 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Divorce / January 2005And now... for the REST of the story...
Earlier I posted a slightly edited version of an actual newspaper story. This is the actual story: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/1195497.html ------------------------------ Ex-PTA leader pleads guilty in teen sex case During an emotional court session, Torrance mother Sheryl Graham is sentenced to five years of probation and must register as an offender for the rest of her life. By Denise Nix Daily Breeze A Torrance mother of five pleaded guilty Wednesday to engaging in a sex act with a West High School student and was sentenced to five years of felony probation, community service and counseling, and was ordered to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. While making her plea, Sheryl Graham, 42, cried hard enough to cause Torrance Superior Court Judge Mark S. Arnold to briefly interrupt the proceedings. "I see you're very, very upset," Arnold said before asking Graham if she was sure she wanted to go through with the plea. "Yes," Graham said, her shoulders shaking under a black jacket. During a preliminary hearing in October, the boy said his sexual relationship with Graham, who was his girlfriend's mother, began when she kissed him when he was 15. A few months later, they began to have sex and oral sex. The consensual relationship went on and off for almost two years, the football player testified. The boy, whose name is being withheld because of his age, said the relationship made him "angry and really confused." A second boy also testified he had sex with Graham, who resigned her post as Towers Elementary School PTA president in July after she was charged. Graham also was involved in other school-related activities, including the Booster Club for the West High football team. As part of the plea agreement, Graham pleaded guilty to one count of oral copulation of a person under 18, and prosecutors dropped seven other charges. Graham also was ordered to pay $200 to the victims restitution fund and $200 to a fund for sex crime victims, not harass, annoy or molest any children, submit her DNA for inclusion in the state's law enforcement database and stay away from the student and his family. Arnold said he will allow Graham to attend her children's on-campus school functions, but she must arrive no sooner than 15 minutes before they begin and leave no later than 15 minutes after they conclude. If she violates any terms of her probation, Graham could be sent to state prison for three years. He set an April 26 hearing for a progress report, at which Graham must submit proof of her work for the California Department of Transportation or beach cleanup, sex offense counseling and registration with the police department for her inclusion in the Megan's Law database. The plea followed an unsuccessful bid by Jeffrey Gray, Graham's attorney, to dismiss the case. In an argument Arnold later called "creative," Gray said there is a division in the law when it comes to how people under age 18 are dealt with. Proposition 21, a state initiative passed by voters in March 2000 that allows prosecutors to charge juveniles as adults, is at odds with statutory rape laws, Gray said. The initiative, in essence, says that 14- to 17-year-olds have the ability to commit crimes, including murder and rape, while the laws Graham was charged with violating say these same teenagers don't have the mental capacity to give consent to sex. Gray also made pop culture references in an attempt to show that society is more understanding or forgiving of consensual sex between older teenagers and adults. He noted a current story line on the popular television series "Desperate Housewives" in which one of the characters is having an affair with a 17- year-old gardener and the recent Fountains of Wayne release "Stacy's Mom", a song about a young man who wants to go to his friend Stacy's house because he's in love with her mom. "It seems society's views have changed," Gray said. Deputy District Attorney Michael Gargiulo said he couldn't help but wonder if Gray would be making the same arguments if the Graham case was about an adult male with an underage girl. Nonetheless, the boy's prior testimony shows how Graham's actions affected him, Gargiulo said. "This young man was victimized," he added. Arnold agreed. "It appears to me your client took advantage of this young man," Arnold said. Outside of court, Graham sobbed as she hugged her supporters, including her husband. "I think it's important that the community recognizes all of the contributions Mrs. Graham has made to our community," Gray told a reporter. "She has put in endless hours to make sure this is a better place to reside. "Obviously, there's been an error of judgment on her part, but that error should not override the good she has done for our community." > Earlier I posted a slightly edited version of an actual newspaper story. > [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > Either way, man or woman, it's disgusting that all they got was a suspended sentence, IMO. Tracey "Outside of court, Graham sobbed as she hugged her supporters, including her husband." Zowie. Denise >> Earlier I posted a slightly edited version of an actual newspaper story. >> [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > Tracey Well if she was hot then she did him a favour but if she was your typical fat ugly 42-year-old woman then she should spend life in prison for traumatizing the poor boy! > Earlier I posted a slightly edited version of an actual newspaper story. > [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > "Obviously, there's been an