60 days for raping a 12 year old?

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

But they're *not* doing that.

Pure, they publish the information of people who solicit sex from kids on the internet.

They're not playing Thought Police. Solicitation of that kind frequently results in net abduction. It's a luring practice. If you saw someone at a playground doing the same thing, would you consider it equally defensible?

I appreciate your efforts at cauldron stirring, Lady Macbeth, but I think you stretched a bit on that one.

Writing porn that could conceivably be read by children and trying to meet up with a screen name called "PrincessPonyGirl84" who you think is a ten year old girl while her mom isn't home...well, simply, one is a criminal act and one is not.

Now, if I was running around in kiddie chatrooms spamming my porn or emailing it to kids, or IMing them and forcing them to read it- then I'd say, yeah, I deserve to be on that list.

mlle

 

[Pure]

Hi mlle,

I'm not going to reprise some old altercation, but a couple points;

Pure, they publish the information of people who solicit sex from kids on the internet.

They're not playing Thought Police. Solicitation of that kind frequently results in net abduction.

More carefully, they publish the allegations of two people (the chatting-decoy, and the administrator; both anonymous, iirc) that someone was trying to make direct contact; there's a verification of a phone number, but not necessarily of the transcript.

I don't dispute that the allegation, if true, would indicate danger to an underage person (if there were one).

I believe the anti abortion sites with addresses and photos of abortion docs are doing essentially the same thing. Indeed, it is more clearly 'information', i.e., true.

There is, I think, a strong parallel in their rationale and yours: they say, 'murders are being committed' i.e., extreme danger.

This is a rationale for circumventing (through direct action) the usual-- and safer-- process of proceeding through the police and prosecutors. Do you have a problem with this?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm not sure what this dispute is about. Pure seems to think there is some self-styled thought police group (PJ) that is going to learn the real names, addresses and telephone numbers of the writers on this site and make them public knowledge so that fanatics can come and kill us or burn down our houses. I don't know that they could do this. The info exists but I can't see Laurel or Manu giving it up without a court order and I can't imagine any court issuing such an order since we are doing nothing illegal. They are pretty careful about that, for good reason.

There is no comparison between what I do and a member of NAMBLA or other child molester trying to persuade a child to come and have sex with him or her. Such persons are decoyed into exposing themselves and the law then comes down very hard on them, and justifiably so. The names and addresses of such persons are made public knowledge, but only after they have been charged with crimes.

As for the doctors being targeted, their names and addresses are public knowledge. Not very common knowledge but public.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

The chat logs are verified through the ISP, which has a record of them. The phone numbers are verified by call.

P.J. is sanctioned by the ACLU.

Furthermore, not just any pedo qualifies. From the PJ site:

>>Do you contact the men or do they contact you?<<
A. We have an official "rules of engagement" that we instruct to a contributor when they're brought aboard to help out with the site. One of those rules is that unless asked to in the chat, always let the male PM you. That way they can't cry that the "female" messaged them in IM first, they have to take the first step. Typically, and I stress typically one of our operatives will be chatting on the main screen, or announce their presence (A/S/L) in the rooms... sadly, and typically, they almost always receive interest. Often, just entering a chat room is enough to get 3-10 instant messages at once without having to say anything.

>>How much help do you think this site is in deterring REAL predators?<<
A. One of the main criteria we use in posting individuals is whether or not they were receptive to, or tried to arrange a meeting with the individual posing as an underage female. If a person is trolling in a regional chat room, takes the time to IM an underage female, and then arrange a meeting with that underage female... we consider that person pretty "real." If you don't, then I would wonder exactly what you would consider "real" when a person is giving out their actual number and making plans to meet offline.

>>Girls ages 12 and younger are married to older men in other countries, so what gives you the right to say its wrong just because America says it is?<<

A. We're not here to debate what ages should marry others. We don't really care what Zimbabwe does, nor do we care what Serbia does. This site is based in North America and in Western Culture. If a country chooses to be backwater and behind the times on modern psychology, that is their problem. We are not going to lobby for changes in laws in third and second world nations. We don't care. I don't know how much I can state that without it ringing through. If you think it's okay to have sex with a twelve year old because a backwards third world nation does it, that's your psychological dysfunction.

