now THIS is a "skank"!

[Morally0Confused]

look i hate the FCC its been shown we have more problems than other countries with alot less censorship. the US has one of the highest sex crime rates and yet we have some of the harshest censorship on sexual inuendo on tv and radio. remember the tv show that had the most extream commercials where did they come from? around the world! wonder why? cause nudity and sex is part of life.

also try and look up some research done where they are now starting to believe our high sex crime rate is due to the fact on the ammount of censorship in this country. around the world a nakied person is no big deal nude beaches nudity on tv during daylight hours. but here a girl wears a low cut shirt and shows a little to much skin and everyone is staring. most sexual predators came from over religious over censored backgrounds hmmmm do a look up on some infamous serials killers victims were prostitutes and some of them liked necrophillia (sp). but they had a very cesensored childhood.

[chairman_mao]

Doesn't the media (for the most part) reflect society? How often does a television show or movie come out that has no resemblenecewhat so ever to society? Almost never (unless it is fantasy or sci-fi). Isn't there also the possibility that these things have been happening for years and they are only more prominent now because the media is so far reaching?

There is no one simple cause or answer to the terrible and destructive societal problems that were are disscussing here. That said there has been a MAJOR change it the norms and mores of society in the past 30 years. This can be attributed (as said before) to many many things.

As for the "protection" of children, IMO that falls for the most part into the perview of the parents. I know people who's parents had them under lock and key for their entire childhood. You know what the minute they "escaped" (went to college) they fell apart. Drugs booze orgies anything that gave them instant gratification was their goal. My parents on the other hand let us watch R rated movies and cable television shows, but they watched them with us and educated us about them. They were also savy enough to put the smack down when need be. They were INVOLVED in my childhood. IMO that is the key. If parents took some interest in what their children did and gave them some direction much of this may be avoided. That's just my opinion

[Rooster]

"why should the girl's past be newsworthy?"

Why should one's dirty laundry be aired, and not another's? If you are going to throw stones, don't be living in a glass house. Kobe Bryant's accuser will learn exactly this.

[phantomhitman]

Originally posted by joey d


no, im sure eminem and howard stern could care less the damage it causes.. why, because it is your job as a parent to censor that for them. not theirs. they do not go out and entertain for your 12 year old son, they are out to entertain the more mature audiences. if they happen to reach a younger demographic.. not their fault. its not their job to censor themselves from your children.

bingo! it is such bs for parents to blame the media for anything. take care of your kids, you control them.

[land hurricane]

What BENEFIT did either of these things ever provide to society?

entertainment

[Morally0Confused]

come on if your kid doesnt know whats real and whats not
that is your fault you failed your kid as a parent

[chairman_mao]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WERD

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Rooster
Why should one's dirty laundry be aired, and not another's? If you are going to throw stones, don't be living in a glass house. Kobe Bryant's accuser will learn exactly this.

Uhmmm No. Thankfully the Canadian law system at least recognises this.

One person's dirty laundry, the molester's, is illegal activity. The other person's dirty laundry is their own business and unrelated to the accusation.

Or, are you a throwback that believes the defense of "She was drunk so it was ok.", or "She was dressed like she wanted it, so it was ok.", or even "She let me get that far, so she had no right to stop me from going further."?

After a certain number of partners is a woman automatically fair game for anyone? Or does the woman retain the right to make the decision?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


Uhmmm No. Thankfully the Canadian law system at least recognises this.

One person's dirty laundry, the molester's, is illegal activity. The other person's dirty laundry is their own business and unrelated to the accusation.

Or, are you a throwback that believes the defense of "She was drunk so it was ok.", or "She was dressed like she wanted it, so it was ok.", or even "She let me get that far, so she had no right to stop me from going further."?

After a certain number of partners is a woman automatically fair game for anyone? Or does the woman retain the right to make the decision?

Rape shield laws are patently unfair and unconstitutional. The Constitution gives an accused the right to face their accuser. Don't get me wrong, rape is a heinous and evil crime. However some cases turn into a he said/she said argument. If you impeach the accused with their past, the defense must have that same ability.

The above cited defenses are no defense at all. Those are all clearly cases of justification of the rape in the mind of the defendant. They are wrong and should be disallowed.

In the Kobe case, the fact that semen that was not Kobe's was found in the "victims" underwear, should raise some reasonable doubt about who inflicted the injuries she sustained to her genetalia. Also, if she was having sex with another man hours later would establish a pattern inconsistant with a rape. This kind of information is exculpatory and must be allowed.

However, find him guilty after his attorney presents the best defense possible, then I say fry him!!

The number of partners should not matter ever. The behavior however should. If her injuries could have been caused by "volume of sex" rather then forcible sex, that must be admitted. By volume I mean if having sex with multiple partners over a very short period could cause the same injuries noted and the woman exhibited that type of behavior, the defense must be allowed to present it.

Their is a fine line between protecting the victim and not allowing a defendant due process. The Colorado Supreme Court recognized this and allowed Kobe's team to move forward, rather then support an unconstitutional law.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

the fact that she has had 40 sex partners brings up the question of wether or not she actually was molested, or if shes just getting back at him. im not saying that that IS how it went, im just saying thats what the prosecution will use against her, and it will most likely work (as in the charges will be dropped).

in NO way am i saying child molestation is right! dont take my posts the wrong way, im trying to stay nuetral on this one.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by CaptaiN_JacK
im not saying that that IS how it went, im just saying thats what the prosecution will use against her, and it will most likely work (as in the charges will be dropped).

First I think that you mean defense not prosecution.

Doesn't really matter whether it was molestation or not though. Just based on her age, virtually every juristiction in North America could put the guy away whether it was consensual or not.

[Rooster]

"The other person's dirty laundry is their own business and unrelated to the accusation."

In this case yes, however the child's name was not released so the outcome of justice is not in question. The report of how many sex partners she's had should give pause. In other cases, promiscuity is certainly fair game for questioning. One's behavior should never be an excuse for committing a crime, however in cases where no crime has been proven, everything should be examined by a jury. If that makes the accuser sad or uncomfortable, thats too bad. Giving people an unfair trial to protect so called victim's rights is unconstitutional. No one is victim until the case is decided.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


First I think that you mean defense not prosecution.

Doesn't really matter whether it was molestation or not though. Just based on her age, virtually every juristiction in North America could put the guy away whether it was consensual or not.

Yes, we call it statuatory rape!! A minor can not consent to sex with and adult more then 4 years their senior!

[WickeDKlowN]

On the news here one time, they did a story on "casual sex" and they had a 15 year old girl that had had sex with around 150 people(or was it 150 times? one of them). Then she got pissed cause she caught herpes or aids or something.

What I don't get is would she even feel it after that many times? I mean, after 150 times it'd get pretty uh, stretched out(or just go numb) wouldn't it?

[MantisMag]

if you did it all at once, sure.