. But _many_ guys have stories to tell about, umm, visiting little Madame Curie and regretting it. Would you really want to, ummm, drop in on a Zambian girl?!
Mark W.
7
posted on
10/25/2001 8:54:59 AM PDT
by
MarkWar
To: NativeNewYorker
Serves Wolfgang right for vacationing in southern Zambia.
To: NativeNewYorker
". The magistrate said ignorance was no excuse to break the law. " In the USA I think a very good case could be made for "ignorance of the law" being a valid excuse.
The sheer volume of laws pouring out of every town, city, county, state, federal government makes it impossible for 99% of the people to know every law and therefore attempt to obey them especially since we still are not sure of the meaning of "is".
9
posted on
10/25/2001 8:56:00 AM PDT
by
Wurlitzer
To: MarkWar
Anyone going to Africa for any kind of sex has to be pretty stupid.
To: Cu Roi
"What's the HIV infection rate there, something like 20 percent? There goes the argument that draconian sex laws prevent the spread of AIDS" So what your saying is that AIDS (which is spread primarily by sexual contact) is not prevented or reduced by curtailing sexual contact.
I sure am happy we have heathens and sexual outlaws to point out these things to us. And to think I have been abstaining from elicit sex for no reason. I'm glad to hear that I can have all of the illicit sex I want and my chances of catching AIDS is no greater than those who are abstaining and keeping a clean lifestyle.
11
posted on
10/25/2001 9:00:43 AM PDT
by
Khepera
To: TroutStalker
When I donated blood recently, I was asked in elaborate detail if I had travelled to, or had sex with anyone from, Africa.
A yes answer meant my very blood was suspect.
It was, of course, no and no.
To: MarkWar
Well, it doesn't say who was pitching and who was catching, and I take my girlfriend on vacation with me in any case :)
To: NativeNewYorker
Wolfgang must have been an Aerosmith fan and was living out his fantasy from
Walk this way"You ain't seen nothin' when you down on the muffin..."Hey, he was just explaining the lyrics..!!
To: Khepera
So what your saying is that AIDS (which is spread primarily by sexual contact) is not prevented or reduced by curtailing sexual contact. No, what I am saying is exactly what I said: that AIDS is not prevented or reducted by passing laws against sexual contact. I distinctly remember a number of posts on this forum basically praising Moslem countries for passing sodomy laws and correlating these laws with their supposedly low HIV infection rate. Here you have an example to the contrary.
15
posted on
10/25/2001 9:09:29 AM PDT
by
Cu Roi
LOL
16
posted on
10/25/2001 9:12:23 AM PDT
by
weikel
To: Khepera
I take it English is not your first language, since what you're arguing has no connection to the original post.
17
posted on
10/25/2001 9:12:39 AM PDT
by
steve-b
To: Khepera
"What's the HIV infection rate there, something like 20 percent? There goes the argument that draconian sex laws prevent the spread of AIDS" So what your saying is that AIDS (which is spread primarily by sexual contact) is not prevented or reduced by curtailing sexual contact.
No..thats not what he said at all. He said DRACONIAN SEX LAWS don't appear to curtail the spread of AIDS. That is a much different thing from actually curtailing sexual contact.
Another case of why moral socialism is a crock. You can't depend on the Government to be your Nanny.
18
posted on
10/25/2001 9:13:04 AM PDT
by
WyldKard
To: Cu Roi
>...that AIDS is not prevented or reducted by passing laws against sexual contact..(1) In Africa, there are a lot of strange, cultural sexual practices that have no counter-parts in the West. Just passing laws against sex doesn't change the culture. There is lots of sex going on down there that doesn't go on in the West.
(2) There are still smart, informed people who say that AIDS isn't a disease caused by HIV, but rather a generalized syndrome brought on by an extremely suppressed immune system. Malnutrition is so rampant in Africa that AIDS down there _may_ have more to do with general living conditions rather than sex practices.
I'm not saying #2 is true -- I'm not an activist on any aspect of this issue. I'm just offering it as part of the discussion. (I'm saying please don't flame me about AIDS...)
Mark W.
19
posted on
10/25/2001 9:17:29 AM PDT
by
MarkWar
To: NativeNewYorker
Hold on! I'm confused!
Since when does 'oral sex' actually means 'having sex'?
I thought Clinton had clear up this issue?...@$%&#*
20
posted on
10/25/2001 9:18:25 AM PDT
by
Curly007
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson