HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » This message was self-del...

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:21 AM

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (Atman) on Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:10 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

377 replies, 37787 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 377 replies Author Time Post
Reply This message was self-deleted by its author (Original post)
Atman Feb 2013 OP
Xipe Totec Feb 2013 #1
closeupready Feb 2013 #2
treestar Feb 2013 #3
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #57
kenny blankenship Feb 2013 #126
Dpm12 Feb 2013 #139
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #145
Major Nikon Feb 2013 #206
msanthrope Feb 2013 #76
Marr Feb 2013 #197
Major Nikon Feb 2013 #216
treestar Feb 2013 #312
seabeyond Feb 2013 #321
Bucky Feb 2013 #198
seabeyond Feb 2013 #4
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #8
seabeyond Feb 2013 #10
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #16
Atman Feb 2013 #21
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #24
Atman Feb 2013 #56
seabeyond Feb 2013 #59
Atman Feb 2013 #62
seabeyond Feb 2013 #63
Atman Feb 2013 #67
seabeyond Feb 2013 #70
Atman Feb 2013 #74
seabeyond Feb 2013 #78
msanthrope Feb 2013 #83
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #106
msanthrope Feb 2013 #115
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #103
Atman Feb 2013 #112
seabeyond Feb 2013 #113
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #138
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #162
DevonRex Feb 2013 #349
Scootaloo Feb 2013 #353
susanr516 Feb 2013 #361
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #77
seabeyond Feb 2013 #82
Atman Feb 2013 #85
Gorp Feb 2013 #301
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #101
Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #108
Atman Feb 2013 #116
R B Garr Feb 2013 #132
cali Feb 2013 #150
hfojvt Feb 2013 #233
Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #323
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #262
Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #319
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #324
Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #326
pnwmom Feb 2013 #351
seabeyond Feb 2013 #32
Atman Feb 2013 #60
msanthrope Feb 2013 #130
MadrasT Feb 2013 #236
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #75
cali Feb 2013 #146
msanthrope Feb 2013 #43
GaYellowDawg Feb 2013 #183
Gidney N Cloyd Feb 2013 #15
sir pball Feb 2013 #133
sir pball Feb 2013 #125
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #5
Atman Feb 2013 #7
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #18
Atman Feb 2013 #25
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #65
Atman Feb 2013 #93
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #154
redqueen Feb 2013 #165
Atman Feb 2013 #172
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #239
DevonRex Feb 2013 #345
LiberalAndProud Feb 2013 #373
yardwork Feb 2013 #171
Atman Feb 2013 #181
yardwork Feb 2013 #184
Atman Feb 2013 #229
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #192
Atman Feb 2013 #242
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #170
stevenleser Feb 2013 #368
Squinch Feb 2013 #377
leftyohiolib Feb 2013 #23
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #6
Atman Feb 2013 #9
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #19
MindPilot Feb 2013 #30
Atman Feb 2013 #47
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #205
WCGreen Feb 2013 #14
Brickbat Feb 2013 #11
jmg257 Feb 2013 #12
Atman Feb 2013 #17
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #27
Atman Feb 2013 #45
msanthrope Feb 2013 #58
Atman Feb 2013 #64
msanthrope Feb 2013 #73
Atman Feb 2013 #81
msanthrope Feb 2013 #88
blueamy66 Feb 2013 #166
msanthrope Feb 2013 #199
blueamy66 Feb 2013 #213
Atman Feb 2013 #220
msanthrope Feb 2013 #227
blueamy66 Feb 2013 #231
msanthrope Feb 2013 #247
actslikeacarrot Feb 2013 #375
Atman Feb 2013 #219
blueamy66 Feb 2013 #234
msanthrope Feb 2013 #265
Atman Feb 2013 #322
Marrah_G Feb 2013 #66
Atman Feb 2013 #100
seabeyond Feb 2013 #105
Atman Feb 2013 #118
seabeyond Feb 2013 #119
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #178
msanthrope Feb 2013 #155
seabeyond Feb 2013 #158
gollygee Feb 2013 #110
Atman Feb 2013 #120
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #179
Atman Feb 2013 #182
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #176
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #72
Atman Feb 2013 #104
jmg257 Feb 2013 #121
seabeyond Feb 2013 #123
jmg257 Feb 2013 #127
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #204
Atman Feb 2013 #136
jmg257 Feb 2013 #144
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #137
jmg257 Feb 2013 #148
jmg257 Feb 2013 #134
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #142
jmg257 Feb 2013 #147
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #151
jmg257 Feb 2013 #156
jmg257 Feb 2013 #117
yardwork Feb 2013 #159
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #173
jmg257 Feb 2013 #185
seabeyond Feb 2013 #189
jmg257 Feb 2013 #200
zaireeka Feb 2013 #202
jmg257 Feb 2013 #215
Laelth Feb 2013 #174
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #217
myrna minx Feb 2013 #260
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #243
seabeyond Feb 2013 #40
Atman Feb 2013 #48
seabeyond Feb 2013 #50
Laelth Feb 2013 #191
seabeyond Feb 2013 #194
Laelth Feb 2013 #208
seabeyond Feb 2013 #209
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #180
jmg257 Feb 2013 #193
Moosepoop Feb 2013 #240
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #254
Cal Carpenter Feb 2013 #13
lunatica Feb 2013 #20
Cal Carpenter Feb 2013 #28
Nine Feb 2013 #22
Atman Feb 2013 #29
msanthrope Feb 2013 #36
Nine Feb 2013 #71
jollyreaper2112 Feb 2013 #26
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #33
Atman Feb 2013 #37
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #41
Atman Feb 2013 #51
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #55
Atman Feb 2013 #69
Atman Feb 2013 #34
msanthrope Feb 2013 #31
Jersey Devil Feb 2013 #35
msanthrope Feb 2013 #38
Atman Feb 2013 #39
gollygee Feb 2013 #42
msanthrope Feb 2013 #46
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #87
jberryhill Feb 2013 #316
Javaman Feb 2013 #44
msanthrope Feb 2013 #49
Atman Feb 2013 #53
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #124
seabeyond Feb 2013 #128
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #61
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #210
Laelth Feb 2013 #52
msanthrope Feb 2013 #54
Laelth Feb 2013 #153
msanthrope Feb 2013 #190
Laelth Feb 2013 #196
msanthrope Feb 2013 #221
Laelth Feb 2013 #230
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #271
Laelth Feb 2013 #286
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #68
Upton Feb 2013 #79
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #84
Upton Feb 2013 #86
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #89
msanthrope Feb 2013 #92
seabeyond Feb 2013 #94
Upton Feb 2013 #98
seabeyond Feb 2013 #109
msanthrope Feb 2013 #102
seabeyond Feb 2013 #111
MadrasT Feb 2013 #250
msanthrope Feb 2013 #252
seabeyond Feb 2013 #263
Upton Feb 2013 #95
msanthrope Feb 2013 #97
Upton Feb 2013 #107
gollygee Feb 2013 #114
msanthrope Feb 2013 #122
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #235
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #214
Adsos Letter Feb 2013 #225
cliffordu Feb 2013 #80
msanthrope Feb 2013 #90
cliffordu Feb 2013 #367
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #91
msanthrope Feb 2013 #96
Atman Feb 2013 #129
seabeyond Feb 2013 #135
Atman Feb 2013 #149
seabeyond Feb 2013 #152
Atman Feb 2013 #161
seabeyond Feb 2013 #167
msanthrope Feb 2013 #141
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #186
sir pball Feb 2013 #163
msanthrope Feb 2013 #211
sir pball Feb 2013 #226
msanthrope Feb 2013 #244
sir pball Feb 2013 #284
msanthrope Feb 2013 #293
sir pball Feb 2013 #302
msanthrope Feb 2013 #329
sir pball Feb 2013 #332
msanthrope Feb 2013 #333
sir pball Feb 2013 #352
sir pball Feb 2013 #310
msanthrope Feb 2013 #328
sir pball Feb 2013 #330
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #264
R B Garr Feb 2013 #99
Atman Feb 2013 #131
edbermac Feb 2013 #140
Romulox Feb 2013 #143
Atman Feb 2013 #157
Romulox Feb 2013 #164
seabeyond Feb 2013 #175
zaireeka Feb 2013 #248
seabeyond Feb 2013 #267
zaireeka Feb 2013 #289
seabeyond Feb 2013 #314
Romulox Feb 2013 #347
seabeyond Feb 2013 #348
randome Feb 2013 #195
Poll_Blind Feb 2013 #160
Nine Feb 2013 #168
bettyellen Feb 2013 #169
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #277
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #298
bettyellen Feb 2013 #300
JTFrog Feb 2013 #177
dlwickham Feb 2013 #188
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #238
Atman Feb 2013 #246
MadrasT Feb 2013 #251
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #187
Smll_Ax3 Feb 2013 #201
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #241
Atman Feb 2013 #253
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #282
Atman Feb 2013 #288
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #297
Smll_Ax3 Feb 2013 #256
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #203
Atman Feb 2013 #218
jmg257 Feb 2013 #228
bighart Feb 2013 #232
Moosepoop Feb 2013 #272
Atman Feb 2013 #276
Moosepoop Feb 2013 #294
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #222
seabeyond Feb 2013 #223
zaireeka Feb 2013 #303
AndyA Feb 2013 #207
jmg257 Feb 2013 #224
Billcorton Feb 2013 #212
phleshdef Feb 2013 #237
jmg257 Feb 2013 #245
Nine Feb 2013 #249
Atman Feb 2013 #257
jmg257 Feb 2013 #266
Nine Feb 2013 #291
msanthrope Feb 2013 #259
hrmjustin Feb 2013 #255
Atman Feb 2013 #258
hrmjustin Feb 2013 #261
Atman Feb 2013 #269
hrmjustin Feb 2013 #283
hrmjustin Feb 2013 #299
bettyellen Feb 2013 #281
bigapple1963 Feb 2013 #268
sdlcman Feb 2013 #270
shanti Feb 2013 #273
Atman Feb 2013 #279
LittleBlue Feb 2013 #274
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #290
sir pball Feb 2013 #307
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #318
sir pball Feb 2013 #327
seabeyond Feb 2013 #331
sir pball Feb 2013 #336
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #342
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #337
seabeyond Feb 2013 #340
sir pball Feb 2013 #374
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #341
sir pball Feb 2013 #356
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #358
LittleBlue Feb 2013 #346
zaireeka Feb 2013 #359
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #366
FedUpWithIt All Feb 2013 #363
Deep13 Feb 2013 #275
Atman Feb 2013 #278
Deep13 Feb 2013 #285
jmg257 Feb 2013 #287
Atman Feb 2013 #292
jmg257 Feb 2013 #296
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #306
jmg257 Feb 2013 #315
Atman Feb 2013 #320
jmg257 Feb 2013 #325
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #334
jmg257 Feb 2013 #305
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #308
jmg257 Feb 2013 #311
Nine Feb 2013 #317
Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #335
onenote Feb 2013 #371
sir pball Feb 2013 #313
Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #338
onenote Feb 2013 #369
Taverner Feb 2013 #280
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #295
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #304
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #339
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 #309
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #344
Orrex Feb 2013 #343
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #350
DevonRex Feb 2013 #357
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #362
kenny blankenship Feb 2013 #354
PufPuf23 Feb 2013 #355
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #360
aint_no_life_nowhere Feb 2013 #364
ismnotwasm Feb 2013 #365
pepperbear Feb 2013 #370
time 4 me to fly Feb 2013 #372
JuniperLea Feb 2013 #376

Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:27 AM

1. Link? nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:27 AM

2. Not familiar with the details here, but if the genders were reversed,

would you be so nonchalant? You'll say you would (and maybe that's so), but most people wouldn't actually be so nonchalant.

More to the point, boys will be boys, but a 33-year-old mother is not a boy. On edit, I meant, a exotic dancer/stripper woman.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:29 AM

3. A nude anything alone shouldn't be considered endangering

Not mere nudity. We really need to get rid of the Puritanism in this country.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:42 AM

57. None in the US should be exposed to Sex or Nudity until over THIRTY (at least)!!!

The US is not mature enough!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #57)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:39 AM

126. And then only in the context of marriage, or enhanced interrogation,

in a loving, committed relationship sanctified by law, or in an extrajudicial CIA "black site" gulag, respectively.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #57)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:46 AM

139. Until at least thirty?

WTF?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Reply #139)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:49 AM

145. Did you see the Sarcasm?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #57)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:37 AM

206. More like especially after 30

Just sayin'

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:58 AM

76. The OP is misleading...this was a lot more than mere nudity. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:32 AM

197. C'mon, strippers are about a little more than nudity.

It's about titillation. I was in art classes when I was younger than 16, drawing nude models. That's different from going to a strip club or getting a lap dance. Not that I necessarily think this is so shockingly horrible.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #197)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:47 AM

216. Do you know any 16 yr olds that haven't figured out how to get better off the internet for free?

Without the embarrassment of having all your buddies in the same room no less.

You are correct in that it's a little more than nudity. I'm just not sure it matters considering what else is available.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #197)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:39 PM

312. At what age can it be handled?

The question I have is that 16 year olds these days have sex. It's even expected. So if they have sex themselves, how can even a stripper be harmful?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #312)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:46 PM

321. 13% of teens have had sex by age 15. young people have sex for the first time at about age 17,

 

post 135. the average age for boy and girl is over 17.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:32 AM

198. This was not the same as a naturist family's trip to a nude beach.

This was sexual titillation designed to acculturate impressionable teens into viewing women as sex objects.

Sorry, but I'm with the "prudes" on this one. Teaching young boys the fun of degrading women is unquestionably endangering their moral character.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:42 AM

4. strippers, with other peoples children "14, 15 and 16 year old child"

 

Judy Viger, 33, of Gansevoort is charged with five counts of endangering the welfare of a child, District Attorney James Murphy said in a statement. The parents of five teens who attended the party reported the presence of strippers to police.

The complaining parents found out that the strippers had been at the November 3 bowling party through photos posted on Facebook. The parents took the pictures to the South Glens Falls police, who then started taking witness statements, the district attorney's statement says.