error of judgment on her part, but that error > should not override the good she has done for our community." I still say, "check ID" Tricked us, you little devil!... But I stand by my reply. [S]he got a light sentence because no one wanted to have a trial. This sentence is not that unusual in such cases in Florida. [R] "Fido" <tomchandNS@gwi.net> wrote... | Earlier I posted a slightly edited version of an actual newspaper story. | This is the actual story: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | sentenced to five years of probation and must register as an offender for | the rest of her life. I thought that the original post showed the punishment to be rather light given how men are treated in such circumstances. Now that I read the real story, I see again all too clearly what I think Fido was getting at.... Had this been a man, he would have been put behind bars for a LONG time. However, since this is a woman, she basically gets away with it. True, she does have to register as a sex offender, but no jail time??? A $200 fine????? So much for equal treatment before the law. And yes, the local prosecutor does not want a trial! They are elected in the US are they not??? It would be political suicide to prosecute a woman and risk the erie of the femminist lobby! :( I am reminded of Mary Kay Laterneau who was a teacher in WA that was convicted of having sex with some of her male students. She got probation! Fortunately, she was caught having sex with one of the kids again in a car in a back ally in Seattle - a clear violation of conditions set out for her - so she was sent to jail for almost 7 years (right were she should have been in the first place!). Of course it turns out the sex she was having was unprotected! And she finds out in jail that she is pregnant with the boys child. (rolls eyes) This stuff just boggles the mind. On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:58:27 -0500, "Roger \(B\)" <rcblinn-sss-@bellsouth.net> wrote: >Tricked us, you little devil!... But I stand by my reply. >[S]he got a light sentence because no one wanted to have a trial. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >| sentenced to five years of probation and must register as an offender for >| the rest of her life. > I thought that the original post showed the punishment to be rather > light given how men are treated in such circumstances. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > This stuff just boggles the mind. Not mine. I expect even less. It's a bottomless pit. Once you accept that, anything is possible. There is no limit to human stupidity. > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:58:27 -0500, "Roger \(B\)" > <rcblinn-sss-@bellsouth.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> During an emotional court session, Torrance mother Sheryl Graham is >>> sentenced to five years of probation and must register as an offender for >>> the rest of her life. I recall Einstein said that only two things were infinite... The universe and human stupidity, and he was not sure about the universe. ;) >> I thought that the original post showed the punishment to be rather >> light given how men are treated in such circumstances. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >for >>>> the rest of her life. LOL. You know, this really would be funny, if it weren't so damn pathetically true. > I recall Einstein said that only two things were infinite... > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> Not mine. I expect even less. It's a bottomless pit. Once you >> accept that, anything is possible. There is no limit to human stupidity. >>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:58:27 -0500, "Roger \(B\)" >>> <rcblinn-sss-@bellsouth.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>>>> During an emotional court session, Torrance mother Sheryl Graham is >>>>> sentenced to five years of probation and must register as an offender for >>>>> the rest of her life. Last evening on Larry King, another student-teacher sexual relationship was discussed. The husband of a beautiful 24 year old teacher described his reaction to the tapes they had of phone conversations between his wife and a 14 year old student. Her voice actually changed to that of a 10 year old girl. He admitted that she had emotional issues and was on prescribed medication. This may be a case of multiple personality disorder. Statistics show that one in ten students have had inappropriate contact with a teacher by the time they finish school, according to Larry's guest. This is a more common occurence with both male and female teachers than once thought. Lack of impulse control and personal boundary recognition might be contributing factors to this problem. Some medications may also alter behavioral patterns in this way. donna > "Obviously, there's been an error of judgment on her part, but that > error should not override the good she has done for our community." An error in judgment? What a huge understatement! > Earlier I posted a slightly edited version of an actual newspaper story. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ex-PTA leader pleads guilty in teen sex case Didn't re-read the story as I already used up time reading what I thought was real the first go around. I'll presume that the only thing you switched was the genders of the participants, and she got the suspended sentence. Same feeling. She's lucky. I'm sure the guy had a great time, but she broke the law, and remembering myself at that age (and I was sexually active at 15), it is the right law to have. Rambler your teenage son gets excellent fellatio by an experienced, attractive older woman... your teenage daughter gets great cunnilingus by an experienced, attractive older man... > your teenage son gets excellent fellatio by an experienced, attractive older > woman... > > your teenage daughter gets great cunnilingus by an experienced, attractive > older man... Yeah, same same. My eldest is going through the Sex Ed thing now, and we've been having 30 minute chats each night about things. Little girl growing up. Course one of the older guys touches my little girl, and I'll kill ya! In fact, any of the guys touches my little girl and I'll kill ya! Rambler > My eldest is going through the Sex Ed thing now, and we've been having > 30 minute chats each night about things. Little girl growing up. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rambler It's funny that when I'm out with my son and some lady makes a remark about how cute or handsome he is, I just beam with pride, yet when I'm with my daughter and some guy makes an equivalent remark about her, I just wanna kick the pervert in the crotch. I know it's a double standard, and I don't know if I'll ever be able to shake it kato said > "Rambler" <iamramblerIGNORANCE@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > kick the pervert in the crotch. I know it's a double standard, and I don't > know if I'll ever be able to shake it I doubt you'll be able to shake that. I'd be the same way. Casey > kato said > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I doubt you'll be able to shake that. I'd be the same way. Awright ... 16 to 11, Florida to Washington ... okay, distance is too great ... but I'mma telling ya, Hyundai driving maids or not .... Rambler > > I doubt you'll be able to shake that. I'd be the same way. > > Awright ... 16 to 11, Florida to Washington ... okay, distance is too > great ... but I'mma telling ya, Hyundai driving maids or not .... > > Rambler Ahh, ok I think. Must be a time zone thing. > kato wrote: > It's funny that when I'm out with my son and some lady makes a remark > about how cute or handsome he is, I just beam with pride, yet when > I'm with my daughter and some guy makes an equivalent remark about > her, I just wanna kick the pervert in the crotch. I know it's a > double standard, and I don't know if I'll ever be able to shake it Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner in the honesty department. I'm reading many of these responses in both threads and something is striking me as disingenuous. I'm not implying that anyone is purposely lying, not at all. I have no doubt this will be an unpopular opinion, but here goes. Yeah, most people are saying that there's no difference. Most people are acting outwardly like there's no difference, but how many of you *REALLY* feel that way? Deep down, how many honestly and truly feel as offended when it's a teenage boy that has been taken advantage of? I believe that most of know we *should* feel the same for both boys and girls, and will sometimes subconsciously play the part so as not to appear hypocritical, but I also believe that most of us really and truly and honestly don't feel the same. Ever see the movie "A Time To Kill" with Matthew McConaughey and Samuel L. Jackson where the lawyer paints a picture of a young black girl being raped and beaten, only to switch it to a young white girl at the end of the story to make the point that it's still a young girl? Same thing here. It's still a kid, an inexperienced minor, and we know we should feel identically, but just the way we (society) act, and the things we tolerate, and the expectations we have, out of boys says otherwise. > Yeah, most people are saying that there's no difference. Most people > are acting outwardly like there's no difference, but how many of you > *REALLY* feel that way? Deep down, how many honestly and truly feel as > offended when it's a teenage boy that has been taken advantage of? Perhaps this is a guy thing, I dunno. But I am definitely just as offended either way. I think it's disgusting the woman got off so easily. But I do think the point being that if a teenager is adult enough to be charged with a crime, then they should be adult enough to decide when to have sex is valid. Given new research showing that teenage brains aren't really fully formed in the way of impulse control among other things might change the way teenagers are handled in courtrooms.  SignatureCal~ Calinda dot Letter S at Gmail dot com > *Calinda* wrote: > > Yeah, most people are saying that there's no difference. Most [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > offended either way. I think it's disgusting the woman got off so > easily. I agree, and inside I know you're right. But, I fall into the trap that I was talking about. Some inner feeling in me does not get as offended when it's a boy as it does when it's a girl. As far as adult reaction goes, I do think it's more of a guy thing, yes, but I have seen plenty of mothers that are more protective of their daughters then they are of their sons, also. When I say protective, I don't mean just protecting them from physical danger, I mean even down to the point of worrying about their emotional well-being, reputations, etc. Having thought this out a little more because of this thread, I'm wondering if it's that girls are perceived as being "weaker". > But I do think the point being that if a teenager is adult enough to > be charged with a crime, then they should be adult enough to decide > when to have sex is valid. I believe the whole concept of stautory rape should be revisited. For one thing, there should be a 3-4 year window. I don't believe in the idea that a 19 yr old can "statutorily rape" his 16 yr old girlfriend. If the sex is not consentual then that's flat-out rape and that's a whole other issue. In the small town I live in, about six years ago, one kid was prosecuted and convicted for statutory rape when he turned 18 and his g/f was still 16 and her parents didn't like him. I am not kidding. > Given new research showing that teenage brains aren't really fully > formed in the way of impulse control among other things might change > the way teenagers are handled in courtrooms. I have mixed feelings on that. I accept that a teenager's brain is not yet fully developed, but when it comes to murder and gang killings and the such, I cannot help but believe that they are developed enough to understand that difference between right and wrong. "Not fully developed" does not equate to "not developed at all". >> *Calinda* wrote: >> > Yeah, most people are saying that there's no difference. Most [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >If the sex is not consentual then that's flat-out rape and that's a >whole other issue. The child has to be 13 years old or younger for a stautory rape charge in Canada. I seem to recall an American getting in hot water years go. He came into Canada and had sex with his 16 year American girlfriend. When he returned to the US, the county officials tried to charge him. Not sure how it worked out, but how can he be charged with a crime which did not happen within the jurisdictional boundries of the prosicutorial authority??? I guess her parents were connected! >In the small town I live in, about six years ago, one kid was >prosecuted and convicted for statutory rape when he turned 18 and his >g/f was still 16 and her parents didn't like him. I am not kidding. That is freak'n sick. Looks like the law needs an overhaul! >> Given new research showing that teenage brains aren't really fully >> formed in the way of impulse control among other things might change [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >understand that difference between right and wrong. "Not fully >developed" does not equate to "not developed at all". Agree 100%. "Not fully developed" is NOT equal to "Diminished Capacity". A teen is still capable of forming the criminal intent required for the charge to be laid. (no pun intended ;) This is why "young offenders" can be raised to Adult court in some cases where the crime is really bad. > Cloaked wrote: > > I believe the whole concept of stautory rape should be revisited. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not happen within the jurisdictional boundries of the prosicutorial > authority??? I guess her parents were connected! I have heard that men who purchase young children as prostitutes in Thailand (we're talking 7 yrs old, give or take) are routinely prosecuted by American authorities when they get back from "vacation". While I don't want to give the impression that I approve of, or accept, that behavior in any way shape or form, I have a serious problem with being charged with the crime when they get back. I see it as a blatant reach beyond their authority. Maybe because I am a "domino theorist" and believe that once the precedent has been established, the next step is something else. Maybe underage drinking... God forbid a 17 yr old should have a beer in Germany, for example. > Maybe underage drinking... God forbid a 17 yr old > should have a beer in Germany, for example. They already do this at the Canadian border. If they stop a car entering back into the States and there are under 21 occupants in the car, and they have had a *legal* drink in that country, they can be charged and prosecuted. Also, as in the case of my son's college and I'm sure many are like this, if *they* get wind of the kids drinking alcohol (regardless of where- off campus, on campus, Canada or wherever) they can be brought up the disciplinary board and put on probation, suspension, or expulsion. And if they do, they also turn the student in to the authorities. SignatureCal~ Calinda dot Letter S at Gmail dot com >> Maybe underage drinking... God forbid a 17 yr old >> should have a beer in Germany, for example. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >disciplinary board and put on probation, suspension, or expulsion. And if >they do, they also turn the student in to the authorities. I wonder if any of these have heard of the term "ultra vires" (Latin for "beyond the power.") "An action outside the proper authority..." The drinking thing, well that is a bad example I think. Age notwithstanding in Canada, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) carries almost the same penalties as Driving While Impared (DWI). Basically if you drive a car and you have had so much as a sip of a drink, you can loose your liscense for a year - or longer. The 0.08% "limit" has been effectively eliminated in BC. So I can see where the US border guards could have a person charged for drinking and driving. The idea that the alcohol was consumed legally in Canada is not relevant to the idea that someone who took a drink is behind the wheel of a car. If, however, the 19 year olds consumed alcohol a day or two BEFORE they returned to the USA, what exactly would they be charged with???? If there is no alcohol in their systems, then from the US perspective they have not comitted a crime. If I were charged with consuming alcohol by the US after consuming it legally in Canada, I would take it all the way to the Supreme Court. The US simply does NOT have jurisdiction over acts commited on the soil of another soverign nation. Again, the prostitute thing could be different. If the US government is acting at the bequest of the Thai government, then this could make sense - but only from the perspective that they have been arrested pending