What does make us laugh though, is that many of the people who make this argument against us would not agree with child labor, a staple of any country that has such irresponsible underage sex laws. It is amusing to our staff to see such arguments, as we usually only hear them from the organized pedophiles online who reach and stretch for anything that they think justifies their incredibily sick thought processes.

I think the P.J. faq can probably answer almost any question you can dream up, Pure- in fact, I think I saw most of them.

Perverted Justice Faq


Nico

 

[Pure]

Hi Mlle.

I have read a lot of material from the site, and associated sites in the 'superpatriot' network,' which is a libertarian grouping. Keeping in mind that we are discussing one *method*--citizen direct action, using decoys, including posting information on the 'net-- of dealing with the crime of online solicitation of a minor, I'll raise a couple points of concern.

You said:
"P.J. is sanctioned by the ACLU."

Not exactly, as far as I can tell from the site, depending whether you mean the positive sense of 'sanctioned.'

More carefully (from the p j site):

Is this legal?
A. If it weren't, I'd already have been arrested. A few times over, even. I, as the organizer and individual who runs the site, have had contact with law enforcement individuals who were acting on official capacity. They liked the site. I wasn't arrested. Yay. The content of this site was run by individuals in the legal field and they all gave it a nice thumbs up. Hell, the Boston Globe even ran this site by a professor at the Harvard School of Law who gave us a thumbs up under criminal and civil law. In the same report, the ACLU of Massachussetts did the same thing. We know our boundaries, what we can, and cannot say, and what we can, and cannot do. We're cool like that.
[...]

A couple other excerpts:

Do you know if anyone has been prosecuted offline after having their info posted here?

A. Indeed, we have had various police organizations take notice of our files and work with them. Currently [Dec 03], I have no convictions to report. However I can confirm that we were used as part of a basis of a search warrant in Boston, and of this writing have quite a few police investigations ongoing. This was written on December 1st, 2003. Working with our files alone can be tricky when applying it to the laws from state to state, but so far we have definitely been "search warrant worthy" when the police have been interested in trying to obtain more information on the people we come across. Return to top

{{Update on results, 7/14/04, from elsewhere on the site}}

PeeJ Works With Police - It's a Fact- this section accurate as of 7/17/04

Since November 2003, at least 21 individuals have been arrested based upon our files. We currently have 16 on-going court cases where people profiled by our website have been arraigned on criminal charges (namely "online sexual solicitation of a minor") and face trial. The primary evidence in all of these cases is the evidence presented in our chat logs and our well-documented computer forensics. All of our 3 resolved court cases have resulted in convictions:

1. DonCosta Seawell (the_donjuan02) violated federal parole by soliciting a minor (who was in reality a PeeJ contributor). Our testimony and credible evidence was the sole basis behind the solicitation of a minor charge, and the following investigation successfully resulted in a conviction which ended his parole period - he returned to jail and served the remainder of his sentence thanks to PeeJ.

2. Raymond Dooley (atonomous2000) was convicted of use of computer/internet to communicate with another to attempt to commit criminal sexual conduct 3rd degree, a felony act, based solely on our credible testimony. Despite the controversial nature of this precedent, jurors only took 3 hours to deliberate before a guilty verdict was established. He was sentenced with 1 year of jail time and 5 years probation, and must register as a sex offender.

3. Paul Short (fleet_captain_jaime_wolfe) plead guilty in a plea bargain agreement to one of 7 charges of online solicitation of a minor child, all derived from the sole evidence of our chat log. He was served 2 years probation and is now listed as a sex offender.

Questions about our validity in a court of law were laid to rest when a court case in Michigan upheld our testimony as valid evidence towards the specific crime of online sexual solicitation of a minor (the atonomous2000 case). [...] }}

{resume excerpt from above}

We also have an open agreement with any police officers out there. If you want to utilize the anti-groomer machine we have put together, contact us and set up a information sharing agreement. If you do this, any person we run across in your jurisdiction will be turned over to you rather than posted or informed about the jig being up. Then if said law enforcement officer wants, they can take the name we've created along with the conversation log and arrange a meeting. We WILL and DO encourage the police to work with us. However we do not actively bother police organizations in order to drum up interest. We're looking for proactive, interested officers to associate with.

from Police Informantion page at the website:


Why we have not contacted you:

While some groups have claimed that we will not work with the police, this is not true, in fact, it's a lie at best. We will always work with the police to help out with investigations. Our policy on working with someone in the law enforcement field is simple: just contact us. We are only interested in working with you law enforcement officers who are interested and proactive in helping combat the quickly rising tide of online "grooming", so we do not randomly contact the police as a site rule. We want to be sure that you are a committed enough officer in this area, so we wait for you to contact us. The last thing we want to be known as is pests to the law enforcement community. Our policy of "you first contact" ensures that we will never be.
--------

Odd that. Finding evidence of a crime being committed, and making a point of NOT calling the police.

----
Added:
[from the p j site, excerpt]

Are the people we profile breaking any laws?

That depends entirely on what state they live in. Many state statutes are explicitely worded in such a way that even soliciting someone merely believed to be underage (like our PeeJ contributors are), is breaking the law. For a full list of online solicitation laws, go no further than Perverted-Justice.com's Related Information page. With this precident being expanded to many states, it's very plausible that merely being busted by a PeeJ agent may in fact be the act of committing a very real crime. Online sexual solicitation of minors is very illegal, regardless if it's a ruse or the real thing....

[...]
State laws covering Child Enticement w/ Computer - Return to top

So, are they breaking a law? Ask these thirty-one states that have specific computer child luring statutes on the books. There may be other laws which can cover the solicitation of a minor via the internet, however they are not specifically worded like the following thirty-one statutes.

 

[SensualMale]

In this case, I absolutely agree with it. It wasn't a man, there were 4 of them. You have no idea what these sub-humans did to this girl. I could only hope that if something like that happened to me, or to my daughter, that it would be taken care of the same way.

It wasn't a case of statutory rape...they beat her almost to death, raped her, raped her with household objects they found, and then left her for dead.

So, do I agree with what her family did after our justice system bailed out? You bet.

I'm also hoping they ripped off their pricks LIVE, before taking care of them. That's the least they ought to get.

 

[emap]

That P.J. site is a good idea, but I'm not sure I like the fact that people are being convicted for trying to meet and or screw one of the fake 12 years olds. In case none of you have noticed, it's easy enough to sound like a 12 year old, but acting like one is fairly impossible, which does come through in a conversation online on the phone or face to face. Those men that have been convicted on just their conversation with the fake shouldn't have been really, it suggests a possible problem, or they figured she was older than that and got off acting younger, I have met a few men and women who do, and seen a few more on Jerry Spinger, but they wore diapers. I'm talking certain men and women decide they have better sex as a 12 year old, or whatever they decide on being. Yes men who prey on little teenage or preteen girls who want to have sex should be shot, but convicting them as such for one conversaution with a person who is not actually is not a good idea. Instead of doing that, follow through on the meeting with an actual underage or a policeperson who can pass as and then convict. That way your not getting people for something they may or may not have been trying to do.

Now for a rapist, I am all in favor of a certain punishment my guy told me about. It seems that there are certain tribes of native americans who for a rape would tie the man down over a rock, I assume a hog tie, with his dick resting on the rock, the women of the tribe of the victim would all get a rock and then beat the man's dick with them. It varied apparently on whether they get one hit or several, depended on the tribe and who did the hitting, the victim took as many as she wanted, or a certain number, the rest got one, or a certain lesser number, usually ranged from 3-7 I think he said. Now before you start talking about how it's to extreme, try thinking about what it's like to be thrown down, your clothes ripped from you, a knife held to your throat and then forcibly get a hard object shoved into you with no lubrication, generally causing serious pain and tearing leaving you physically incapable of pleasure or pain free bathroom breaks for a rather long amount of time, generally a week. Add to that the mental anguish you are forced to live with for the rest of your life. Granted it gets better as time goes by, it never goes away. If you still think that is extreme, you need to seek serious mental help.

Not happened to me, I know a woman who has, she didn't have sex again for 12 years, she didn't get the desire for it for 8 years. Granted some can recover and leave a semi normal life again sooner, well have sex again sooner, she got semi normal again after about 3 years besides the sex part, alot will never really recover.

While in the case discussed here I think he probably got as bad as he should have, a 12 year old while they can say yes, NEVER should they be taken up on the offer unless the other person is pretty close to their age. I see nothing wring with an 18 year old doing a 16 year old, I also see nothing wrong with a 23 year old doing a 16 year old, a 12 year old and anything above say a 15 year old is grounds for the rock punishment to me, i remember how I was at that age, I flirted some, mostly it was silly giggling and blushing at certain boys, I did not understand fully sex and all that goes with it, I actually didn't fully understand all that can go with sex until I was like 24. At 12 I knew how it worked, that was about all I knew, yes I actually did kind of want to know what it was like, the boys i was interested in didn't, so i waited until I was older. I really don't care where a 12 year old grows up or how, she still does not understand sex in a way conducive to actually saying yes in all it's meanings. It doesn't matter how mature or smart she is, there is a difference between knowing sex and understanding sex, no 12 year old can understand it, they can know it, but there is a huge difference.

Had to make a small spelling correction

 

[Teenage Venus]

>>Girls ages 12 and younger are married to older men in other countries, so what gives you the right to say its wrong just because America says it is?<< A. We're not here to debate what ages should marry others. We don't really care what Zimbabwe does, nor do we care what Serbia does. This site is based in North America and in Western Culture. If a country chooses to be backwater and behind the times on modern psychology, that is their problem. We are not going to lobby for changes in laws in third and second world nations. We don't care. I don't know how much I can state that without it ringing through. If you think it's okay to have sex with a twelve year old because a backwards third world nation does it, that's your psychological dysfunction.

What does make us laugh though, is that many of the people who make this argument against us would not agree with child labor, a staple of any country that has such irresponsible underage sex laws. It is amusing to our staff to see such arguments, as we usually only hear them from the organized pedophiles online who reach and stretch for anything that they think justifies their incredibily sick thought processes.

Up to this point I was a supporter. However, I think you should re-read what you wrote - and maybe re-consider, before you all laugh at it.

To include Denmark for starters as a backwater country that by implication encourages child labor etc., takes all credibility for me from your over emotive statements.

Try sticking to honest facts, and not decrying and denigrating those that view things with perhaps more sense and less bias.

By putting what you did, in my opinion you do yourself and your cause an injustice.

What do you think!


This added, following CLOUDY pointing out my error, and PURE requesting edit:

"I see the problem with this is noted, BUT if you would edit [add to] the post, it would be clear.

The quote, after the question, beginning

A. We're not here to debate what ages should marry others. We don't really care what Zimbabwe does, nor do we care what Serbia does. This site is based in North America and in Western Culture. If a country chooses to be backwater and behind the times on modern psychology, that is their problem.

should be labeled, "From the FAQ, at the perverted-justice website" ('Xavier Van Erkx' and Co.) The quote was chosen by mlledelaplumebleu, incidentally, to back up a point she was making. (I later posted other excerpts, for my purposes.)

If you read the posts following this, it will become more clear.

Candida

(Pause whilst I tie my feet to my elbows.)

Polite request: If you MUST take advantage of me whilst thus restrained - be gentle

 

[Teenage Venus]

If a country chooses to be backwater and behind the times on modern psychology, that is their problem. We are not going to lobby for changes in laws in third and second world nations. We don't care. I don't know how much I can state that without it ringing through. If you think it's okay to have sex with a twelve year old because a backwards third world nation does it, that's your psychological dysfunction.

A big mistake some Americans make is to think they know best. An even bigger one is to denigrate other countries that have different views and opinions and laws.

The biggest mistake they make is to try and impose it on others.

In the case of difference in sex laws: To state a country is backward and dysfunctions psychologically because of it, is pathetic and biggoted.

A quick check showed at least SIXTY-FIVE countries that have an age of consent below that of the average US State.

If you take into account the differences in US States, then perhaps looking and seeking to correct these anomalies, before decrying and condemning others may be a good idea.

By the pronunciations on here, it would seem that maybe three quarters of the USA are guilty of being in a state of psychological dysfunction: All those that think SIXTEEN is mature enough.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I really don’t know anything about this case, but until you've been involved with the law and the press from the receiving end, you really can't appreciate how they distort and misrepresent and engage in any and all sorts of falsehood and nonsense in order to promote themselves, win cases, and sell papers.