One of the photos distributed by the district attorney's office shows Viger receiving a lap dance from one of the hired dancers; another picture shows a young male with another nearly nude dancer on top of him with her legs around his head.

"As difficult as it may be for us to have to weigh in on these kinds of cases, certainly exposing the unsuspecting children to this sort of 'entertainment' goes beyond the pale when it comes to what is appropriate for 14, 15 and 16 year old child," Murphy said in the statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/us/new-york-strippers-teen-party/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:52 AM

8. I wish I knew the code they were being charged under

I mean endangering the welfare of a child is pretty broad; i'm guessing there are specific definitions of what that is.

Bryant

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:54 AM

10. my child goes to an adults house and served booze (cause the parent wants to be cool)

 

or fed porn... i am gonna be all over that parent.

the height of juvenile to do this, but to do it with others kids.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:59 AM

16. I'd be surprised if anybody defended the mom's actions -

And i definitely think the other parents have cause for a lawsuit - i'm just curious about the contours of the crime she is being charged for.

Bryant

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:07 AM

21. Serving a kid alcohol would be "endangering" the child.

The risks of injury, addiction, adverse health, etc, are clearly physical endangerments to a child. How is a nude woman rubbing her crotch against a 16 year old man-child (16 is legal to get married in some states) "endangerment?" We may think it's gross or disgusting, but ENDANGERMENT?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:12 AM

24. It depends on what the law actually says. We do have laws around statutory rape in some places

Is a 14-15 year old prepared emotionally to deal with the emotions and passions engendered by seeing a stripper?

Bryant

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:41 AM

56. "Is a 14-15 year old prepared emotionally..."

What if he is? I first had sex on my 15 birthday. But, I grew up on the beach in Florida, everyone was "half naked" (probably more like 7/8ths naked) all the time. When we surfed, we changed in front of each other right in the parking lot. No one cared. Who is the one to determine what is "proper" and what is "endangering" a 16 year old? I'd never consider a stripper at a 12 year old's party okay, and I don't think it is appropriate for a 16 year old's party, either. My question, one more time, is how is this "endangerment" to a sixteen year old?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:45 AM

59. and i was raised in calif, on a swim team and we were in essence naked all the time.

 

we did the same.

strippin' is not just about naked, as much as you want to pretend.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #59)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:46 AM

62. "...as much as you want to pretend."

Why do you insist on using phrases like that? Where have I said any such thing? STOP MAKING SHIT UP just to attempt to make your point! Just stop it!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #62)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:48 AM

63. you compare it to teenage years playing on the beach, to drawing nudes, to merely seeing boobies...

 

YOU are the one that is putting it out there.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #63)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:51 AM

67. You bore me.

Keep it churning...keep trying to make up shit to put words in my mouth about YOUR personal perceptions.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #67)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:52 AM

70. you say all kinds of shit thru out the thread and then pretend you didnt. ya. a bore. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #70)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:57 AM

74. No, I've been very consistent, as have you.

I've been very consistent with my position that the mother was stupid, it was bad parenting, that nudity should not be considered "criminal," etc. Very consistent. And you've consistently conflated and twisted my words to try to claim I am saying something I'm not. This is very common for you, we've had these types of ridiculous back-and-forths several times. It's your style, I understand that...if it involves sex, you're the first one to claim all men are evil pigs and don't understand anything about anything. Thank you for straightening me out, once again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #74)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:59 AM

78. "first one to claim all men are evil pigs". "consistently conflated and twisted my words"

 

what i have done is thrown your own words back at you. the posts are here for all to see. the words you type.

now, do show me where i have claimed all men are evil pigs. in all your righteousness.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #74)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:01 AM

83. Why are you avoiding the very clear statement I have made regarding the CRIME?

You keep asking what is the crime, and I keep telling you....

A parent procuring a sex worker to touch their minor child is a crime!!

What is so difficult to get? What part element of that crime do you dispute?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #83)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:19 AM

106. What does the statute say? or do you have the code?

If i have a statute number i can look it up almost certainly, but don't have time to go through things.

Bryant

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #106)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:26 AM

115. I'd check out NY Penal sections 230 and 260. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #74)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:19 AM

103. That's is an over the top response.

It's possible she just feels that you don't understand anything about anything.

Bryant

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #103)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:23 AM

112. It's possible she has a certain "style"

It's her body of work here on DU. All men who don't accept that anything to do with sex is bad are frowned upon. Women are always oppressed by bad, bad men. Has she used the term "evil pigs?" I doubt it. But if she can make up shit about what I posted, I am free to interpret her words with similar flair.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #112)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:24 AM

113. so i use your words. you make stuff up. and you call me out. what a fuckin' hoot. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #112)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:46 AM

138. Well that's nonsensical logic right there

Consider - she acts in a way that you don't like (I don't see it myself, but lets go with it for a moment). So you feel justified in doing back to her what she does to you? Doesn't that put you in a morally grey area? Or if you feel something is wrong, isn't it wrong all the time?

Bryant

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #74)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:02 AM

162. What then makes it bad parenting...?

"that the mother was stupid, it was bad parenting..."

As opposition to nudity and stripping is indeed mere prudishness as clarified to us many times, what then (precisely and with relevance) makes the mother's actions bad parenting?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #74)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:17 PM

349. First, this wasn't just nudity as you seem to admit with your next accusation against Sea...

"If it involves sex..." Because this actually DID involve sex. There was contact made at a birthday party. Contact by a sex worker on a minor who had been dropped off by parents expecting that child to be supervised by a parent who would provide bowling, cake, cookies and soft drinks. Not a sex worker's crotch rubbed in his face with photos to prove it forever more.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #63)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:43 PM

353. Actually, I have the same question

She's charged with "endangering the welfare of a child."

And while I think the majority of us - clearly including Atman - aren't defending this mother's decision, and hold that it's excessively stupid, I'm failing to see the "endangerment" aspect of it.

Could you maybe help me out and explain?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #353)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:36 PM

361. It probably has something to do with the state laws

regarding sex acts with minors. I don't know of any state that says 14-year-old children have reached the age of consent. I'm a little surprised the stripper wasn't charged, too. Maybe she didn't know the boys weren't legal adults when she agreed to dance. However, I think the stripper should have refused to perform once she realized she had an audience of kids.

My children are all adults now, but had this happened to one of them (male or female) when they were minors, I would have been livid. I'm not a prude, I just don't like the idea of exotic dancers (male or female) being stared at like they are pieces of meat. I think it's disgusting.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #59)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:58 AM

77. Oh, now bathing suits make one "essentially naked"? Well, it is the QUALIFIER that counts here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #77)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:01 AM

82. if you saw the speedos of the 70' and 80's, when wet, or hell, even dry, pretty much.

 

and having to change in public to go from a wet suit to a restaurant, ya....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #82)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:03 AM

85. I'm actually with Seabeyond on this...

My wife was a swimmer. The "meet suits" they used to wear in training were literally transparent. My best friend and I used to go watch the swim team practice just because the girls (and guys) were essentially naked, because the suits were so thin.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #82)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:22 PM

301. I had to borrow a Speedo to go to the pool in 8th grade and the guy who loaned it to me...

 

... accused me of being at "half mast" right in front of a bunch of girls in bikinis. Yeah, so I was, but still. What 8th grade boy wouldn't be? That's about as close to naked as a guy can get without going full monty or paying a visit to Victoria's Secret for some all-lace undies. At the time I was mortified. It wouldn't bother me a bit now. After you spend a few times in a hospital with a catheter you pretty much lose that "pride" thing, and that's especially true when giving birth. Any mother will confirm that.

Some of the bikinis out there are pretty much equivalent. My daughters won't wear anything like that, but my wife does. She doesn't like padded tops so string bikinis are her preference for comfort. She doesn't own any underwire bras and rarely wears anything other than sports bras. If she's not at work or exercising then the bra thing doesn't exist. I know they're most helpful for many women, but she's in the range where it's not necessary under most circumstances.

This post isn't directly related to the thread other than I agree with the OP on one thing - make the arbitrary age consistent. Driving, alcohol, military service, legal sex, gun ownership, stripping, whatever it is. Pick an age and call it "adult". There's a pretty major disconnect in how we treat various activities and the associated legal ages. I think the 4-year difference in age rule should remain in place for sex, but that's mostly because I've known a lot of guys (mostly) who have taken advantage of far younger under-18 girls. Four years is a reasonable spread for relationships in the near-adult years. Beyond that you get into major maturity differences and likelyhood of abuse of those differences increases dramatically.

There was a house that we hung out at a lot in high school, mostly because the girl's mom let us smoke (including pot). One of my good friends at the time was dating a 12 year old. He was 16, but just barely within the 4 year rule. The girl's mom (of the house) had a boyfriend named Pete. One day he got caught with the 12-year old, examining her parts. He came up with some lame excuse about helping her because she had an "ingrown pussy hair" (whatever that's supposed to mean). None of us trusted him after that.

My friend also wasn't this 12-year old's first lay. It should be obvious, but she had a rather unpleasant home life. Frankly we should have called the cops on Pete, but we probably didn't because there was a tray of pot and a bong on the coffee table. There usually was.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:17 AM

101. You would have to look at the law to determine harm or endangerment

That would have the definition of what harm constitutes.

Bryant

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:20 AM

108. It's probably statutory rape on the part of the stripper.

Nudity is fine. But the law usually draws a line at when the nudity was done for sexual arousal/gratification.

I'll agree far too many people are charged with sex crimes for innocent displays of their naughty bits - i.e. peeing in the woods, or the guy who was arrested for walking around nude in his OWN house where some nosy body could see ... etc.

But this WAS done for sexual arousal and gratification.

The stripper is probably guilty of statutory rape and the mother endangerment because she arranged the situation that lead to said rape. The mother put the child in the situation. That's the endangerment.

I can't help but think you would view this differently if it was a thirty year old man rubbing his balls on a 14-15-16 year old girl's head and face.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #108)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:28 AM

116. One of the most sane posts yet.

I agree with pretty much all of it. Although I still don't understand why we make consensual sex of any kind "criminal." Why is 18 the official age for sex? It's silly. That's not to say it's okay to have sex with kids or anything like that, it's just a question...why is 18 now the magic age, when some states say you can marry at 16? Are you then entering into a criminal arrangement?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #116)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:43 AM

132. I think it falls under "informed consent" laws

that minor's are barred from and therefore incapable to give informed consent to sex or sex acts

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #116)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:56 AM

150. 18 is the official age for sex? Not in most states.

In NY it's 17, but in many states it's 16 and in some it's 15.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #108)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:09 PM

233. the age of consent is 16 in most states

so I am thinking statutory rape is not in play.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #233)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:47 PM

323. Looks like 17 in NY.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#New_York

"Sex," as used above, refers to the four conspicuous types of sexual acts, including "sexual intercourse", "oral sexual conduct" (both types), and "anal sexual conduct." The latter three acts were known by statute as "deviant sexual intercourse" prior to 2003.

Non-intercourse sexual activity is also regulated based on age. Non-intercourse sexual activity, called "sexual contact" is defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party. It includes the touching of the actor by the victim, as well as the touching of the victim by the actor, whether directly or through clothing." (NY Penal Law § 130.00.) If the person is underage such "sexual contact" can constitute the crime of "sexual abuse."

"Sexual contact" with a person less than 17 but at least 14, by a perpetrator who is at least five years older than the victim is "Sexual abuse in the third degree," a class B misdemeanor. (NY Penal Law § 130.55.)

"Sexual contact" with a person less than 14 is "Sexual abuse in the second degree," a Class A misdemeanor, if the perpetrator is at least 16. (NY Penal Law § 130.60.)

"Sexual contact" with a person less than 11 is "Sexual abuse in the first degree," a class "D" violent felony, if the perpetrator is at least 16. (NY Penal Law § 130.65.)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #108)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:35 PM

262. How is it statutory rape if sex wasn't involved?

I'm taking sides, just trying to understand why that would be the charge. Perhaps, molestation, but statutory rape?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #262)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:44 PM

319. Statutory rape is a catch-all as I am using it here.

Every state has specific terms from sexual deviancy to sexual assault to sexual intercourse to "touching" with the intent of sexual gratification etc. etc etc.

Penetration doesn't need to be involved for a sex crime.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #319)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:48 PM

324. I meant to say, "I'm not taking sides" ...

And yes, sex crimes such as rape don't have to involve sex. But I would think statutory rape would require the involvement of sex since consent is not required.

Though, I'm no lawyer.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #324)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:53 PM

326. I saw that and figured as much. LOL

I guess I could have said statutory sexually related crime. I don't know if ANY state uses the term "statutory rape" but it is often used as a catch all. Perhaps too strong in this case because, right or wrong, people often assume penetration when the word rape is used.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:36 PM

351. There was at least one 13 year old at this party. The arrest took place in that context.

No one knows how the police would have reacted if everyone there was 16 and over.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:19 AM

32. like not all men want to go to strip bars, not all boys want to have a stripper rub her crotch in

 

their face.

have you raised a son? i know we like to pretend they are all that sexually and pretend they are not kids. but, the reality is, they are human beings that have a young emotional state and not matured in that area. i can see many boys uncomfortable being put in this position, surrounded by peers feeling pressure, regardless of adults assigning to them their perception of sexual want.

it is NOT another parents position to decide what a child is ready for, in the adult world.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:45 AM

60. I have two sons. I don't care what ALL men want.

I don't see in the article wear anyone was FORCED to stay and enjoy the show. In fact, they posted pics of it on their Facebook pages, they were so traumatized.

We do agree on one thing, which I have posted repeatedly, and which you choose to ignore...it was not the mother's place to decide to put underage children in front of a stripper. Period. It was NOT her place to do that, and I've said nothing other than that. What I asked was, there is a CRIME being alleged, that the boy was "endangered." No one has been able to explain how he was "endangered," rather than the mother just being STUPID.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #60)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:41 AM

130. Sex crimes against minors do not involve an element of consent, generally, so the issue of 'force'

is not a defense.

For example, a defense to statutory rape, is not "I didn't force her."