extradition to Thailand where they would then be prosecuted and sentenced! The arrogance of the US government(s) does not surprize me however. It is typical. > So I can see where the US border guards could have a person charged > for drinking and driving. The idea that the alcohol was consumed > legally in Canada is not relevant to the idea that someone who took a > drink is behind the wheel of a car. I'm not talking about driving. There is a case where the designated driver had ZERO alcohol in his system, and the occupants of the car did, and since they were under age, they were charged for being under 21 and drinking. SignatureCal~ Calinda dot Letter S at Gmail dot com > Cloaked wrote: > The drinking thing, well that is a bad example I think. Age [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > The arrogance of the US government(s) does not surprize me however. It > is typical. I'm sure some other countries do this, too. Not just the US. We're not the only control freaks in the world. Basically, you said what I would have said. Using the alcohol example, if the minor were drunk *at the time* they crossed the border, I could see some justification. Especially if they were driving. If not, it's not within their jurisdiction, and thus is none of their business. *Calinda* said > > Maybe underage drinking... God forbid a 17 yr old > > should have a beer in Germany, for example. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have had a *legal* drink in that country, they can be charged and > prosecuted. Good grief ... so you have to have 22 or more people in the car to avoid this? This is difficult to accomplish even with a big SUV! Casey > *Calinda* said >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Good grief ... so you have to have 22 or more people in the car to > avoid this? This is difficult to accomplish even with a big SUV! Brat! lol SignatureCal~ Calinda dot Letter S at Gmail dot com *Calinda* said > > *Calinda* said > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Brat! lol Thanks! I do try. Casey >that behavior in any way shape or form, I have a serious problem with >being charged with the crime when they get back. I see it as a blatant >reach beyond their authority. Maybe because I am a "domino theorist" >and believe that once the precedent has been established, the next step Maybe they have a treaty with that particular country. Like in the old westerns where the bank robbers would try to get across the border to escape prosecution. Pass a law and plug the loopholes. Wouldn't you need the co-operation of the other country to do something like that. Well the "age of consent" here in Canada - and it is a FEDERAL thing, so it is the entire country - is 14! I seem to recall that some politician was going to do a stint in the crowbar hotel for "having sex with a minor" and so they managed to change the law before he was charged. No proof on that though, it could be urban legend. But the 14 thing is very real. Not that 14 year old girls would not be having sex with someone in their peer group close to their own age, but lowering the age of consent to 14??? I guess my mind is pretty boggled this week. >> Yeah, most people are saying that there's no difference. Most people >> are acting outwardly like there's no difference, but how many of you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >in the way of impulse control among other things might change the way >teenagers are handled in courtrooms. >Well the "age of consent" here in Canada - and it is a FEDERAL thing, >so it is the entire country - is 14! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I guess my mind is pretty boggled this week. In some states, the age of consent is kept artificially high. In Oregon, for example, it is 18. The problem is that some of these teen age girls are indeed fully developed, emotionally and physically by the age of 16 and they indeed "know exactly what they are doing". This has the effect of putting a large number of "normal guys" at risk of being labeled lifetime sexual offenders, just for doing what comes naturally at a young age in what they thought was a consensual relationship. As a parent of a young 17 year old woman, you may not want the guys to touch your daughter, ever. But at some point, she is going to have to go out and experience the world (and most likely, she already has). Other countries are more realistic about this. As was previously mentioned, in Canada, the age of consent is 14... Also in France... In Mexico its 12!...... Beachcomber >>kato wrote: >>It's funny that when I'm out with my son and some lady makes a remark [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner in the honesty department. Why is it that a person who has a double standard for their son and daughter is the only one to get your honesty award? *I* think it's reprehensible for either a man or a woman to have sex with a minor but I didn't get an 'honesty' award. > I'm reading many of these responses in both threads and something is > striking me as disingenuous. I'm not implying that anyone is purposely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > *REALLY* feel that way? Deep down, how many honestly and truly feel as > offended when it's a teenage boy that has been taken advantage of? Me. I have a 17yo son and, hell, the thought of his 18yo GF 'taking advantage' of him makes me see red. We have both a son and a daughter, BTW. Tracey > Tracey wrote: > > Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner in the honesty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it's reprehensible for either a man or a woman to have sex with > a minor but I didn't get an 'honesty' award. Not