Ever since my experience long ago, I am extremely suspicious of everything I read in the papers and see on TV. The more black and white it seems, the surer you can be that it actually exists in various barely-distinguishable shades of gray.

---dr.M.

There are too many jounalists in this world and not enough reporters.

 

[Big_Wang69]

I agree that there are too many journalists. Nice picture by the way petite. U are very beautiful.

 

[cloudy]

Teenage Venus _

I think you misread what you quoted. Pure was quoting directly from a Q&A page on the Perverted Justice web site (I think).

 

[Teenage Venus]

think you misread what you quoted. Pure was quoting directly from a Q&A page on the Perverted Justice web site (I think).

CLOUDY: You mean I did it again! Thank goodness I only have size 5's Just imagine the havoc if I wore a size 9's

If anyone feels they are owed an apology - you got one from me.

The points I made still stand for those guilty

Thanks Cloudy

 

[cloudy]

CLOUDY: You mean I did it again! Thank goodness I only have size 5's Just imagine the havoc if I wore a size 9's

If anyone feels they are owed an apology - you got one from me.

The points I made still stand for those guilty

Thanks Cloudy

notah...

 

[Boxlicker101]

What seems to me to be a strange quirk is that perople can legally get married before they can legally have sex. With parent's consent, persons as young as 16, maybe even younger, can get married but they can't have sex until they are 18, even with parental permission. If parents give written permission for their offspring rto have non-marital sex they will be arrested for child endangerment or some such thing. If they give written permission for the same offspring ro get married, it is perfectly acceptable.

So which one is the more major decision? To have sex or to get married?

 

[Teenage Venus]

So which one is the more major decision? To have sex or to get married?

Speaking from a purely selfish viewpoint SEX. (And I bet I'm not a lone teenager thinking that

 

[Boxlicker101]

I see my last post was not completely correct. Some states do allow parental consent for underage offspring.

Search
Teen Advice
AGE OF CONSENT CHART

Understanding the Age of Conset: Current as of August 2001





Heterosexual Homosexual F/F Homosexual M/M




Canada 14 14 18


USA by State:

Alabama
16 illegal illegal
Alaska 16 16 16
Arizona 18 illegal illegal
Arkansas 16 illegal illegal
California 18 18 18
Colorado 17 17 17
Connecticut 15 (pc) 16 (npc) no current law no current law
D.C. 16 no current law no current law
Delaware 16 (pc) 18 (npc) no current law no current law
Florida 18 illegal illegal
Georgia 16 (under challenge) 16 16
Hawaii 14 no current law no current law
Idaho 16 (pc) 18 (npc) illegal illegal
Illinois 17 17 17
Indiana 16 16 16
Iowa 14(pc) 18(npc) no current law no current law
Kansas 16 illegal illegal
Kentucky 16 no current law no current law
Louisiana 17 illegal (under appeal) illegal (under appeal)
Maine 16 16 16
Maryland 16 no current law no current law
Massachusetts 16 (pc) 18 (npc) illegal illegal
Michigan 16 illegal illegal
Minnesota 16 illegal illegal
Mississippi 16 illegal illegal
Missouri 17 illegal illegal
Montana 16 (pc) 18 (npc) 18 18
Nebraska 17 no current law no current law
Nevada 16 18 18
New Hampshire 16 18 18
New Jersey 16 16 16
New Mexico 17 13 (under appeal) 13 (under appeal)
New York 17 17 17
North Carolina 16 illegal illegal
North Dakota 18 18 18
Ohio 16 no current law no current law
Oklahoma 16 illegal illegal
Oregon 18 18 18
Pennsylvania 16 16 16
Rhode Island 16 no current law no current law
South Carolina 14 (pc) 16 (npc) illegal illegal
South Dakota 16 no current law no current law
Tennessee 18 no current law no current law
Texas 17 illegal illegal
Utah 16 (pc) 18 (npc) illegal illegal
Vermont 16 no current law no current law
Virginia 18 illegal illegal
Washington 16 16 16
West Virginia 16 no current law no current law
Wisconsin 18 18 18
Wyoming 16 (pc) 18 (npc) no current law no current law

Members - US Military 16 "don't ask, don't tell" "don't ask, don't tell"
USA Citizen Outside USA 18 no current law no current law

It seems strange that, in Canada, the age of consent is younger for lesbians than for gay male.