A defense to taking nude pictures of a 13 years old (the age of one of the guests at the party) is not "I didn't force her to take off her clothes."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #60)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:12 PM

236. Young people will do a lot of things amongst their peers

to prove they are hip and cool and part of the "in" crowd.

Posting pics on Facebook does not preclude being traumatized.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:57 AM

75. Reverse genders.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:50 AM

146. How about a 14 year old?

There were 14 year old kids and maybe even younger ones in attendance.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:27 AM

43. I suspect the child endangerment charges are placeholders.

I think she's facing sex crime charges.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:20 AM

183. B.I.N.G.O.

the height of juvenile to do this, but to do it with others kids.


DAMN right. On both counts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:59 AM

15. Didn't they used to call that 'contributing to the delinquincy of a minor'?

Or is that just some movie trope?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gidney N Cloyd (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:44 AM

133. No, lots of other states have that, or "corruption of minors"

Here's the deal in NY (emphasis added):

Subsection 1 of New York's Penal Law § 260.10 provides that any man or woman who intentionally acts in a way likely to cause injury to the physical or mental welfare of a child, or who intentionally acts in a way that could injury the moral welfare of a child 16 years old or younger is guilty of the crime of Endangering the Welfare of a Child.


I can at least buy that argument for these charges since they're playing very loosely with the definition of "endangerment".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:37 AM

125. Seems to me more "corruption of minors"

But I've only ever heard of that as a formal charge in PA; a quick Google doesn't show anything on the books in NY. I like it as a concept - while a stripper in front of teens is NOT "endangerment" it is certainly not appropriate or acceptable (I mean, I'd have LOVED it at the time but...yeah) and a more loosely defined less-severe charge of "corruption" seems entirely fitting.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:43 AM

5. I heard some pundit guffawing that he could not believe that ANY 16 year old American boy

would not want strippers at a birthday party. What that pundit said was 'I don't believe there are gay teenagers and don't give a fuck about them if they exist because I have this line I want to say about how fun it is to see strippers."
So yes, to the extent that such social events are used as a form of intimidation of those who really don't care to see strippers many years older and of the opposite sex such an event could in fact be unpleasant, and that sort of thing adds up to a rather vicious message- 'we are putting this in your face unasked and we expect you to express delight in what you see, if you don't you should expect the treatment we straights dole out to those who are different'.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:51 AM

7. The question was, is in "endangerment?"

While I find it difficult to believe most 16 year old boys would find a nude woman "unpleasant," I certainly accept the premise that the parents of those other kids should have been informed. After all, they're minors, and the parents may not have (mostly likely would not have) approved.

But listening to Rush Limbaugh is "unpleasant." And I would say, far more likely to "endanger" a child than the image of a human body. Why do we have laws against "unpleasantness?"

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:04 AM

18. Wow. Way to fully miss the entire point.

If a 'friend' had done that to me, I would have been very angry at that abuse. I would not expect straight guys to enjoy a male stripper, and in my opinion to assume that others are straight is pure prejudice, to design events around a presumption that all would enjoy a lap dance from a scantly clad woman is to presume there are no gay people in the world.
If you'd like, I can send a buff young man in a sparkly jock strap to lap dance for you, we can film your reaction and if it is not suitably excited and frothy, we can then call you a Puritan who is afraid of some guy's package just because it is being pushed into his face. Because the ONLY reason you'd not get off on such a dancer would be Puritanism, or your discomfort with nudity, your own sexuality is not a point in fact at all, we'd need to see some lust in your eyes, or we'd know you were just anti sex and really hung up about it. If you did not drool a bit we could say you have 'issues' and perhaps are not as 'mature' as the other guys, the gay guys.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:14 AM

25. I didn't miss the point.

I guess because someone might be gay, there should be no "surprise" strippers, ever.

Personally, I'd have no problem if some buffed hunk showed up as a surprise stripper...I'd deal, but I'm a liberal Democrat. A friend of ours is actually a drag queen, and very flamboyantly gay. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. I mean, he enjoys and celebrates his lifestyle, and is not shy about it. So, it just doesn't bother me. He's always been a wonderful person and a good friend, so it's not an issue. It is YOU doing the defining of what should be right and wrong. If I can accept a gay drag queen kissing me and pulling me out onto the dance floor, why can't a gay man accept a nude woman?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:50 AM

65. Being gay is not a 'lifestyle'.

And yes, you did miss the point. If a friend put you in a position where you felt pressured to take a public lap dance from a man and express that you enjoyed it sexually, you'd get pissed off.
I dance with women all the time, my friend, I've danced with women so famously sexy that the mere sight of one of their 'boobies' caused scandal across the land. That is not the same as having her scissor my head. A nude woman is not the same as a sexually charged performance. Of course, dear heart, I can accept a nude woman, I do not accept strippers in my lap for the pleasure of onlookers. Those two things are not the same. To suggest that they are is dishonest, as it is dishonest to claim that having a dance with your friend (dressed as a woman) is anything like having a lap dance from a stranger who is hardly dressed at all.
And of course, you and I are not 14.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #65)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:10 AM

93. "Lifestyle"

Being gay is being gay. Some people are just gay. Some people are gay and celebrate it, like my friend, who has a girl name along with his real name. He chooses to hang out in drag bars, and is very outgoing, as opposed to people we all know who are just "gay." IOW, it is a "lifestyle." Just as being a surfer is a "lifestyle" or any other "lifestyle" one might choose. I didn't say it was a "choice," if that is what you are inferring. Gay, straight, or in-between, and don't think ANYONE should be forced to have another person wrap their legs around one's head, clothed or unclothed. You're just making assumptions that one of these teenagers might have been gay, therefore it was wrong to have a female stripper. It's an assumption not backed up anywhere in the story, but I understand your point. The whole damned thing was wrong! It matters not whether the stripper or the kids were male or female.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #93)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:57 AM

154. Dressing in drag and being gay are not the same things. It is not the case that outgoing gay

people dress in drag while those who are not in drag are less outgoing. Being a cross dresser and being gay are entirely separate things.
Note you actual words here: :Just as being a surfer is a "lifestyle" or any other "lifestyle" one might choose. I didn't say it was a "choice...."
But you did, you said like a surfer or anything else one might choose. And I repeat, being gay is not a lifestyle and dressing in drag is not a measure of how outgoing or openly gay a person is as many gay men have no desire whatsoever to cross dress.
My initial comment on this subject was very clear. The pundit, and now you, assuming that all boys want a lap dance is an assumption that none are gay and also that all straight guys like strippers climbing on them, which I know is not the case. I know straight men who would bath in Purell for a week if such a person touched them. The assumptions are all your own.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #154)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:05 AM

165. Thank you for these posts.

I'm surprised that gayness and cross dressing are being conflated here.

And the perspective that you've added re: gay teens' feelings in these situations is not often mentioned, thanks for that too. The same principle applies to asexual people.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #154)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:12 AM

172. We have no argument here.

This is silly. I'm not going to get into a debate about how gay you have to be to be gay. I used a word, "lifestyle," that I meant in a different context from that in which you are taking it. You've mistaken me for someone else...I've never stated that "all boys want a lap dance." I just didn't say that. I merely pointed out that we know NOTHING about the boys in the picture. You're assuming that some of them might be gay, and therefore shouldn't have a female stripper grinding her stuff in their faces. I'm saying that we don't know if anyone was straight or gay. You're inventing an argument to fit your needs. Sure, one of those guys might have been gay. Oh, heavens! So what? I've been to strip clubs...say "no thanks," and the dancer will move on.

You still entirely missed my point about the word "lifestyle." One can be gay and in a great relationship without living an overtly gay "lifestyle." Such as my friend. I have a couple of gay friends that you'd never assume to be gay. And then there is my friend I mentioned earlier who embraces the gay "lifestyle." Why is that so hard to understand? I'm not disparaging anyone. I surf, but I'm not part of the surfer "lifestyle." It's just a freakin' word!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #172)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:17 PM

239. Wow. What you are doing is defining your cross dressing friend as having a gay 'lifestyle' while

people who do not dress in drag do not live like gay people. This is extremely offensive to everyone involved, I'd guess particularly to all those heterosexual cross dressing men. There is no way of living that is gay, no way of living that is not gay. There is no gay lifestyle, there are just lots of gay people living lots of lives in lots of ways, exactly as it is among straight people.
Your friends you'd not assume were gay? I would assume they are gay. Because I don't see 'gay' as meaning any one particular thing other than being sexually attracted to the same sex. Just exactly as straight means nothing more that opposite sex attraction, some straight men love opera and fine fabrics and don't want to get their wee pinkies dirty and some gay men are linebackers who drink brewskis and don't do the laundry often enough.


My original post in this thread addressed the media message that follows tales of underage boys and older women. The pundit I heard declare that he can not imagine ANY 16 year old boy not wanting a stripper to lap dance him while his Mom watched. I object to that because there ARE 16 year old boys who are gay, and you know, there are some straight boys who probably don't really want Mommy to watch them pop a boner. For such kids to hear on TV that it is deviant for them NOT to want to get horny around Mom or not with the opposite sex at all is really fucked up.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #239)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:39 PM

345. Thank you for sticking with this conversation.

It has been interesting and I'm sure it has been informative. You explained everything perfectly. And you didn't lose your temper. Good job. We still need conversations like this, which should be painfully obvious. So, even though I'm sorry that the term was used I'm very glad to see your responses.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #172)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:52 PM

373. When words impede communication, why use them?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #93)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:11 AM

171. There is so much ignorance in this post I don't know where to begin.

Your friend "who has a girl name along with his real name" and "chooses to hang out in drag bars" is not necessarily gay. And what the fuck do you mean by "people we all know who are just 'gay.' IOW it is a 'lifestyle.'"

This is incredible.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #171)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:18 AM

181. How the hell do you know?

Stephen/Allysha is GAY. Totally, totally gay. There is so much ignorance in your reply, I don't know where to begin. You don't think I know when a friend of mine is gay? Really? When I say we know people who are "just gay," I'm not saying anything deep. Nothing to be shocked about. I mean, simply, that there are friends like Stephen who are outwardly, celebratory gay. It is a "lifestyle." There are other people we know who are gay, but you'd never know it. Is that so hard to understand? Why is this such an issue with you? Just read my words and try not to get automatically defensive.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #181)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:20 AM

184. IT'S AN ISSUE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM GAY

and your posts in this thread are insulting, derogatory, and just plain ignorant.

IT'S NOT A LIFESTYLE. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #184)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:04 PM

229. I thought I was on ignore?

YOU STILL MISS MY POINT! You're gay. Okay. You just don't understand what I'm saying, you want to get all hung up on one simple word. My boss several years ago was gay. Big deal. He was gay, everyone was aware, he didn't hide it. So what. My friend which I mentioned, Stephen, lives the LIFESTYLE of being outwardly, flamboyantly gay. I'm not making any judgements, maybe I'm describing it wrong, but I don't know why it is so hard to understand.

I used my surfing as an example. I surf. There is a surfing lifestyle. Some people just live on the beach and have hibiscus bumper stickers and leave, eat, sleep surf. They are "surfers." They life the surfing lifestyle. Some of us, though, just surf. We just surf when we can. We are surfers, but we don't live the surfing lifestyle 24/7. Why can that be used to describe my friend Stephen, as opposed to my old boss? Stephen flaunts his gayness. He loves it, and so do I. My old boss just wore his suit to work every day and didn't make any big deal about it. If "lifestyle" is wrong, I'm sorry. Educate me. I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything, I just don't know how else to describe it.

It's like the gay pride parades...why do some people want to march down the street in leather chaps and dog collars, while others just say "I'm gay?" I don't think I'm out of line here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #93)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:28 AM

192. So, being gay is a lifestyle to you

Like surfing or scrapbooking or what the hell ever.

WTF

This thread has been very illuminating about you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #192)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:21 PM

242. So you're just deliberately ignoring what I posted?

Really? I'm sorry if "lifestyle" is the wrong word for you. I don't know how much more clearly I can explain it. Being gay is not a "lifestyle." It is just being gay. But, what you deliberately want to ignore, is exactly what I pointed out...you can surf, but not live the perceived surfer lifestyle. You can be gay, but not live the lifestyle many equate with being gay. That is NOT saying that being gay is merely a lifestyle. It is saying, deny it all you want, that there is a perceived "gay" lifestyle. It's maybe what your mom or dad thinks. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it IS. There are people who are not gay who assume that being gay means being a drag queen or hanging out in gay bars. A PERCEIVED lifestyle. It doesn't mean "gay" is a lifestyle.

I am an artist. I don't were berets, although I used to have a studio in an old mill building, and I frequently painted while naked, listening to Tory Amos. Again, I can't stress this enough...I am NOT saying gay is a "lifestyle." I'm saying there is a perceived gay lifestyle, which is totally separate from sexuality.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:11 AM

170. Wow, you just ooze hetero privilege. Yuck. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:00 PM

368. WTF has happened to you all of a sudden? You are behaving as if you have had some sort of major

... breakdown here. Your posts about 'lifestyle' are homophobic and the 'skanky snatch' reference is extremely sexist.

Stop, apologize and take a break from here. Preferably of at least a week or so.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #368)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:34 PM

377. ^^^^^^^^What he said!!!^^^^^^^

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:10 AM

23. 16 year olds cant see a stripper but they CAN get pregnant and decide wether or no to have an

 

abortion? they are either young grown-ups or they are not

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:49 AM

6. It may involve more than the mere sight boobies.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:53 AM

9. Is that an actual picture from the party?

If it is, then yeah...that's a bit over the top for a 16 year old's birthday party. But she's not even NAKED!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:05 AM

19. According to the link, yes, it is from the party


And I don't have any more info on the nature of the nakedness and/or physical contact. She may plead down or just get a warning. I don't think jail time is appropriate.




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:19 AM

30. It looks to me like that 16 yo has quite the receding hairline

Hard to tell, but to me it looks like the guys there are a bit older than 16.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindPilot (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:32 AM

47. It's the internet...it must be true

I thought the same thing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:36 AM

205. It is from the party. They performed lap dances on several minors.

This gets slippery when you begin looking at adult/minor sex abuse laws.

They are currently investigating to make sure there was no sexual contact, even accidental, between the dancers and the kids.

I am personally of the opinion that kids will find their own way and do not need help from adults. Let them move at their own pace. Even if the woman felt her own son was mature enough and would be comfortable with this type of "entertainment", she definitely had no right to evaluate this for the other boys and girls attending. It could be considered social coercion to force kids to participate or observe this type of thing. Isn't there enough pressure on kids already?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:58 AM

14. Response from the 16 year old boys out there...

.HELL YES!!!!!

But since I am no longer 16, I don't think strippers are appropriate for anyone under 18.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:54 AM

11. The state has an interest in very bad parenting.

"Endangering" is simply the name of the charge, which they're using to see if anything else is going on.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:56 AM

12. Would you care if your 14yr old daughter was at a party with male strippers?

Thinking my wife and I would be pissed, seeing it as inapproriate.

Especially if they got as friendly as in the posted pics.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:03 AM

17. Of course I would care.

As much as we hate to admit it, there are differences between boys and girls. Girls tend to be smart, for instance. Except for this kid's mom, who apparently found herself pregnant at 14. Her world view is probably jaded. I'm not saying it's right, just pointing out that the "bad parenting" seems to have begun when this woman was just a child herself. Personally, I don't have a problem with nudity at all. I've been to nude beaches and nude resorts. Funny thing is, once you accept "nudity" as just a person with no clothes on, "strippers" aren't very appealing. We make such a big deal about nudity in our Puritanical culture that it becomes tantalizing. It's silly.

But to answer your question directly, I absolutely would not want some hunk sticking his junk in my 14 year old daughter's face. But apparently, the mom had it stuck into more than her face, so apparently didn't find it as offensive. What, exactly, is the "crime?" Grossness?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:16 AM

27. If you don't want your daughter seeing strippers then this OP is bullshit deluxe

What is your problem with nudity? Seeing some cut chest is harmless, why would you care if your daughter saw one? How would 'junk in her face' harm her?
Procuring services for a minor that are illegal for a minor to procure for his or herself is in fact a crime in most places. Like buying them alcohol or giving them drugs or buying pornography for them, legal for you, not legal for you to give to kids.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:31 AM

45. Who invented "18"

Why is it special? At that magical age, you can die in war, but not drink. You are an "adult" but you can't rent a car. What makes 18 special? A piece of paper some guy wrote and got passed into law. Ask the 16 year old whether or not he was "endangered" by having a skanky snatch ground in his face. He'd probably disagree with you. But give him two years, then it's all okay.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:44 AM

58. Who invented "18?" Atman, I've had criminal clients ask me the same question.

Usually after they've been foolish enough to voice that question to the police arresting them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #58)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:49 AM

64. Your point being?

It is the law, I certainly understand that. What do you answer your clients (I'm assuming you're a lawyer?). What makes 18 the magical age, or is it just "the law," and therefore it's all that matters? I don't recall feeling any different on my 17 birthday than I did on my 18th. I had been having sex, drinking, working for myself...why is 18 magic?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #64)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:56 AM

73. Yes. It is the law. It is what matters. People who don't get that simple concept tend to be my

clients.

Why is it 18? Because the state decided so. If you don't like it, well this is a democracy. File a suit, or elect enough legislators to overturn the oppression.

How do you not get that a parent procuring a sex worker to touch their minor child while other minors watch is a crime?

I ask that question, and then I remember that I stopped doing juvenile defense because the I could not deal with the supposed adults entrusted to care for these kids...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #73)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:01 AM

81. "How do you not get that..."

Which one of my posts did you miss? Where did I say it was not a crime, or that the parent of the 16 yo boy is an idiot? Where? That wasn't the question I asked, it's just the one you want to answer. I understand that procuring a sex worker for a minor is a crime! I get it, I've stated so in several posts. But what is the CRIME in seeing a naked woman, other than that it is on the books? Why did we, as a society, determine that a 17 year old cannot see someone naked, but an 18 year can? And why? Please don't tell me I "don't get it." That just avoids my question.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #81)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:06 AM

88. Oh, I read all your posts--including #60, where you note that no minor was 'forced'--as if that's an

issue.

You, Atman, are the one who insists that someone, somewhere, is being charged with a crime for seeing a naked woman. Kindly cite the case you are talking about. Because apparently you now agree with me that Ms. Viger's charges do not stem from "seeing a naked woman."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #73)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:06 AM

166. But parents sign off to send their "kids" to war

 

every day...geez...this thread is ridiculous.....parents, shelter your babies forever!!! God forbid a baby sees a nude woman! The horrors!!!

Another lawsuit...another person wanting revenge by suing or getting the cops involved

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #166)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:32 AM

199. Really? 16 year olds go off to war in this country? And I thought you liked lawsuits?

Didn't you take your husband's first wife to court to lower the child-support payments he had to pay? I remember you bragging about being his "lawyer."




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=903643&mesg_id=907772

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #199)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:45 AM

213. Get a life.

 

How long did it take you to find a 2 year old post??? LOL

17 year olds can enlist if they have their HS diploma and a parent's signature.

Yeah....child support hearings and a police record as the same. WTF.

Your user name is appropriate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #213)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:54 AM

220. +1000

As long as someone wrote on a piece of paper, it's cool.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #213)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:57 AM

227. If you find my memory inconvenient, perhaps you should refrain from posting to me. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #227)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:06 PM

231. Your memory isn't the problem

 

The fact that you remember crap from over 2 years ago should be a problem.

And get your facts straight before you post.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #231)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:25 PM

247. I have a memory palace. DU has a room. Your Mother's Day thread was one for the ages.

Please do not fault me for remembering what you bragged about.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #213)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:25 PM

375. 17 year olds...

...can enlist but cant go to a combat zone until they are 18.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #199)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:53 AM

219. They used to.

There are hundreds of stories of kids faking their ages to go off to die in WWII. That's cool. No prob. Just don't get laid.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #219)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:09 PM

234. Or see a naked woman

 

Faking? There really isn't a world of difference between a 16 yr old and a 17 yr old...no "faking" necessary - perfectly legal

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #219)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:36 PM

265. Do you have an example from this century? nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #219)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:46 PM

322. Do you have anything relevant to post other than "it's the law?"

Not all laws are good. Unless you can profit from them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:50 AM

66. "skanky snatch"

Really Atman?

This thread is eye opening about how you perceive women and equality.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #66)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:16 AM

100. Ridiculous

You don't know me at all. It was just an offhand stripper reference -- did you see the picture? Don't conflate it into being a comment about "women" and "equality." I've done so much work for NARAL and NOW, and some of it you've likely even seen. I can say an old hairy dude is fat and smelly without saying I hate men. I can say a kid might not want a skanky snatch rubbed in his face without it being a indictment against all women.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #100)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:19 AM

105. right. it is a deragatory and demeaning comment made toward the stripper to show the disrespect

 

as you promote giving this to teenage boys.

it amazes me the men that tell us women how respectful you are toward the stripper, until you are not.

which is a feminist position in not believing men when they say they have all this respect for the stripper and do not see her as a thing to demean and use and degrade.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #105)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:31 AM

118. ALL WOMEN MUST BE ON A PEDASTAL, so says Seabeyond

It's okay to call out men for being nasty pigs, but ever cast aspersions on any woman! So sayeth Seabeyond.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #118)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:32 AM

119. once again, who is making stuff up? did i say that? no. and you did not address

 

what i posted.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #118)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:15 AM

178. Seabeyond is right, and your strawman is just

rolling.

NO WOMAN deserves misogynistic language, Not one.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #105)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:57 AM

155. Precisely--a thing to be used, and then despised. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #155)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:00 AM

158. not all men choose to live in this hypocrisy, but the men that do insist all men feel as they do.

 

they do not like to be challenged. they need all men to feel like they do, and some insist ALL boys feel the same.

not a reality.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #100)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:22 AM

110. Do you know this woman?

"Snatch" is very much like the C word only it implies filthiness as well.

"Skanky" has some nasty assumptions too.

Unless you personally know her and how often she bathes, it's not just an offhand reference about her. It's a suggestion that women's genitals are filthy and "skanky."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #110)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:33 AM

120. Fair enough.

I don't know the woman. Therefore, it was not a direct personal reference. What if that kid in the pic was thinking "damn, I don't want this skanky snatch in my face!" Is he quilty of disparaging all women? The point is, we don't know her, we don't know what the kid was thinking, we're all just making assumptions.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #120)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:17 AM

179. If he used that term, then yes

How about if it was a black stripper, and he used a racist adjective? By your logic, that would just be an "offhand remark," and wouldn't be racist, nor make him a racist.

Quit doubling down. You were wrong.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #179)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:20 AM

182. Nonsense.

There is always someone on DU to be offended about something.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #100)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:14 AM

176. Marrah is 100% right

You should be ashamed for calling any woman's genitals that.

Saying it was just an "offhand remark," about a stripper just makes it worse.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:54 AM

72. Excellent question !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

And in some states you can/could be legally married way before 18. I haven't checked lately, but it seems to me female marriage around 13 or so was perfectly fine at one time in some states.

US has ALWAYS has this sex thing. I thought the US would eventually grow out of it, it's better, but damn in so many ways the US is sexually backward. I grew up being told masturbation would DEFINITELY make one blind, or at minimal insane. Just how F'ed up is that.

I have one friend that to this day thinks if he touches himself that is evil, but being super promiscuous is the way to go so one does not ever do the evil masturbation bit against god's will. How F'ed up is that too ...

For reference, here are the state marriage laws for age requirements. It seems to me it should be consistent across the US.

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml





Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #72)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:19 AM

104. Apparently not.

Msantrhope seems to think that merely ASKING the question, and the origins of our weird laws, means I "don't get it." It is a crime, therefore that is all that needs to be known. My stepfather used to tell me that about pot...he didn't care about whether it was natural, or what role DuPont played in making it illegal, or anything else other than that it was a crime, and therefore you don't do it. He also never exceeded the speed limit. Not sure if he ever cheated on his taxes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #72)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:33 AM

121. SO you have no problem with an adult having sex with a 13yr old?

What age would YOU think is too young? Any? None?
NO level of maturity needed for consent?


Maybe you never had kids. But please keep away from mine.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #121)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:35 AM

123. please keep away from mine.

 

i am soooo, feeling the same with a couple of the posters on this thread.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #123)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:39 AM

127. You ain't shitting - down right scary. 'Nothing is inappropriate, it's

just our hang-ups about sex and nudity that are ridiculous'.

How enlightening & comforting - for them.

Cheers!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #123)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:36 AM

204. Hope you're not including me in that ... my post about the 13 yr old marriage

was to point out the inconsistency in state laws. How a state could have advocated 13 year olds getting married is beyond me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #121)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:45 AM

136. Strawman bullshit

No one in this thread is advocating sex with children.

I have to grown kids, and one beautiful granddaughter. You're just pulling stuff out of thin air, as no one has said it is okay for someone to have sex with your children. That is Fox News style. Fear and paranoia before facts. We're talking about a 16 year old young man seeing a naked woman.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #136)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:49 AM

144. Yep-just marriage to 'females' at around 13 or so. I assume they'll be celibate...for some reason.

Apparently age isn't the issue though.



YOU WERE talking about a '16yr old seeing nudity', but the conversation changed some, and the reality was a bit more involved wasn't it?

Maybe you should re-read his post. Its all about our hangups with sex don't ya know.

edit: poster referred to explained his meanings, and clarified my take was not his intention.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #121)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:46 AM

137. Nope, didn't say that at all, I'm just posting what some state laws were. And

there is an incongruence / conflict in what are appropriate ages. To me, it should he consistent across the board. 13? You gotta be kidding me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #137)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:53 AM

148. Ahh - I see now. Thanks for clearing that up! nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #72)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:44 AM

134. BTW...WTF is "female marriage"?? And why is it perfectly fine at age 13???

Assuming we are talking about young girls...WHY are you all for it???


Talk about being F'ed up.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #134)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:47 AM

142. How in the world did you read into this that I was for it? I'm pointing out the inconsistency in

laws.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #142)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:51 AM

147. Maybe it was the way the post was written, where you 1)question 18, and

then 2) discuss female marriage at age 13 being fine. And 3) how F'ed up it is we have a hang-up with sex.


My mistake if this is not what you meant to convey.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #147)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:56 AM

151. Yep, it could be confusing as written. I'll leave it as is for now. Thanks for getting back to me!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #151)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:57 AM

156. Apologies. Cheers! nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:29 AM

117. DO you think a man who has sex with a girl of 15 should be charged with statutory rape?

Since age is no big qualifier for you - which age is too young/too old? Or should laws based on the perceived intelligence of the victims? Or simply in what YOU think they (would) prefer?

"Girls tend to be smart, for instance. Except for this kid's mom, who apparently found herself pregnant at 14."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:00 AM

159. Please self-delete this post and delete the derogatory, sexist term that you used.

Also, please take a look at your personal attacks against other posters in this thread and self-delete where needed. Thank you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:13 AM

173. So, you think "skanky snatch" is acceptable language?

It is misogynistic at BEST.

The only thing more appalling than your use of it is a jury leaving it. Just gross.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #173)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:21 AM

185. Sure - but just when referring to it being thrust in a 16yr old boy's face!

Because he would obviously dig that...what teenager wouldn't?

Along with his awesome Mom and teenage friends.

A stripper's snatch or a hunk's junk...its all good for the whole gang...as long as the Mom thinks its OK.

"I absolutely would not want some hunk sticking his junk in my 14 year old daughter's face. But apparently, the mom had it stuck into more than her face, so apparently didn't find it as offensive"





Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #185)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:26 AM

189. wrong. the hunks junk is not ok because boys and girls are different. not ok for the girl and the

 

girl of course, would not like it.

i mean, sexism in every way of looking at this thread.

on edit... i am referencing one of AT's other posts where he says boys and girls are different in their wants.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #189)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:33 AM

200. Quite. Boys WILL be boys ya know! Let them be degraded, and degrade.

And learn NOTHING new.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #185)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:33 AM

202. Genders reversed

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zaireeka (Reply #202)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:47 AM

215. Nice. Another parent trying to be cool, at her kid's expense.

And the expense of other 14/15 yr olds.

Girls this time. But hey - Mom thought it was ok!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:13 AM

174. To answer your question quite directly ...

It was the ancient Greeks (Athens, circa 500 BC) who arbitrarily chose the age of 18 to determine who could or could not vote in the nascent Athenian democracy. We have merely inherited that number from them (through the Roman Republic, of course). It was purely arbitrary, afaik. Now, it is merely an interesting historical relic, but it seems we are stuck with it.

-Laelth

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:50 AM

217. What does 18 have to do with anything I said? Nothing. Why not speak to what I really said?

My first comment on this thread was that every time one of these stories about older women messing with teen boys comes around I have to endure pundits and others who guffaw that they can't even imagine that any teen age boy would not love to do the same. It is the fact that such pundits and posters feel the need to state that even when thinking about it, they can't imagine that gay people exist. That's the message. All of them want strippers, all of them want to sleep with 'MILFS' and 'what kind of 16 year old boy wouldn't like that'? It all denies that there are gay kids.
Your terminology is crude and a stupid choice in this context, to say the least. But this kid you want me to ask, in your mind he would like that, in my mind the kid is gay, and would think of that party as 'why I had to get out of that town' material. That's kind of my point. You simply can't imagine (like the pundit) that any boy would like this, but I sure can. And I'm right, and that means that the pundit and yourself lack imagination, to put it kindly.
The age stuff is not anything I or you had been talking about and seems to be nothing more than a way for you to avoid speaking to what I am saying.
Treating a person like they were not there. That's what my first post was about. And it is what you are doing to me by repeatedly refusing to discuss what I said and instead demanding that I defend '18 being so special' which I never said. If you can't face the rhetorical heat, just back out of the kitchen, but don't come to me with some new subject arguing it as if I had spoken about it and demanding I answer questions from some point of view you assume I have.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:33 PM

260. "Skanky snatch" - Wow.

Hateful beliefs and attitudes like this make DU suck.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:21 PM

243. +100 n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:25 AM

40. "there are differences between boys and girls" that is so fuckin' lame. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:33 AM

48. I would expect nothing less from you, Sea.

I stand corrected. Boys and girls are exactly the same. Exactly.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #48)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:33 AM

50. backatcha... nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:27 AM

191. There are major differences between boys and girls.

Noting that fact is not lame, imho.

-Laelth

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #191)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:30 AM

194. prove it. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #194)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:40 AM

208. Smile.

No, not a smile ... my reaction was a definite LOL.

I shall quote directly from the "Declaration of Independence" in response ...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ... "

I assert, quite confidently, that the differences between men and women are self-evident and do not require the proof that you demand.

-Laelth

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #208)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:42 AM

209. figured. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:18 AM

180. Those moral and ethical difference are merely observers holding two equals do unequal standards

"there are differences between boys and girls..."

Those moral and ethical differences you so ill-define for us are merely observers holding two equals to unequal standards.

However, I do realize how we may need to rationalize our double-standards by accusing others of being Puritanical-- it's convenient and simplistic, and takes little effort or critical thought.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:29 AM

193. The Mom decided it would be OK for everyone there. Your daughter

would have been SOL if she went to a simliar party being given by a similiar parent.

ETA: Here's one now, w/14/15 yr old girls.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/sex/please-dont-lick-stripper

Wouldn't you be pissed? I know I would be, and likely most/all of my kids' friends' parents too.

Maybe THAT is why it's against the law?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:17 PM

240. If the mother is 33, and the boy just turned 16...

How do you figure that she "found herself pregnant at 14"? That had to be one looonngg pregnancy!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:28 PM

254. So we've established that your preferred age for defacto adulthood among men is 16.

What is the age at which the "differences between boys and girls" enable a girl to become competent to make her own decisions about what is traumatizing?

Do women ever reach adulthood, or are women just big children?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:57 AM

13. "Nude woman" and "Stripper" are qualitatively different.

Your thread title is, in effect, misleading, because now anyone who sees a problem with this appears to have a problem with nudity in general rather than a mom getting her kid a stripper.

Not a good way to frame a conversation about a sensitive issue unless you are looking for a flame war.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:06 AM

20. Ya know it just not that hard to follow the law

No matter what some parents think about the sexual mores of our country, it's so much easier to just follow the law and not expose minors to sexually charged lap dances. It sounds like a no-brainer to me.

How in the world did this mother benefit her son and his friends? What did they gain from it other than sexual stimulation? I'd say they certainly got the message that women are supposed to act like these strippers since that's what mom evidently thinks.

Talk about teaching the bad lessons!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:16 AM

28. Exactly. Are people here for a political discussion or a moral one?

Legally speaking, there is a reason we protect minors from certain things and keep certain privileges from them.

Whether or not this individual, or others at the party, were 'endangered' is sort of beyond the point. The law is the law, and if there are people here who honestly think that it should be changed to allow minors to hang out with strippers then *they* should be the one defending their position.

I think this thread is framed in such a way that it puts the wrong people on the defensive and frames a moral debate as a political/legal one.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:08 AM

22. I think it's endangering the welfare of a child to expose them to sexually explicit material.

This would certainly by true for a younger child, and I think it can be true for older minors as well. Some kids are sexually active at that age but many others are extremely innocent (and you could even argue that being sexually active doesn't necessarily diminish one's innocence).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:17 AM

29. But it's just a naked woman

What is the "endangerment" part? He might get a surge of testosterone? He might jerk off (at 16, he's probably done twice already today). Again, I don't argue that it was incredibly bad judgement on the part of the boy's mother. But what is the CRIME?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:20 AM

36. No--it's a sex worker touching a minor, procured by the parent. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:53 AM

71. The crime is endangerment of the welfare of a minor.

You're focusing on the word "endangerment" and taking it to mean only endangerment of one's physical safety. One's well-being can be endangered in other ways. If another parent showed my young child a pornographic movie or a graphically violent movie, I would consider that parent to have endangered the psychological well-being of my child. Considering that pedophiles sometimes start out showing their victims pornography, I absolutely believe this should be considered a criminal offense. Maybe you think teenagers are too old to be afforded that protection under the law. If that is the case, you should make that argument instead of focusing on a narrow and irrelevant interpretation of "endangerment."

ETA - The strippers in this case did more than provide a "visual," but I'm addressing your hypothetical of what if were only a sexually explicit visual (and I don't think all nudity is sexually explicit, but this was).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:16 AM

26. how do nudists fit in?

I guess it's the desexualized nature of the nudity. In a nudist camp prepubescent children are seeing naked adults but there's no sexual context or contact so it's not considered a thing anymore than it would be amongst bush people in Africa.

I'd wager that there's more things to waggle fingers at in this household than just the stripper. Thank God I'm not the moral guardian of the country.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jollyreaper2112 (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:20 AM

33. the OP thinks casual nudity is the same as a sexually charged performance intended to excite.

Thus, having a bikini clad stripper latched to your face is the exact same thing as seeing a naked breast on a nude beach. My conclusion from that is that the OP would be extremely creepy on a nude beach.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:23 AM

37. Don't tell me what the OP thinks, thank you.

If you actually read my posts instead of just being a judgmental superior, you'd understand that that is NOT at all what I'm saying.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:26 AM

41. You claim a lap dance is the same as 'seeing boobies' and keep insisting ALL boys would dig that.

Just not accurate wording about a lap dance and a denial that not all boys are straight boys.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:34 AM

51. I DID NOT claim a lap dance is the same as "seeing boobies!"

Stop putting words in my post! Just stop it!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #51)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:41 AM

55. You post said this is all about 'seeing boobies'. Yet the photos from the story show lap dances.

Perhaps you were not well informed about the details of this party and thus your equation of the two was not intentional, but that does not mean the OP does not say this is all about seeing boobies when in the photos who lap dances and no 'boobies'.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #55)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:52 AM

69. I've already addressed that.

Thanks for playing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jollyreaper2112 (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:20 AM

34. Exactly

I've been to nudist resorts full of families raised with nudity. The kids don't see anything, because it is normal. Any parent knows that when your baby gets naked, he/she loves it, and fights when you try to put clothes back on. Clothes aren't natural, they're forced upon us. That said, wearing a g-string and wrapping your legs around someone's head isn't "nudity." I'm not arguing that what this woman did was right in any way. I'm just asking, again, what is the CRIME?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:19 AM

31. Paying a sex worker to touch your minor child is a crime, Atman.

Paying a sex worker to touch your minor child while other minors are watching is a crime.

Looking at the picture above, I suspect that the 'endangering' charges are merely placeholders. There will be more serious charges down the pike.

If I were a parent of a child at this party, I would be suing the mom, the sex worker, the agency that provided her, the bowling alley, and everyone else I could think of.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:20 AM

35. Lap dancing is way beyond just "seeing boobies"

In the article I read it said there was lap dancing, which even a mother with half a brain should know is entirely inappropriate at a 16 year old birthday party.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jersey Devil (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:24 AM

38. Kids as young as 13 were present., too. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jersey Devil (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:25 AM

39. Have any of you noticed that I had no link or photos when I posted the story?

It was a story on the television news. I woman hired a stripper for her son's 16 birthday party. There was no mention of 14 year olds, there were no pictures. CALM THE FUCK DOWN. I'm not equating getting your head scissored with "mere nudity." However, I'm still asking, what is the CRIME?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:27 AM

42. If it's a crime to take your son to a strip club for his 16th birthday and buy him a lap dance

It's also a crime to have a stripper come to his 16th birthday party and give him a lap dance.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:31 AM

46. Paying a sex worker to touch your minor child is a crime. What are you not getting?

Paying a sex worker to touch your minor child while others watch is a crime.

Taking pictures of your minor child being serviced by a sex worker is a crime.

Seriously....you can't see the crimes here?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:04 AM

87. The CRIME is what the LAW says it is. So LOOK IT THE **** UP.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #87)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:41 PM

316. You win an internet

+1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:29 AM

44. Meh, I was drawing nudes at 16. big deal.

as an art student, one of my drawing teachers said to us one day, I will bring in a model but sadly (half jokingly) they won't be nude. After class I asked about it and she said, they won't allow it, but it does make you a better artist.

A week later I found an "off campus" class for artists allowing for nude models. My art increased dramatically. My teacher noticed the difference.

The class found out later that I was "under age" but via a note from my parents, all was fine.

We put such a bizarre onus on nudity in our society it is frankly weird.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:33 AM

49. Was the nude model paid for by your parents, did she touch you, and did others watch and take

pictures?

No?

Then I don't think these are similar situations.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:37 AM

53. Our gallery used to host "figure drawing" classes every week.

Every week...plenty of people willing to pose, plenty of people willing to take the class. Some woman or old dude would show up, take of their bathrobe and sit naked for an hour, changing poses every five or ten minutes. SHOCKING! There was no age limit for the students. SHOCKING! I guess as long as you sit still when you're naked, it's okay.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:36 AM

124. I've never seen a figure drawing class that allowed physical contact or leering at the models.

Did yours allow that sort of thing?
A list of 'rules' from a site about figure drawing:

1 Don't touch the model
2 Don't talk about the model's appearance
3 Teacher directs the session NOT the model
4 No talking
5 No flirting or acknowledgement of the attractiveness of the model.

Now, the party in question was like such a class in what way? They touched, the entire point was to enjoy the models appearance, dancer directs and conducts the session, the viewers talk freely to one another and to the performer, and not only do they flirt, they leer, make suggestive comments, grope, get groped...
Another difference would be that the dancers were 'of a type' that is a figure drawing class would as you say, offer up an 'old dude' not two women of similar age and type. Of course those boys and that mom would not get off on an old dude, and the entire point of the party was sexual excitement.

http://www.thenakedshed.blogspot.com/2006/05/rules-of-life-drawing-codes-of-conduct.html

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #124)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:39 AM

128. maybe even talked about her "skanky snatch" since it is a known stripper term. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:46 AM

61. I was upset at about 11 or less that there were no such things (to my knowledge) as

dirty comic books. I seemed to get off on sex at a very very very early age, way before 11, fooling around myself.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:42 AM

210. From both directions, it seems.

"We put such a bizarre onus on nudity in our society it is frankly weird...."

From both directions, it often seems.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:34 AM

52. I have never been harmed by nudity. n/t

-Laelth

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #52)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:40 AM

54. Read the thread...we aren't talking about nudity. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #54)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:56 AM

153. Interesting and clever framing by the OP, isn't it.

Some people in this thread want to talk about whether nudity is inherently dangerous, and whether it ought to be a crime to expose children to nudity. Other people want to talk about something else. That's fine. It makes for an interesting discussion.

Here's what I can add, as an attorney and as a father of two, pre-pubescent girls. Legally, the question here centers around the right to rear one's children as one sees fit. That right, to rear one's children as one sees fit, has been established by the SCOTUS, and it is protected at strict scrutiny (one of the highest levels of protection offered by the SCOTUS). Said right does not appear in the Constitution. It was created by a judicial ruling, but the right to rear one's children as one sees fit was assumed under the English common law which all U.S. states (except Louisianna) use as the basis of their legal system. The SCOTUS merely codified a right that everyone, previously, assumed they already had. This is why it's O.K., generally, to employ corporal punishment when disciplining your children (so long as said beatings don't rise to the level of abuse--a very subjective standard, to be sure).

So, for me, the question here is whether the parents of all the attendees to this party knew that their children were going to be exposed to a stripper. Because the mother in question had every right to expose her own child to a stripper, I have no problem with that. I don't, personally, think that rises to the level of abuse, or deprivation, or any other standard that the state can use to punish a person for mis-treating their children. On the other had, the other parents of attendees at this party also have the right to rear their children as they see fit, and if the mother who hosted this party did not inform these other parents that a stripper would be present, then their right to rear their children as they see fit may have been infringed upon.

But is that a crime? That's another question altogether. I firmly believe that a parent who was not aware that their child would be exposed to a stripper would have a viable, civil action against this mother under these facts. However, I do not believe that this mother did anything that rises to the level of a crime (in which the state, with all of its inherent power, acts as a free attorney to punish a wrongdoer on behalf of an aggrieved party).

That, I think, is the discussion that the OP wanted to promote and it is the discussion I would prefer to have. As you have no doubt surmised, my preferences mean very little here.

Regards,

-Laelth

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #153)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:27 AM

190. As a criminal defense attorney, I have to disagree....the issue is not rearing a child as

one sees fit. You presume that the mother has a right to expose her child to a "stripper." But that is not what happened here--The sex worker in question did not merely remove clothing, but engaged in contact. This was not accidental contact, either, it was contracted for because "strippers" do not commonly perform lap dances without payment to do so--it is a seperate service.

There is no common law right to procure sex workers for one's minor children. Nor is there a common law right to consent to sexual acts on behalf of one's children. Nor is there a common law right to consent to witnessing sex acts on behalf of one's children. It doesn't matter what she told the other parents. It doesn't matter what she consented to. It doesn't matter what the yound man 'consented' to.

She's charged under 260.10 of the NY Penal code. She's not going to be able to use the affirmative defense of consent, and frankly, she doesn't have much of a defense. She's going to have a tough time avoiding jail because no prosecutor is going to go easy on her unless the other parents agree. To avoid jail, she'd have to agree to serious monitoring, parenting classes, restitution, and possibly rehab. But I will tell you--I used to do Juvy defense. Cases like this, with a parent/child so close in age, and the sexual aspect of it, always gave me shivers.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #190)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:31 AM

196. NY law is not my specialty, so I will defer to you on this.

I am always sensitive to the abuse of criminal prosecution power by the state. Given that you are a criminal defense attorney, I would imagine that you feel similarly.

This should be a civil case, imho. If New York law makes this a clear and definite criminal case, so be it, but I don't like it. The power of the state should be used judiciously and sparingly. I have no interest in living in a police state.

-Laelth

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #196)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:54 AM

221. I agree that the best solution all around may be a civil case....but here's the problem...

The prosecutor, like all prosecutors, is answerable to the public. Here you have 4 other wronged families who may not be content with leaving this as a civil matter. Justice should not bow to political pressure, but it does.

Arguably, jail time isn't going to teach this woman anything about parenting, and she probably doesn't have a dime to her name to make herself a truly attractive civil target. There's no good solution to this.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #221)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:05 PM

230. No doubt.

DAs are, generally-speaking wanna-be politicians, and I suspect some DA thinks he or she can improve his or her chances of achieving political success through a rigorous prosecution of this woman who, while un-wise, is not inherently evil, nor is she really a danger to society.

I concede that you have accurately assessed the likely outcome, tragic though it may be.

-Laelth

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #153)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:43 PM

271. Does the right to raise a child as a parent sees fit extend to... say... buying them alcohol? n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #271)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:56 PM

286. Touchy subject.

It varies by state. Many parents that I know here in GA have served their children alcohol. Generally speaking, this activity goes unreported. That said, I am not aware of a single prosecution in this state over the past nine years involving a parent serving alcohol to his or her own children. The problem occurs (as it has in the case discussed in this OP) when one parent exposes a child that is not his or her own to an activity or substance that other parents may find objectionable. In cases like this, those parents who were not informed may (and probably should) have a viable civil cause of action against the parent who infringed upon their own, Constitutionally-protected right to rear their children as they see fit.

Whether this activity is (or should be) a crime is the point of the OP, I think. I am of the opinion that the mother referenced in the OP should not be held criminally liable in this case.

-Laelth



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:52 AM

68. How is a nude man rubbing his crotch against a 16 year old woman-child..."endangerment"? HMMMMM??

Sounds pretty CREEPY and ILLEGAL that way, does it not?T

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:00 AM

79. More puritanical BS..

what heterosexual 16 year old kid wouldn't enjoy such a display? Personally, I think she's a great mom..Instead, she's facing a year in jail..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #79)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:02 AM

84. Yes, a stranger's naked genitals up close is a dream come true. Post a pic of yours!

*sarcasm*

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #84)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:04 AM

86. To a 16 year old boy..

a woman's genitals up close is indeed a "dream come true"...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #86)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:06 AM

89. Really? And would said boy like it if his friends and MOM observed his 16-yr-old boy reaction?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #86)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:09 AM

92. Really? Having a woman bought and paid for by your mom to do so

is a 16-year old male fantasy?

Who knew?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #92)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:11 AM

94. since there are lots of grown men that do not have the desire,

 

i have to wonder the man that assumes all boys want this also.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #94)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:14 AM

98. That's right..

there are heterosexual teenage boys around who aren't aroused by the female form..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #98)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:21 AM

109. because that is really not even close to saying the same thing. i too, can roll my eyes.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #94)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:17 AM

102. 'Every boy would want this' is a sexist, and perhaps homophobic assumption.

I taught plenty of 16 year olds who would have thought this was the height of creepy....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #102)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:23 AM

111. exactly. further, they are not allowed to express it because men like on this thread

 

insisting that ALL boys really want this and is challenging boys very sexuality if they show any desire to not experience this.

so they really set these boys up to have to keep their mouth shut and take it.

hence, the law

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #102)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:26 PM

250. Indeed. I know grown heterosexual men who would be disgusted by this.

This whole thread has left me speechless.

Un-fucking-believable.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #250)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:27 PM

252. My husband would have called the police had he seen this going on.

This was in a party room at a bowling alley advertised as a "family fun center."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #250)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:35 PM

263. most all men in my life, but a drunk brother, would have been "outraged". but then,

 

all the years my hubby was single he was not into strip bars. thought they were insulting to men. didnt think about it much fromt he strippers perspective. it was all about him. he didnt go then. he would not applaud taking sons.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #92)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:12 AM

95. Naked women are a 16 year old boy's fantasy..

and if his mom payed for them..so what?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #95)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:13 AM

97. Do you not understand that procuring sex workers for your minor child is a crime? nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #97)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:20 AM

107. All you keep saying is ..it's the law..

fine and understood, there are a lot of laws in this country trying to legislate morality, doesn't make them right....but where's the endangerment here?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #107)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:25 AM

114. The assumption of endangerment

is that procuring sexual stimulation for someone below the age of consent is a kind of endangerment. Just like actually sexually stimulating someone below the age of consent is endangering them. They are not legally able to consent to this. Are you opposed to laws about the age of consent? Or do you think the age should be lower?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #107)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:35 AM

122. Well, this is a democracy. You can file a suit, or you can elect legislators, or heck, you can even

start a petition to overcome this oppression.

If you truly do not understand why a parent who procures a sex worker to touch their minor child is endangering their child, I think there's nothing more I can educate you on.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #86)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:12 PM

235. This party was also attended by girls and boys as young as 14.

Is it a dream come true for a 14 yr old girl to attend a party and find out that she will be forced (unless she calls her parents to come and collect her) to watch her slightly older peers getting lap dances with adult women wrapping their legs around the heads of these boys? Is it fun for her to be subjected to the comments and calls that typically accompany such displays?

Or do we not consider her feelings because the teen boy fantasy supersedes all other concern?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #79)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:46 AM

214. What kid wouldn't enjoy playing X-box every day instead of going to school?

"what heterosexual 16 year old kid wouldn't enjoy such a display..."

What kid wouldn't enjoy playing X-box every day instead of going to school? Six of one, half a dozen of the other, and both equally idiotic from which to base a conclusion....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #214)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:57 AM

225. +1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:00 AM

80. At least she didn't hire stripping clowns....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cliffordu (Reply #80)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:07 AM

90. Or take them to the Olive Garden, and sat them in the smoking section. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #90)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:59 PM

367. With pit bulls

and a lactating stripper...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:08 AM

91. I don't know how they were endangered and it seems like no one else does either

All I see is variations on "that's nasty", "its the LAW", "what if it was your DAUGHTER!!!", and this is the default position that I cannot justify and will not try because it is default so if you want to change default than you have to sell the benefit.

No digging in to the conventions, no logical framework, little actual thinking but emotional reaction and appeals to authority.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #91)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:12 AM

96. Excuse--I know precisely why they were endangered, and I have stated it quite a few times.

Paying a sex worker to touch your minor child is a crime. Having them do it in front of other minors is another crime. Taking pictures of said act? Another crime.

The 'endangerment' charges are placeholders, and easily proven. I suspect that she is facing more serious sex crimes charges.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #96)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:40 AM

129. You just recite "the law" over and over again.

WHAT IS THE CRIME?

So a 16 year old, already likely sexually active, but we don't know that -- my first time was on my 15th birthday -- has a naked woman dance in front of him. WHAT IS THE CRIME? The crime is that someone wrote down on a piece of paper that it is a crime. A 16 year old young man is not a CHILD. Who was harmed, and why is it in the benefit of society to prosecute someone, send someone to jail, because a naked woman danced in front of a 16 year? Who are we "protecting?"

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #129)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:45 AM

135. 13% of teens have had sex by age 15. young people have sex for the first time at about age 17,

 

•Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sex in their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and male teens have had intercourse.
•On average, young people have sex for the first time at about age 17, but they do not marry until their mid-20s. This means that young adults may be at increased risk for unintended pregnancy and STIs for nearly a decade or longer.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html

you would be wrong about this, also.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #135)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:54 AM

149. I broke all the rules...

I had sex for the first time on my 15th birthday. I was 19 when I met my 16 year old wife (just MET, didn't "do" anything!). She moved in with me when she was 18. We "lived in sin" for two years, then got married. We waited and planned our family, had two wonderful, successful boys (one just bought his first house in this horrible Obama economy, the other works at an ad agency in Boston). I helped put my wife through school, she earned her masters, I've owned a couple of businesses, and we've been married now for 31 years. I guess it's all because I hate women and I "don't get it."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #149)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:56 AM

152. i am pointing out where what you experience is not everyones experience. you do not like that.

 

not my problem. if you are gonna put this stuff out, expect it to be challenged if you are wrong.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #152)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:02 AM

161. "...if you are wrong."

And I suppose it is up to you to determine that?

I've been with my best friend for nearly 35 years. I have two successful kids. And you're going to tell me I don't know anything about life?

Of course not everyone has been as fortunate as I am. I never stated that. But that doesn't mean I don't have insight. Forgive me for not being as awesome as you are.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #161)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:07 AM

167. "So a 16 year old, already likely sexually active," YOU said this. YOU are wrong. every stat

 

puts the average age of first sexual intercourse at 17. something for both the girl and the boy.

it is not according to me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #129)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:47 AM

141. No--I'm reciting the elements of the crime. Do you dispute any of those elements? nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #129)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:22 AM

186. The crime is an adult touching a child sexually

The crime is paying an adult to touch your minor child sexually.

The crime is doing all of that in the presence of other minors, many under the age of consent for ANYTHING,

The crime is recording all of this and making it available.

I am not against strippers. She can wait two years and take him to a club, where it'll be just be tacky and kinda icky to buy her kid a lapdance, but not a crime.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #96)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:03 AM

163. What are you going on about with "placeholders"? (PS - it's NOT a crime)

It's not like there's some rule in NYS that says "you have to have some charges RIGHT AWAY or they get to walk!" - if the DA wanted to throw around some heavy-duty felony sex charges, there would be some press release to the effect of "we are currently investigating and will take action as we determine is warranted" or something. It's not like they're charging her with a custodial offense in order to hold her while they work on more charges - it's a misdemeanor, theoretically there's a year in jail since it's an A, but it's highly unlikely. I'm not quite as up on my NYS sex crimes, my jailhouse law tends more towards simple possession and public drunkenness, but the reports are saying "nearly nude" not "naked" and I do know the club laws prohibit nudity where alcohol is served which probably applies to for-hire dancers since homes aren't policed to be alcohol-free.

Anyway, assuming this dancer was wearing panties and pasties it is not a sex crime in New York. They're pretty clearly defined, the least severe one I can find is Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree which still requires "oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct" which didn't happen here; Disseminating Indecent Material to Minors is a computer crime.

Maybe you can take up the cause to get a "Bobby Viger's Law" passed in NY; exposing a teen boy to a nearly-naked woman is a Class A sex offense!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #163)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:44 AM

211. Really? You can touch minors below the age of consent in NYS as long as you are wearing panties and

pasties? You can perform lap dances on minors in NYState?

You think that? Okay...you keep thinking that.

As for 'placeholders'--well, I've seen DA's file charges as placeholders, and then refile charges as the case gets more attention in the media. If I were her attorney, I'd advise her to be prepared to face more than misdemeanors.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #211)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:57 AM

226. Yes, you can. Please educate yourself.

Here's a list of all New York State Penal Law Sex Offenses, straight from the horse's mouth. Please, I'm dying to know what on that list you would charge the mother and/or dancer with. A lap dance is certainly titillating and sexual in nature but it is not, according to the law in New York State, "sexual contact".

Again, if you don't like this, you're more than free to have it changed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #226)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:22 PM

244. Ahem...you are mistaken in quite a few ways.

First, you failed to note the predicate:


§ 130.05 Sex offenses; lack of consent.
1. Whether or not specifically stated, it is an element of every
offense defined in this article that the sexual act was committed
without consent of the victim.


2. Lack of consent results from:
(a) Forcible compulsion; or
(b) Incapacity to consent; or
(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse or forcible touching,
any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to
consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce
in the actor's conduct; or
(d) Where the offense charged is rape in the third degree as defined
in subdivision three of section 130.25, or criminal sexual act in the
third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.40, in
addition to forcible compulsion, circumstances under which, at the time
of the act of intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct,
the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in
such act, and a reasonable person in the actor's situation would have
understood such person's words and acts as an expression of lack of
consent to such act under all the circumstances.
3. A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is:
(a) less than seventeen years old; or
(b) mentally disabled; or
(c) mentally incapacitated; or
(d) physically helpless; or
(e) committed to the care and custody or supervision of the state
department of corrections and community supervision or a hospital, as
such term is defined in subdivision two of section four hundred of the
correction law, and the actor is an employee who knows or reasonably
should know that such person is committed to the care and custody or
supervision of such department or hospital. For purposes of this
paragraph, "employee" means (i) an employee of the state department of
corrections and community supervision who, as part of his or her
employment, performs duties: (A) in a state correctional facility in
which the victim is confined at the time of the offense consisting of
providing custody, medical or mental health services, counseling
services, educational programs, vocational training, institutional
parole services or direct supervision to inmates; or


Second, you don't have a list of "all New York State Penal Law Sex Offenses." You have a list of those that require sex offender registration. There's a difference.

