MR

thoughts?

yesterday i heard on the radio (john & ken) some of the transcripts of the girls testimony... truly unbelievable how anyone can be on the side of this pos.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 5914.story

treetopovskaya wrote:thoughts?

yesterday i heard on the radio (john & ken) some of the transcripts of the girls testimony... truly unbelievable how anyone can be on the side of this pos.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 5914.story

The victim too.......

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... ctim-.html

treetopovskaya wrote:thoughts?

yesterday i heard on the radio (john & ken) some of the transcripts of the girls testimony... truly unbelievable how anyone can be on the side of this pos.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 5914.story

Apparently the Hollywood crowd thinks it's OK to rape a 13 year old child as long as you're really talented. I wonder how they would feel if it was their daughter or sister who was violated. I heard Woopie Goldberg on the View arguing semantics about the word rape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NX_D0Bv9M0

It reminded me of Bill Clinton when he was testifying to the Grand Jury saying "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is..." It sickening.

Michigan Girl wrote:

treetopovskaya wrote:thoughts?

yesterday i heard on the radio (john & ken) some of the transcripts of the girls testimony... truly unbelievable how anyone can be on the side of this pos.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 5914.story

The victim too.......

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... ctim-.html

pos = polanski

treetopovskaya wrote:
pos = polanski

LMAO!!! I know...I meant the VICTIM is on his (pos=Polanski) side too...along w/the rest of Hollywood!!!

Michigan Girl wrote:

treetopovskaya wrote:
pos = polanski

LMAO!!! I know...I meant the VICTIM is on his (pos=Polanski) side too...along w/the rest of Hollywood!!!

hahahaa... i re-read what i wrote & it read like i was calling her a pos. }:C)

if i was her i would probably be saying the same thing actually. so my family & kids wouldn't have to deal with something that should have been dealt with YEARS ago.

Michigan Girl wrote:

treetopovskaya wrote:
pos = polanski

LMAO!!! I know...I meant the VICTIM is on his (pos=Polanski) side too...along w/the rest of Hollywood!!!

After all these years she probably just wants it to go away. I know I certainly wouldn't want all this crap dragged up after all these years. She put it behind her and moved on with her life and just wants to be left alone. Still it doesn't make what he did right.

Peartree12249 wrote:After all these years she probably just wants it to go away.

That's what she's publicly said. I think they reached some financial agreement way back when as well.

He needs to be prosecuted, jailed for years. He's already escaped for 30 years and lived his good years on the lam. Prison time is a must to set an example at the very least.

treetopovskaya wrote:

Michigan Girl wrote:

treetopovskaya wrote:
pos = polanski

LMAO!!! I know...I meant the VICTIM is on his (pos=Polanski) side too...along w/the rest of Hollywood!!!

hahahaa... i re-read what i wrote & it read like i was calling her a pos. }:C)

if i was her i would probably be saying the same thing actually. so my family & kids wouldn't have to deal with something that should have been dealt with YEARS ago.

Sure, but when the VICTIM is rallying for him, makes it a whole lot easier for others to follow suit, it's a shame!!!

The victim, Samantha Geimer, who reached a private settlement with Polanski, has said the charges against the director should be dismissed.

In 2003, she wrote an Op/Ed piece for The Times saying the case should not be a barrier to him winning an Academy Award:
Now that he's been nominated for an Academy Award, it's all being reopened. I'm being asked: Should he be given the award? Should he be rewarded for his behavior? Should he be allowed back into the United States after fleeing 25 years ago? Here's the way I feel about it: I don't really have any hard feelings toward him, or any sympathy, either. He is a stranger to me. But I believe that Mr. Polanski and his film should be honored according to the quality of the work. What he does for a living and how good he is at it have nothing to do with me or what he did to me. I don't think it would be fair to take past events into consideration. I think that the academy members should vote for the movies they feel deserve it. Not for people they feel are popular.
Polanski ended up winning best director for "The Pianist"

F him in the A, I'm glad he was arrested. I like how France is mad at us for it... Awwww, poor France, they're mad at the big bad US (what else is new) because we arrested a guy who only lives there because he fled the US in the 70s because he knew he was about to be sent up there river where he belongs for raping a 13 year old... lord, what were we thinking? Arresting a criminal who fled? Man, what next?

Hey France, memo for you... he's not one of you, I don't care how long he's been there, so quit whining and quit being proud of him. He only picked you because you so we couldn't extradite his pervert rapist criminal ass back to face the music.

bluejeangirl76 wrote:F him in the A, I'm glad he was arrested. I like how France is mad at us for it... Awwww, poor France, they're mad at the big bad US (what else is new) because we arrested a guy who only lives there because he fled the US in the 70s because he knew he was about to be sent up there river where he belongs for raping a 13 year old... lord, what were we thinking? Arresting a criminal who fled? Man, what next?

Hey France, memo for you... he's not one of you, I don't care how long he's been there, so quit whining and quit being proud of him. He only picked you because you so we couldn't extradite his pervert rapist criminal ass back to face the music.

Bravo, BJG!

For some reason, I was always under the impression that this was a case of Polanski having consensual sex with a girl he later found out to be underage, which is a whole different kettle of fish. But plying someone he knew was underage with alcohol and drugs, then manoeuvering her into sex in such a way... no, he needs to come back and serve a term for what he has already confessed to (he bolted because he was due to be sentanced, so I don't see any reason to drag it through another court session if it can be helped.)