 

[Boxlicker101]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

This URL is to various marriage laws, including minimum ages. In some states, 12, with parental consent, is legal. In some, the age for females is lower than for males.

 

[Teenage Venus]

Just my own view: I think the the age when you can legally drink alcohol, have sex, or vote should be the same. Any comments on that?

 

[Teenage Venus]

EXTRACT FROM "UNDERAGE SEX INFORMATION FOR PARENTS" page of a family website.

Some comments and statistics

_______ A recent poll on here - whilst in no way scientific - corresponds fairly closely to many similar polls carried out in schools, and across the Web. Some of the findings should cause concern to some parents. What they indicate is that parents should be more vigilant as to the possible behavior, and problems of their own children._

Indications are, that - leaving aside consensual underage sexual activity - abuse and bullying are, two areas parents need to be watchful of. Parents in general, need to be more open and available to discussing such problems with their children._

Most kids I chat with have NOT got confidence in talking to parents about personal things. Parents should build up a relationship with their children, whereby the child feels free to chat, ask questions, or reveal things, without a parent being either judgmental, or dismissive, or evasive. It is to both your advantages, if you can discus things freely, without fear of reprisal, embarrassment, or anger.


Scientific research by government and education authorities in the West, indicate that:

_62% of females currently have sexual intercourse before they are sixteen years of age. In other words: There is a high possibility your own teenage child is indulging in unlawful sex.

I would suggest that, more important than trying to STOP those already involved (something you will be unlikely to achieve), it is better to educate the younger ones into thinking hard, before entering into such relationships, and acting in a responsible manner towards those already participating. You can help the latter by offering un-judgmental support.

In the USA, as high as 90% (ninety-percent) of young teenagers have unprotected sex. (Use no form of contraceptive.) The chances are that nine out of ten of them will become pregnant, if they persist in this for a year or more.

Furthermore: Statistics show that over a quarter of Americans have some form of STD (sexually transmitted disease.) And that those having sex without using a condom are 90% (ninety-percent) more likely to catch one or more STDs.

Polls on here and elsewhere on the web, indicated the following:

OF ALL CHILDREN UNDER SIXTEEN:
_23% stated they had not been victims of bullying,
57% claimed to suffer bullying at times, and a disturbing
17% claimed to be the subject of regular bullying.
OF ALL PERSONS ENTERING:
28% claimed they had never been sexually assaulted in any way.
30% claimed to been the victim of some form of sexual assault, whilst UNDER 11 years old.
28% claimed to been the victim of some form of sexual assault, whilst 11 and 13 years old.
11% claimed to been the victim of some form of sexual assault, whilst 14 or 15 years old.
03% claimed to been the victim of some form of sexual assault, whilst over 16 years old.
THOSE ALLEGED RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSAULTS:
56% claimed it was by parent or close relative.
35% claimed it was someone they knew, but not related.
09% claimed it was by a stranger.
Only 13% of alleged victims claimed to have reported the offences. Main reasons for not reporting were given as: It was a parent; I was scared to; Nobody would have believed me; They didn't hurt, and I liked it.
OF GIRLS 16 OR UNDER:
39% claimed to virgins.
14% claimed to have occasional sex.
47% claimed to have regular sex.
OF THOSE ADMITTING TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS:
64% claimed to have first had sex whilst 14 years-old or younger.
36% claimed they were over 15 years old first time.
PERHAPS THE MOST STARTLING CLAIM:
12% stated they had sex with one boy only.
11% stated they'd had sex with two boys only.
28% stated they'd had sex with three to four boys.
44% stated they'd had sex with five or more boys.
74% stated they never used any contraceptive.
10% stated they sometimes used one.
16% stated they always used protection.
Participants could not see how others had voted before them, and the votes were anonymous.
However these are viewed, and, allowing for a large margin of inaccuracy, they still present food for thought - and maybe concern to parents of children under sixteen.
...................................................................

Maybe "Education is more important than legislation."

 

[Pure]

Teenage Venus said,

Up to this point I was a supporter. However, I think you should re-read what you wrote - and maybe re-consider, before you all laugh at it.