Third, I would charge the dancer with 130.52, and 130.60 (alternatively 130.55 if the facts in question bore it out.) Further, I'd charge the mother on 263.05 and 235.21(3) if I the facts bore it out, along with conspiracy counts where I could.

The thing about 'jailhouse' lawyers, my friend, is that they tend to be in jail.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #244)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:54 PM

284. That is some serious legal stretching and a couple of fails.

I'm well aware of the age of consent issue and I'm not challenging the facts at hand that the kids (more specifically the birthday boy) weren't legally capable of consent.

That being said, 103.60 instantly and clearly fails by its own words (all emphases added):

A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the second degree when he or she
subjects another person to sexual contact and when such other person is:
1. Incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less
than seventeen years old
; or
2. Less than fourteen years old.


.55 is an arguable case - unless the dancer is under 21! And if the DA wants to set precedent for lap dancing being "sexual contact"; I could see that spectacularly backfiring in one of the suits that pops up every year or so when a drunk guy runs up a huge tab at a strip club and then tries to weasel out...being intoxicated does usually = unable to consent..

A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when he or she
subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent;
except that in any prosecution under this section, it is an affirmative
defense that (a) such other person's lack of consent was due solely to
incapacity to consent by reason of being less than seventeen years old,

and (b) such other person was more than fourteen years old, and (c) the
defendant was less than five years older than such other person.


130.52 is a little more nebulous, requiring the touching to be "for the purpose of gratifying the actor's sexual desire"...I suppose you could ask the dancer (or a third-party dancer, as an "expert witness") if she were sexually gratified by the dance. I've known a couple of girls who've danced and they never said it was exciting, but anecdotes doth not evidence make.

263.05 has wiggle room too and is probably your best shot; "Performance" means any play, motion picture, photograph or dance. Performance also means any other visual representation exhibited before an audience. Question becomes, were the other kids an "audience" as such? I can't find any strict definition of what an audience constitutes so you'd have to convince a jury of that one, it could go either way.

235.21 also falls flat on its own wording (unless mom was charging admission):
A person is guilty of disseminating indecent material to minors in the
second degree when:
1. With knowledge of its character and content, he sells or loans to
a minor for monetary consideration:
(a) Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film,
or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the
human body which depicts nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic
abuse and which is harmful to minors; or
(b) Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced,
or sound recording which contains any matter enumerated in paragraph (a)
hereof, or explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative
accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse
and which, taken as a whole, is harmful to minors; or
2. Knowing the character and content of a motion picture, show or
other presentation which, in whole or in part, depicts nudity, sexual
conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors, he:
(a) Exhibits such motion picture, show or other presentation to a
minor for a monetary consideration; or
(b) Sells to a minor an admission ticket or pass to premises whereon
there is exhibited or to be exhibited such motion picture, show or other
presentation; or
(c) Admits a minor for a monetary consideration to premises whereon
there is exhibited or to be exhibited such motion picture show or other
presentation; or
3. Knowing the character and content of the communication which, in
whole or in part, depicts actual or simulated nudity, sexual conduct or
sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors, he intentionally
uses any computer communication system allowing the input, output,
examination or transfer, of computer data or computer programs from one
computer to another, to initiate or engage in such communication with a
person who is a minor.


To be clear - this was incredibly stupid, irresponsible, and reckless of the mother and of the dancer once she got to the party, but I simply do not believe that any of this conduct was so harmful to boys between 14 and 16 years old (god knows when I was that age I had a stack of magazines and videotapes, if I knew a strip club that would have let me in you bet your ass I'd have been there in a heartbeat) that anything more than the already-levied charges are appropriate. It's not like they're going to have PTSD.

I suppose I should ask why you do feel that multiple felony sex charges should be brought, with the potential to quite literally destroy two people's lives, but I quite frankly don't know that I'd even want to hear reasoning that construes this as felony child abuse.

And I've never been in jail

ed taming subject line
ed 2 misread one statute, changing to reflect.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #284)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:07 PM

293. Wow. You are just very wrong---

First of all, 130.60 applies to the 13-year old at the party who apparently was involved in the show. Your statutory construction fails.

130.52 has conjunctive 'and's therefore, your stautory construction fails because you ignored (b) and (c) of the statute.

235.21.3 is the subsection involved, and using the non-conjunctive "or" there is no monetary consideration needed; therefore, your stautory construction fails.

I'm glad you agree with me on 265.05 and 130.55.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #293)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:25 PM

302. What source do you have?

The youngest I've heard is 14 from the CNN link and the only confirmed contact was with the 16-year old (the other "young male" was unidentified).

I caught myself on .55 (sexual abuse 3) and edited to update. But what are you talking about with 235.21.3? The text I'm getting from FindLaw is "3. Knowing the character and content of the communication which, in whole or in part, depicts actual or simulated nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors, he intentionally uses any computer communication system allowing the input, output, examination or transfer, of computer data or computer programs from one computer to another, to initiate or engage in such communication with a person who is a minor." No monetary consideration no, but where was a "computer communication system" used to "initiate or engage in such communication", e.g. when were lewd materials sent over the internet? Facebook?

I don't agree on 263.05 and 130.52 (forcible touching), I just said I think those along with .55 if the dancers were old enough are the only cases that can even be made and 263.05 is an incredibly long shot that depends on simply having other people in the room qualify as a "perfomance."

Do you really believe that these boys were psychologically damaged so much that the most severe legal penalties that could possibly be applied should be applied? Should the court also order that all of them be placed into therapy? This seems like an appropriate response for a parent who hosts a party with alcohol and kids die in a DUI, but not for giving some kids what was quite honestly the time of their lives.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #302)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:00 PM

329. Here--on the 13 year old-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/judy-viger-new-york-mother-arrested-buying-strippers-sons-16th-birthday_n_2718279.html

And yes...Facebook.

According to other reports, one child had his nipple bit, and was scratched. Yeah...I'm not saying she shoudl have the most severe penalties, but I think a felony count is warranted.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #329)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:03 PM

332. The kids posted to Facebook.

So they should be charged?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #332)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:05 PM

333. You don't know that. You have no idea who took pictures, who

posted them, etc. If she did, she should be charged. If the minors did, no.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #333)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:39 PM

352. You're right, I'm just thinking

That as (it's reported) that the parents became aware of thus via Facebook posts, it was likely the kids - I can't see the parents browsing a random dancer's page.

I don't even know that charges could be brought though; the communication wasn't directed at a specific minor but rather just posted publicly.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #293)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:35 PM

310. I am swinging a bit farther than I should the other way

In a reactive fashion. How about the DA actually talk to the kids and see how THEY all felt about it before taking action? I'm projecting myself into the situation which is not a rational thing to do; while the birthday boy seemed to enjoy it there could have very likely been some kids who were offended or profoundly uncomfortable.

I still question whether or not that would rise to the level of trauma that felony child sex crime charges should be a reaction to (realizing that the morality vs. applicability of the law isn't always a perfect match) - assuming the dancers weren't naked, the cold reality remains that the "performance" really wasn't anything worse than our hypersexualized culture has exposed even 13 year olds to already.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #310)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:55 PM

328. Really? One minor was bit on the nipple and scratched. You have that happen in from of many 13

year-olds?

http://poststar.com/news/local/teens-describe-lap-dances-at-birthday-party-in-stripper-case/article_2c7dbdd0-7ae1-11e2-90fe-0019bb2963f4.html

When the sex offense involves a minor, consent, or how the minor viewed the crime acted upon them is legally irrelevant, generally.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #328)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:01 PM

330. Happened to my sister

While I was watching MTV Spring Break when I was 17. She thought it was rather distasteful and I was immature for watching it but she's turned out fine. I think they still broadcast that, you should get in touch with a DA in NY about it.

Bottom line, I'm comfortable with 5 counts of child endangerment. Maximum penalty of $5000 and five years in jail, I say 30 days and $2500 plus probation and maybe parenting classes. Or a firm smack upside the head.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #91)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:36 PM

264. Would you support prosecution if your daughter had been one of the kids at this party?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:16 AM

99. I think it's not so much about nudity as it is about sexual arousal

It's not a parent's job to sexually arouse their children. Nudity is not so much the issue, but a stripper's whole act is to sexually arouse and that's definitely bad parenting. Seeing boobies is bound to happen, and that's not so much endangerment, but it's the adult manipulating the situation as a provacateur. Plus, it is seriously ick.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #99)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:42 AM

131. There's no law against "icky."

Otherwise, half the people in spandex would be in jail.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:46 AM

140. I can understand a nude woman at a supervised art/photo class involving figure studies...

But this case was over the line. Did parents of the other kids give their consent?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:49 AM

143. The photo shown in this thread is disgusting. Stomach turning, even.

It's not about "nudity". It's about a less-than-healthy looking young woman exploiting nudity for money while you have a hard on in front of your mom.

Really gross.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #143)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:58 AM

157. Why is "Really Gross" a crime?

By those standards, I could think of half a dozen items on the Taco Bell menu as "criminal." The question remains, who was "harmed," and why is this a crime? Msanthrope will again say "because the law says it's a crime!" but that's not the point. Who is harmed by this? Honey Boo Boo should be a crime. I see HARM there. Who is "harmed" when a 16 year old gets a lap dance?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #157)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:03 AM

164. SOCIETY is harmed by this. It's exploitative of the dancer. It's age-inappropriate

as to the children. And it is a disturbing crossing of boundaries for mom.

I am not gay. I am happily married to a person of the opposite gender. I WOULD NOT have wanted to participate in this as a 15 year old. I also would not have wanted to deal with the peer-pressure and the taunts if I refused.

As an adult, my values are firmer, and the pull of the crowd less. That's because I'm an adult, not a child just beginning to negotiate my sexuality. That's why every state in the union recognizes a legal age of consent.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #164)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:13 AM

175. thank you. with two boys, i so appreciate you being honest.

 

i have one son that would be so pissed, he would make a spectacle of himself before walking out.

i have another that would sit their quietly and be totally uncomfortable and not say a word.

i hate that we give this to boys. it is as bad as a grown man convincing a girl to do something inappropriate because he is older and manipulates.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #175)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:25 PM

248. I love these guys...

 

...who can recall that they were so sexually self-confident at the age of 14 or so that they wouldn't have been uncomfortable at all having a strange adult stick their genitals in their face while their friends and parents watched and took pictures.

I know for myself that I was pretty scared/confused/eager/terrified, etc. about my own sexuality when I was in middle school. I'll err on the side of caution that middle school age kids today are still scared/confused/eager/terrified, etc. and not hire sex workers for them.

I'm recalling an old Onion headline..."Neighborhood's Coolest Parent is Actually Neighborhood's Worst Parent".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zaireeka (Reply #248)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:38 PM

267. having two sons this age, ya, i get it. and not seeing a lot of difference what they are going

 

thru than what the young girls are going thru.

sheeit, my 15 yr old googles, .... how to ask a girl out.

not quite on the same level.

but, yes, you are right, a lot of men pretend otherwise.

thanks for being candid about your own experience.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #267)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:02 PM

289. Raising boys....

 

My goal in raising my sons is to NOT have them exposed to the notion that sex is a commodity to be acquired/purchased/traded/exploited...I will, of course, fail miserably when parents like these (and some posters here) are treated with a wink and a nod.

Thanks sb...and thanks to all the folks out there that made it OK for me to be a vulnerable, connected father. I feel sorry for the fathers out there (and mothers, surely) who don't get to enjoy that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zaireeka (Reply #289)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:40 PM

314. my husband gives my boys this....

 

it is the best, in example.

so i guess we ought to be thanking you, for being that vulnerable connected father.

and welcome to du.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #175)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:55 PM

347. No problem, seabeyond. I think it's a lot harder to be a kid today then when I was a boy. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #347)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:05 PM

348. so true. and it makes it no easier for a parent fighting against this garbage being fed

 

to their kid from a supposed other parent.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #157)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:31 AM

195. I suppose you have no problem with NAMBLA, either.

After all, it's 'just' sex, right?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:01 AM

160. Intimate dances by a stripper for 5 minors under the age of 17 = Child endangerment nt

PB

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:08 AM

168. Look, this isn't complicated.

There are laws in place designed to prevent, for example, your neighbor from showing your young child a pornographic video. Such an act would not, of course, "endanger" the child in the very narrow and irrelevant interpretation you seem to be focusing on; it would not be the equivalent of dangling the child over a cliff. But the charge is not "endangering the physical safety of a minor," it's "endangering the welfare of a minor." Welfare can include psychological well-being. I'm not a lawyer and someone might nitpick about my legal definitions but the point is that there should be a law against your neighbor showing your young child a porno, and there is a law against it. Can there be gray areas in that law like there are gray areas in any law? Sure. I wouldn't want to see a well-intentioned high school art teacher thrown into jail for showing the students a classical nude sculpture. I wouldn't want a parent arrested for taking a 14-year-old to see an R-rated movie with some violence and make-out scenes. There are gray areas, but this case isn't one of them in my opinion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:09 AM

169. How does this have anything to do with sex workers?

Two totally different things.
And having different rules for your daughter? What if she wanted to be scissored?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #169)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:47 PM

277. Actually, that's a good question. Why wasn't the stripper arrested?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #277)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:12 PM

298. I read that they are considering charges against the strippers and the company.

They were investigating the level of contact.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #277)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:19 PM

300. both the Mom and stripper no doubt, broke the law. i bet there will be charges brought.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:14 AM

177. This thread certainly was revealing.

And creepy as fuck.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #177)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:24 AM

188. you think?

sometimes you have to wonder if some posters on here are truly progressives or just trolls that post to make DU look bad

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #177)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:16 PM

238. Totally agreed.

Really disturbing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #177)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:24 PM

246. Yes...I've been trolling since 2002 just waiting for this day!



I commented on a news story. Forgive me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #177)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:27 PM

251. Amazing. Even for DU. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:23 AM

187. The crime is an adult touching a child sexually

The crime is paying an adult to touch your minor child sexually.