for having the double-standard... for realizing it and admitting it. Obvious Disclaimer: No, not literally everyone has the double-standard, but more do than either realize it or want to admit it. >> kato wrote: >> It's funny that when I'm out with my son and some lady makes a remark [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >*REALLY* feel that way? Deep down, how many honestly and truly feel as >offended when it's a teenage boy that has been taken advantage of? Actually, I may be in the minority, but I feel *just* as deeply offended. Teenagers... although there is a LOT of difference between, say, a 14 year old and a 17 year old... are still children in a lot of ways. And what happens to you when you're that young and impressionable can and does damage people for life. Plus boys have less outlet for talking about these things, on average... mainly because everyone thinks that they've had some cool experience, nudge nudge wink wink, and they can't say, I'm not comfortable or happy with this. And a lot of boys don't feel like they can talk about things, period. Of course, it depends on what exactly happened, and to whom, etc., and there are exceptions to just about every rule. Nina _____________ "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me lay an invincible summer." -Albert Camus > Nina wrote: > > Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner in the honesty [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Of course, it depends on what exactly happened, and to whom, etc., and > there are exceptions to just about every rule. As I get older, the world becomes less black-and-white. The shades of gray are amazing. SignatureIt has been determined that research causes cancer in lab rats. >> Nina wrote: >> > Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner in the honesty [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >As I get older, the world becomes less black-and-white. The shades of >gray are amazing. Oh, yes. At 20, I knew what was right and wrong. Now I have no clue at all. Nina _____________ "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me lay an invincible summer." -Albert Camus The Dave© said > > Nina wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As I get older, the world becomes less black-and-white. The shades of > gray are amazing. Yeah, I've noticed the same thing. It's almost agonizing sometimes ... you can literally study an issue forever without understanding all the shades of gray. Casey >>Nina wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > As I get older, the world becomes less black-and-white. The shades of > gray are amazing. You need to quit looking at your forelocks then ... or use Clairol. Rambler >>>Nina wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > You need to quit looking at your forelocks then ... or use Clairol. WTH are forelocks? ;^) > YooperBoyka wrote: > WTH are forelocks? > ;^) Forehead dreadlocks? SignatureAlcohol and Calculus don't mix, so don't drink and derive. >> YooperBoyka wrote: >> WTH are forelocks? >> ;^) > > Forehead dreadlocks? WTH are dreadlocks? > YooperBoyka wrote: > WTH are dreadlocks? Jamaican comb-over. >> YooperBoyka wrote: >> WTH are dreadlocks? > > Jamaican comb-over. Comb over? (This is going right over your head, innit?) > YooperBoyka wrote: > >> WTH are dreadlocks? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > (This is going right over your head, innit?) Either that, or my attempts at humor just ain't working. SignatureAlcohol and Calculus don't mix, so don't drink and derive. >> YooperBoyka wrote: >>>> WTH are dreadlocks? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Either that, or my attempts at humor just ain't working. Psst Dave, Yoop is rather shiny on top ( ya know lacking it the hair department) if I recall correctly. :) >>> YooperBoyka wrote: >>>>> WTH are dreadlocks? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Psst Dave, Yoop is rather shiny on top ( ya know lacking it the hair > department) if I recall correctly. :) :^) > LoriMc wrote: > Psst Dave, Yoop is rather shiny on top ( ya know lacking it the hair > department) if I recall correctly. :) Ah ha. Ok. So, his humor at his lack of hair, and my humor (ok, attempt at humor) at coming up with funny names for hair, didn't quite mix. Oh well. >As I get older, the world becomes less black-and-white. The shades of >gray are amazing. I don't see much grey. As I got older I just didn't worry about things I that don't really need to worry about. I just about made a science out of apathy. I think they call it 'detached' nowadays. I got into a discussion with my oldest son once upon a time about that. There is little I don't see in black n white, yes/no, up/down, whatever you want to call it. I makes the decision process a little easier. The 'grey' just gives it the impression there is a depth to something that isn't. I'm 49 now, I was much worse about seeing in black n white when I was a teenager. >> kato wrote: >> It's funny that when I'm out with my son and some lady makes a remark [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > appear hypocritical, but I also believe that most of us really and > truly and honestly don't feel the same. I think the *reason* for that, though, is that a girl in this situation (or a consensual situation) is perceived as being "damaged goods", and a boy is not - boys are just "sowing their wild oats" - in general people don't think badly of boys who are sexually active the same way that they do girls. So, back to the beginning of the thread, I think the reason male perverts seem worst than female ones is that they are making the girls into "damaged goods" and the