I see the problem with this is noted, BUT if you would edit [add to] the post, it would be clear.

The quote, after the question, beginning

A. We're not here to debate what ages should marry others. We don't really care what Zimbabwe does, nor do we care what Serbia does. This site is based in North America and in Western Culture. If a country chooses to be backwater and behind the times on modern psychology, that is their problem.

should be labeled, "From the FAQ, at the perverted-justice website" ('Xavier Van Erkx' and Co.) {{Correction "Von Erck"}

http://www.perverted-justice.com/?pg=faq

The quote was chosen by mlledelaplumebleu, incidentally, to back up a point she was making. (I later posted other excerpts, for my purposes.)

I, pure, know what the fellow was trying to say, in that we don't unthinkingly adopt the practices of a faraway place, if that place mistreats women and female kids.

But as stated above in this thread, not just Zimbabwe, but Holland has a 12 yr age of consent, so the fellow's point is a bit shakey.

Teenage Venus said,
A big mistake some Americans make is to think they know best. An even bigger one is to denigrate other countries that have different views and opinions and laws.

This is a very good point, TV. Not only is US not the beacon of enlightenment, but Western Europe generally is NOT always to be assumed superior, in general, on cultural issues, as compared to Africa or Asia.

{para below, slightly revised}
Teenage, there is a rather nice illustration of this: Xavier [=Savior?] choose to 'bust' a 20 yrs old named Glenn, for talking to a decoy who pretended to be 15, and trying to set up a meeting. This picture of the 'wannabe pervert' (the site's preferred label) is also published. (And p j published his protest/excuse.)

See the transcript at

http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archive=glenn_sample2001

{para below slightly revised}
This shows that, while some of those busted are truly the 'dirty old pedophiles,' whose 'outing' I may not be bothered with; others may be young, barely adults, whose crime (though perhaps technically there), is certainly largely in the eye of the conservative US beholder and their conservative state law.

Thanks for your posting Teenage, and please make the corrections.

J.
"pure"
.

 

[Teenage Venus]

Thanks for your posting Teenage, and please make the corrections.

And a big thank you to you for clarifying

I've tried to correct that posting, Pure. Hopefully, anyone reading it will follow the thread to its conclusion, and take note of why I found it only right to correct it.

A personal comment:

I appreciate that I was corrected.
I appreciate it more because it was done without someone blowing their top. Nice to swap views with you people.

Thanks,
Candida

 

[Boxlicker101]

On the example featured there, I see nobody doing anything wrong. He is asking her for a date, which is perfectly normal although he is a little older than she is. As for sex, she seems to be coming on to him more than he is to her. He says he is looking for a long term relationship which may or may not be true. In this case, I think they have gone over the line.

Just to put things in proper context, he is in PA, and, under certain circumstances, it would actually be legal for them to get married there. See the URL I posted above.

 

[Liar]

Originally posted by Boxlicker101
Search
Teen Advice
AGE OF CONSENT CHART

Heterosexual Homosexual F/F Homosexual M/M

Kansas 16 illegal illegal
Michigan 16 illegal illegal
Minnesota 16 illegal illegal
Mississippi 16 illegal illegal
Missouri 17 illegal illegal
...and so on....

Ok, I can understand that those laws comes from the oldie "gay sex is bad" dogma.

New Mexico 17 13 (under appeal) 13 (under appeal)

But what was ever the reasoning behind this?

USA Citizen Outside USA 18 no current law no current law

And isn't US citizens subject to the law in the country they are in?

#L

 

[Boxlicker101]

Teenage Venus quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So which one is the more major decision? To have sex or to get married?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking from a purely selfish viewpoint SEX. (And I bet I'm not a lone teenager thinking that)


I find that rather surprising. To a teenager, and probably any male, the decision to have sex is not a major one at all, any more than the decision to eat ice cream or see a movie or watch a ball game. Sex is a normal biological urge, usually requiring no long-term commitments. (I said USUALLY, not always) Marriage is a circumstance imposed by society and is, by its nature, a long-term commitment.


On another subject entirely, TV, after seeing your sig line, you would probably like to meet my protag, George Boxlicker. All the women in the stories involving him speak highly of his tongue.