The crime is doing all of that in the presence of other minors, many under the age of consent for ANYTHING,

The crime is recording all of this and making it available.

I am not against strippers. She can wait two years and take him to a club, where it'll be just be tacky and kinda icky to buy her kid a lapdance, but not a crime.


This wasn't buying the kid a Playboy, or not caring that he watches porn online.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:33 AM

201. she wont be winning any mother of the year awards

but a lot of people are hung up on nudity..
I don't see the harm, as long as the other spectators were at least 16 or older....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smll_Ax3 (Reply #201)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:18 PM

241. The other spectators were not all 16 and older.

There were boys and girls in attendance and some were at least as young as 14. And it wasn't simply an issue of exposure to nudity. Minors were receiving lap dances.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUpWithIt All (Reply #241)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:28 PM

253. Most people only read the most recent posts.

So I'll reiterate...my OP was based on a "breaking news" story on the tv. No link. No details. I explained this several times. I would NOT find this acceptable. But it still raises the question, what is a CRIME about seeing a naked woman? Yes, it is written on paper that it is a crime, I'm just asking why? You're not killing people, you're not a Wall Street Bank, you're not Dick Cheney...what is the CRIME here?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #253)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:53 PM

282. Except in this case the crime was NOT about seeing a naked woman.

The CRIME, and i do not for a second believe you are truly as obtuse as you're pretending to be, is when the adult was paid to sexually TOUCH a minor. The CRIME is exposing other minors to that sexually charged activity. The CRIME is that these children were photographed being touched in a sexual manner.

This woman did not forewarn the children that they would be expected to either participate or observe these adult woman physically attempting to sexually stimulate teenaged boys. These children were social coerced, as CONSENT is, for very good reason, not required in situations involving child sex abuse.

You are doing yourself no favors by continuing this line of thinking. There are many here who will think twice before they ever interact with you again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUpWithIt All (Reply #282)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:00 PM

288. AUUUGH! NAKED!

You obviously didn't read my previous posts. I do no support in any way shape or form that this mom did this. No way. You will not find a post of mine saying I approve of what the mom did. Not one.

My question was and is, why is it a CRIME to see a woman (or man) naked? That's all I ever asked...now there are over 200 posts on DU calling me an asshole, but not one answering the question.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #288)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:10 PM

297. Please supply me with support for your claims

that anyone is being charged with the crime for seeing a woman or man naked or even allowing another to see a woman or man naked. That is what you are claiming throughout this thread. The mother wasn't charged with exposing her son to simple nudity. Nobody here, as far as i have read, suggested she should be charged with the crime of exposing her son to simple nudity.

You are suggesting something is happening when it clearly isn't happening. We're going to be left with one of two ideas about you...you are not capable of grasping the larger concepts OR you are playing some type of game to deflect from the very real concern of child sex abuse.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FedUpWithIt All (Reply #241)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:29 PM

256. I didnt read the article

14 years old's?, that's crazy.

I find it hard to believe how little sense some people have nowadays....
maybe it's always been like that, and we just didn't hear about all of it till now????

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:34 AM

203. You're just egging someone to use the "m" word, and I will oblige you.

There is more to a child's wellbeing than just the physical. It is MORAL as well. I know that "moral" is a more objectionable word than "CUNT" to a lot of people, but like it or not, some semblance of moral code is what helps people grow into responsible adults.

And how do I know that many DUers implicitly value moral codes? How about this: remember the Duke rape case, where all those rich frat boys paid for a stripper(s) to entertain them? There was so much harumphing and posturing on DU about how shitty those kids were for having strippers in the first place that I thought this was Elizabethan Underground. Go back and look at the (hundreds of) threads - rich entitled frat boys exploiting women this, no respect for women that. And how old were those boys? Just a couple of years older than the 16-year-old for whom a stripper was hired.

Hiring strippers for a 16-year-old plants the seed that it is OK to objectify women. It informs the 16-year-old's little sister that women's bodies are available to their brothers as entertainment. It informs other children that it must be OK to exist in a sexually-charged environment if parents are willing to underwrite it. It teaches children that it is perfectly appropriate to sexually charge a communal celebration.

Go ahead - call me every name in the book. I'll keep on making sure young men in my sphere of influence don't learn to disrespect women, and young women in my sphere of influence don't feel like their genitals need to be for sale to young men.




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #203)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:50 AM

218. I won't call you any name in the book. You make good points.

Look at the context. This is a sad story. The mother got pregnant at 14. Their "moral code" was probably not what most of us would expect. She made a very stupid decision. I respect the rights of the other parents to hold her accountable. I'm still asking, what is the CRIME of a 16 year old young man seeing a woman naked? No one has answered that...and I might get banned from DU for just raising the question. Go figure.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #218)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:00 PM

228. At some point do you think 'the crime' MIGHT BE MORE THEN nudity?

"The charge of endangering the welfare of a child accuses a person of “knowingly acting in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child younger than 17.”

"The incident took place inside a private room with paper covering the glass door. The strippers, wearing bras and panties, were photographed performing dances on party attendees, some of whom were as young as 15."

And there were 13/14 yr olds there too.


Apparently there was enough evidence to suggest a crime was committed. NO ONE but you said, ad nauseam, it is only about nudity.

ITS NOT!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #218)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:08 PM

232. The question of what CRIME has been answered,

numerous times in fact. It is against the LAW therefore it is a CRIME. This is really much bigger and about more than just the woman and her son, there were OTHER MINORS PRESENT.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #218)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:43 PM

272. The mother did not get pregnant at 14.

The mother is 33. The son is 16. Do the math. 33 - 16 = 17 years between them. Factor in the length of the pregnancy. She was not 14 when she became pregnant.

I harp on this because you are making her supposed age at conception a moral failing on the part of her and her parents (in an earlier post). Your premise on this (her age at the time) is wrong. So is your premise that teenage pregnancy is a moral failing on the part of a teen girl and/or her parents.

You defend her as a mother, yet condemn her and her parents for her teenage pregnancy which wasn't at the age you keep claiming it was, anyway.

She got pregnant as a teen. Get over it. I doubt that has anything to do with her idiocy at 33.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moosepoop (Reply #272)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:46 PM

276. Dear lord...

I defend her as mother but condemn her as a parent? How long did it take you think up that one?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #276)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:08 PM

294. "Think up" what?

You have condemned her teenage pregnancy throughout this thread. Would you like me compile and post them?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #203)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:54 AM

222. QFT

Hiring strippers for a 16-year-old plants the seed that it is OK to objectify women. It informs the 16-year-old's little sister that women's bodies are available to their brothers as entertainment. It informs other children that it must be OK to exist in a sexually-charged environment if parents are willing to underwrite it. It teaches children that it is perfectly appropriate to sexually charge a communal celebration.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #222)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:55 AM

223. yes. a very good post. and i thank the poster. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #222)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:27 PM

303. Fucking A

 

K&R

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:39 AM

207. As if that 16 year old boy saw anything he hadn't seen before.

Please! With the Internet, he's probably seen more in advertising than he saw at his birthday party.

Bad choice for the mother, but I don't see how they can say she endangered her son by doing so.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyA (Reply #207)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:56 AM

224. Well - HER son might not of minded. The other 13/14/15 yr olds and their folks might have.

This how they say so:

The charge of endangering the welfare of a child accuses a person of “knowingly acting in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child younger than 17.”


Fairly clear, that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:45 AM

212. endanger

Very very bad parenting.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:13 PM

237. In reality, he probably wasn't in any danger, but its still justifiably a crime.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:22 PM

245. Maybe it wasn't the nudity (it wasn't). Maybe it was the sexual contact with various juveniles?

"The mother, Judy H. Viger, 33, of Gansevoort was charged with five misdemeanor counts of endangering the welfare of a child, pertaining to specific teens under the age of 17 who last Nov. 3 received “lap dances” or other similar physical contact with two women in bras and panties.
...

“The defendant did enable and encourage the entertainers to perform a personal and intimate style dance to each of the juveniles, which was presented in a sexual manner,” wrote South Glens Falls Police Patrolman Phil Lindsey.

...
The five teens identified as victims in the case were 15 and 16 years old, but one partygoer told police teens as young as high school freshmen were present at the party.
...
One girl who received a lap dance, Carly L. Brown, 16, said the women performed for 10 to 15 minutes.

“Judy told me it was unexpected that the girls put their crotches in Reggie’s face,” Brown told police.


http://poststar.com/news/local/teens-describe-lap-dances-at-birthday-party-in-stripper-case/article_2c7dbdd0-7ae1-11e2-90fe-0019bb2963f4.html

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:25 PM

249. Here is the relevant law.

I looked it up.

New York Penal - Article 260 - § 260.10 Endangering the Welfare of a Child
A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when... he or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old.


There's more, but I think this is the relevant part. I think exposing kids as young as 14 to a lewd act qualifies.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #249)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:30 PM

257. That tells me nothing.

Who decided a 17 year old cannot see a naked woman, but a few months later it's okay?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #257)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:37 PM

266. Hmm...We, the people...through our chosen representatives?

Not sure how 'nudity' would compare with 'sexual contact'...things might have been different in this case otherwise.

"Police began investigating when photos were posted on social media websites. At first, officers were told the women were a “bikini gram” brought in to sing “Happy Birthday” to the teen. No charges were filed."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #257)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:03 PM

291. Now I know you are just playing with us.

First, it wasn't just seeing a naked woman, as you have been informed repeatedly.
Second, the youngest minor was 14.

As the law is written, yes there is a cutoff age, just as with many, many laws. There is an age when you can drink alcohol, an age when a young person can consent to sexual relations, an age when you can vote, an age where a crime you commit is handled by the regular criminal justice system instead of juvenile justice. With every age cutoff, there exists a day where you fall into one category and the next day you fall into a different category. We have numerical cutoffs other than age. If you steal this amount, it's a misdemeanor, but a penny more and it's grand larceny. You can drive with your blood alcohol one level, but slightly over that and you are considered "impaired." Is this really the first time you've ever thought about that concept? We do have human beings to help fine tune the interpretation and enforcement of these laws, and I think most human beings would not have a problem saying what happened in this case fit the definition of endangering the mental well-being of at least some of those minors. Your insistence on talking about "a naked woman" is just a distraction.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #249)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:33 PM

259. Yes--that's it. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:29 PM

255. ATMAN I am going to give you some friendly advice.

Stop posting about this topic. In the process of defending yourself you have made comments that people consider offensive. Delete this thread. You may want to post in META and make an statement on what you really meant to say. Apologize where you need to and move on.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #255)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:31 PM

258. Ive been here for more than a decade.

Eled and Skinner know me. If they want to make an example of me, so be it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #258)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:34 PM

261. That is your choice.

By the way I do not consider my being gay as a lifestyle. I do not know what you meant, but I just want you to know I do not consider it a lifestyle.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #261)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:41 PM

269. I can't believe this is such an issue!

Being gay is NOT a "lifestyle." How many, many, many times do I have to say that? But I don't know how you can deny there is a certain "lifestyle" of gay, as PERCEIVED by people who are not gay.

Going back to my other post...a gay boss who was not shy about being gay, but never made a big deal about it. As opposed to my friend Stephen who is a drag queen, and calls himself Allysha, and it's all he's about. I'm not sure how else to describe it...you're making me out to be some sort of homophobe, when I'm saying exactly the opposite. If "lifestyle" is the wrong word, I apologize (again, I think the third time in this thread).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #269)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:53 PM

283. Your terminology is incorrect.

You are getting the terminology wrong. Lifestyle is a way you choose to live your life. Your friend Stephen while gay is also Transgender. Transgender is an umbrella term for those who feel they were born with attributes of the opposite sex than they were born into. That is not a lifestyle, nor is being gay a lifestyle.

I think you have made a few mistakes in terminology and need to delete this post and go to Meta where you can start a new post and explain what you meant. Keeping this thread active will only give you more grief and the ability to make more mistakes. Just friendly advice. I understand you might not want to because you feel it is bailing out, but again you will only get grief from it. That is my 2 cents.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #269)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:14 PM

299. I also want you to be aware there are three different threads in META about you post right now.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #258)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:53 PM

281. Make an example of you? You're embarrassing

Yourself and dragging DU through the slime with this skanky snatch and gay lifestyle bullshit. Repulsive. Who gives a damn how long you've been here?

And by pretending looking at a naked person is the same as having them grind their crotch in your face? Pure bullshit.

It's all on you, buddy. Here's hoping the mods look at everything you posted here and do the right thing. It's obvious you can't.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:40 PM

268. ok

 

look at how she is precariously perched.

If she had lost her balance she could have injured his neck. If she was wearing heels she could have injured his eyes.

If she had sharp body piercings she could have infected him.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:43 PM

270. Creepy

I found it creepy that the boy's mother would do that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:44 PM

273. they were giving the boys lap dances

you think that's ok?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanti (Reply #273)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:52 PM

279. I would if I were a 16 year old boy.

But as a parent, no, it is totally inappropriate. (I feel like a parent..."TIME OUT!" in the corner). The mother is fucked up. If the kids arranged this party themselves, no one would bat an eye. The fact that the mom arranged it is the only real issue.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:44 PM

274. I don't think a nude woman endangers a 16-year-old boy

If the girl were 16 and did a nude dance for her boyfriend, we'd call it okay. But if she's 18, it's a sex crime? I don't see a victim here.

In parts of Europe nudity is no big deal. Boys see loads of topless women at the beach. Fuck, me and the boys back from high school used to get in to non-alcoholic strip clubs for a thrill and a peek. They're only boobs, they won't kill you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #274)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:03 PM

290. A teen CHOOSING to sneak into a strip club for a "peek" is quite different