girls will forever more be "less", but the female pervert is just "giving the boys a good time" - after all, how often are boys perceived to be "damaged goods"? >>> kato wrote: >>> It's funny that when I'm out with my son and some lady makes a remark [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > just "giving the boys a good time" - after all, how often are boys perceived > to be "damaged goods"? (Only if they murder some one, or abuse some one, or something really extreme like that, I suppose (sad to say). > Joy wrote: > I think the reason for that, though, is that a girl in this situation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but the female pervert is just "giving the boys a good time" - after > all, how often are boys perceived to be "damaged goods"? What doesn't make sense about this is that it's fine for boys to be experienced, yet not for girls, yet no one ever says exactly who these boys are supposed to get that experience with. >> Joy wrote: >> I think the reason for that, though, is that a girl in this situation [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >experienced, yet not for girls, yet no one ever says exactly who these >boys are supposed to get that experience with. Bad girls. :-) Nina _____________ "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me lay an invincible summer." -Albert Camus > Nina wrote: > > What doesn't make sense about this is that it's fine for boys to be > > experienced, yet not for girls, yet no one ever says exactly who > > these boys are supposed to get that experience with. > > Bad girls. :-) Maybe each town *needs* one "bad girl"... as a service to the community. :-p "Good girls go to heaven, Bad Girls go everywhere!" On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:38:56 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?= <no@no.com> wrote: >> Nina wrote: >> > What doesn't make sense about this is that it's fine for boys to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Maybe each town *needs* one "bad girl"... as a service to the >community. :-p > Earlier I posted a slightly edited version of an actual newspaper story. > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > "Obviously, there's been an error of judgment on her part, but that error > should not override the good she has done for our community." All I can say is this.... Why didn't this sh.t ever happen to me when I was a 15 year old boy? Boy says he is "angry & confused" after the incident - as he high-fives his classmates for his remaining years at high school. More like he was angry & confused when they were caught! At 15 my genitals were all for trying to re-populate the planet, and I would have jumped at the chance. I would have been a willing partner, and there is no way I would have seen it as abuse. It took me a while to see these kinds of situations as abuse. I guess that is what comes with maturity, because when I was 15, I would have thought it was "right on" to be shown the ropes by an older, more experienced woman. Who am I kidding, at that age just about any woman on the planet was more experienced than I was! lol! I imagine that the boy is confused now that it is over. He has had a taste of a relationship where the woman knows what she wants and likely did not play hard to get about it like the "fickle" girls his own age. It is likely that he wont enjoy a relationship now until he is older and the women of his peer group have "grown up". So in a way, this woman took part of the teenage experience away from him. >> Earlier I posted a slightly edited version of an actual newspaper story. <SNIP> >> "Obviously, there's been an error of judgment on her part, but that error >> should not override the good she has done for our community." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Boy says he is "angry & confused" after the incident - as he high-fives his >classmates for his remaining years at high school. > More like he was angry & confused when they were caught! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > <SNIP> I do believe, at age 15, I would have given most of my "teenage experiences" to experience a MILF 8-) >> More like he was angry & confused when they were caught! >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >I do believe, at age 15, I would have given most of my "teenage experiences" >to experience a MILF Below might be the point that Fido was making in the first place. ? It seems like it's looked at as less of a moral offense when an older woman has sex with teenage boys, than it is when an older man has sex with teenage girls. Personally, i think BOTH are equally wrong and both should be punished equally. >8-) > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>I do believe, at age 15, I would have given most of my "teenage experiences" >>to experience a MILF > Below might be the point that Fido was making in the first place. ? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Personally, i think BOTH are equally wrong and both should be punished > equally. The other side of it is that many people think that it is worse for a teenage girl to have sex than for a teenage boy to have sex. A sexually active girl either has to be a victim or a slut, but a sexually active boy is just sowing his wild oats... >> Below might be the point that Fido was making in the first place. ? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > active girl either has to be a victim or a slut, but a sexually active boy > is just sowing his wild oats... Yeah, I know, but also realize if it happens to a woman, she HAS to live with the consequences, no if's, and's, or but's about it! It is a LOT harder on her. So maybe it's some weird form of shame or deterrence that (supposedly) helps keep young girls from becoming pregnant as readily as would otherwise be the case? Or maybe it's just that guys just get away with stuff (those social "expectations" are lower for them). Or maybe both. I dunno. Joy said > "mL" <inky56NOSPAM@hellokitty.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > active girl either has to be a victim or a slut, but a sexually active boy > is just sowing his wild oats... Yeah, I'm not quite sure why, but you're right. Casey >>Below might be the point that Fido was making in the first place. ? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > active girl either has to be a victim or a slut, but a sexually active boy > is just sowing his wild oats... To many girls in the past got pregnant by some " nice " boy who gave a false name and place of origin. The girl was stuck then with a baby and no father to support it. But yes it was wrong to support this kind of behavior. > Below might be the point that Fido was making in the first place. ? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Personally, i think BOTH are equally wrong and both should be punished > equally. Technically, I agree. But there is something about hte social mores that adolescent *male* teens are allowed more then female teens. Guess the fallacy with that is that it presumes that male teens are moer responsible, more knowledgable, more mature, when in fact the opposite is true. Rambler >> Below might be the point that Fido was making in the first place. ? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rambler Newsflash, everyone - Boys and girls are different. Expectations of both are different. Not saying what should or should not be, just saying what is. When I was a 15, 16, 17 year old boy, I thought about sex at least 99% of the time. I had sex the remainder of the time. I don't know what percentage of my brainpower went to more important issues (walking, eating, breathing) but it sure wasn't much. I have to assume females at that age, at that time, did not have this "problem" otherwise none of us would have made it thru high school. Yes, boys and girls are different, thank God! For a teenage boy to score a MILF is a heroic act. For a teenage girl to sleep with a 30 year old guy makes him a criminal and her a slut. Nope, life ain't fair, get a helmet. iNet said > Newsflash, everyone - > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > When I was a 15, 16, 17 year old boy, I thought about sex at least 99% of > the time. What the heck did you think about the rest of the time? > I had sex the remainder of the time. Okay ... you had me worried for a minute. > I don't know what > percentage of my brainpower went to more important issues (walking, eating, > breathing) but it sure wasn't much. If you were like me, very little was left for such non-important things. Casey >When I was a 15, 16, 17 year old boy, I thought about sex at least 99% of >the time. I had sex the remainder of the time. At that age i had it regularly (tho not necessarily gratifying for me). In retrospect, it was emotionally unhealthy becuz i gave up my childhood to serve another person. But tell that to a 16-yr old who knows everything. >>When I was a 15, 16, 17 year old boy, I thought about sex at least 99% of >>the time. I had sex the remainder of the time. > >At that age i had it regularly (tho not necessarily gratifying for me). In >retrospect, it was emotionally unhealthy becuz i gave up my childhood to >serve another person. But tell that to a 16-yr old who knows everything. Yeah, we figured we knew it all back then. I guess some things never change. >> Below might be the point that Fido was making in the first place. ? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rambler No, it doesn't presume that, it just *doesn't care* about it - end of story. That's not the reason that social more exists. I hate to tell ya what I believe the reason really is. (I'm depressed enough about this world as it is, w/o taking on that one, too - but I'm pretty damn sure I know the "reason"). > Below might be the point that Fido was making in the first place. ? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Personally, i think BOTH are equally wrong and both should be punished > equally. It is ethically wrong when a teacher is involved with one of the students. Regardless of their age difference. >>8-) >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>>I do believe, at age 15, I would have given most of my "teenage experiences" >>>to experience a MILF >> Below might be the point that Fido was making in the first place. ? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It is ethically wrong when a teacher is involved with one of the students. >Regardless of their age difference. Agreed. Teachers are in a position of trust. Abuse of Trust is a very serious crime. Because of the age difference, it is even worse than a doctor having sex with a patient. >>>8-) >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>>>I do believe, at age 15, I would have given most of my "teenage experiences" >>>>to experience a MILF > Earlier I posted a slightly edited version of an actual newspaper story. > The initiative, in essence, says that 14- to 17-year-olds have the ability > to commit crimes, including murder and rape, while the laws Graham was > charged with violating say these same teenagers don't have the mental > capacity to give consent to sex. I agree. It is much easier in our days to kill somebody then get a blow job well done. Unless you know somebody with the name Graham ( her husband don't mind ). |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.