I've got to wonder though, what the hell was a 13 year old girl doing in Jack Nicholson's house, a place well known for wild stuff with sex and drugs to be occuring? What the hell was her mother doing allowing a photography session unsupervised? Or jsut taking her there in the first place? I'd really like to know what the hell was going on, because sadly I have known women who if they couldn't get into that celebrity set up on their own tod, wouldn't think twice about pushing a pretty, underage daughter in to ride on her coat tails.

There's a lot more going on here than just '45 year old man has sex with intoxicated 13 year old girl.' None of which makes it right.

I think it's clear he needs to come back and do some serious jail time. Justice is supposed to be blind. His talent has zero to do with the crime. His position in society has zero to do with the crime. The time passed does not change the fact that he did the crime, admitted that he did the crime, and then skipped town. He's been living pretty damn comfortably in France.

If he were a blue collar laborer, he'd be in jail. If he were a school principal, he'd be in jail. So what the fuck is the difference if he's a movie director. Big fuckin' whoop. He ass-raped a little girl after drugging her up with qualudes & booze. Buh-bye.

Playitloudforme wrote:I think it's clear he needs to come back and do some serious jail time. Justice is supposed to be blind. His talent has zero to do with the crime. His position in society has zero to do with the crime. The time passed does not change the fact that he did the crime, admitted that he did the crime, and then skipped town. He's been living pretty damn comfortably in France.

If he were a blue collar laborer, he'd be in jail. If he were a school principal, he'd be in jail. So what the fuck is the difference if he's a movie director. Big fuckin' whoop. He ass-raped a little girl after drugging her up with qualudes & booze. Buh-bye.

exactly.

"hollywood" is just showing how out of touch they truly are.

who else should we bend the law for?

Playitloudforme wrote: He ass-raped a little girl after drugging her up with qualudes & booze. Buh-bye.

Not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I think this highlights why sex crimes involving teenagers gets really hard, really fast. She wasn't a little girl, she was thirteen. Thirteen year olds vary wildly when it comes to maturity, physically, mentally and emotionally. When I was twelve I routinely got hit on by guys who assumed I was eighteen (and who freaked out when I said I was twelve.) Physically mature, sure. Mentally mature - absolutely; I was smarter than pretty much everyone I knew, including most adults, and while I had a lot of friends my own age, I had been more than capable of holding my own in adult company for several years. Emotionally mature? Not in the slightest and was totally freaked by every single sexual comment and advance made to me; that stopped only because I had to learn to deal with it.

At thirteen I had 2 classmates, one of them a good friend, who were sexually active and in a normal, healthy, adult way (i.e. consensual, and not as a misplaced need for affection.) I looked older than both of them, mentally I was years ahead, but emotionally they were a lot more grown up than I was. At 18, I still had friends who were emotionally children. At 19, one of my male friends finally had that last growth spurt and went from being 5'3" to being 6'1" and stopped looking like a 10 year old (he didn't finish growing and bulking out until he was 24.)

My great-grandfather at 13 was a sailor and the main source of income for his family. My grandmother left school at 14 to go work full time. Both of them, in their time, were considered to be adults with adult responsibilities. Most people today say 18 is an adult, but for some crimes the US tries children as young as 10 as though they were adults. Some 12 year olds are more mature in every way than some 50 year olds.

So it gets really, really tricky when kids are at that 'in-between' stage. I'm not saying what he did was ok - the moment drugs and booze got involved, he lost any case in my eyes; consensual sex does not include using anything that will lower your 'partner's' inhibitions or affect their decision making. But I am saying, we have to accept that this was not a child - she was physically mature enough to be modelling for a (supposed) fashion magazine, and she was in a very grown up situation before the incident occured. She was underage, and she did not consent - both good reasons to throw the book at him. But this isn't the same as someone raping a 9 year old. Not saying it's ok, just saying it's different.

treetopovskaya wrote:
who else should we bend the law for?

Ainsley Dunbar, apparently.

Bunch of bull to run from taking responsibilty for his actions for years. I can't understand anyone condoning his actions by excusing them and making excuses for him. There is no excuse for an adult to have sex with a child even if consensual....and this wasn't even that...this was rape. He has to finally pay for his crime like he should have done years ago. I don't care what anyone says...even if a 13 year old girl has matured physically early and/or " thinks" they are smart and grown up...they are not...they are still a child.....and a grown man should know that a 13 year old is a child.

this whole thing is so disgusting. from the bits n pieces i gather there was some deal struck, he served 17 days or something and the judge either disagreed or something and he fled. the second he can be extradited back to face the music he should be. i guess his attorneys were taunting the da's office for not being serious about getting him.

Lula wrote:this whole thing is so disgusting. from the bits n pieces i gather there was some deal struck, he served 17 days or something and the judge either disagreed or something and he fled. the second he can be extradited back to face the music he should be. i guess his attorneys were taunting the da's office for not being serious about getting him.

What ive read, his attorneys made a plea agreement,then the judge leaked out that he would give him the max. Thats why he fled .Im not condoning what he did. The judge fucked up.Should have kept his trap shut.He might get off because of that.I hope he gets his time in jail,and the judge

Well unfortunately California seems to have a maximum 4-year prison sentence for stuff like this (hopefully he'd get more for fleeing the country though):

"(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years."

He'd be out and partying in LA again in a few years, which is unfortunate. But they DO need to make an example out of him, especially for these delusional celebrities, and for anyone else who thinks running to a foreign country for decades is a legitimate option to get out of your prison time. It doesn't matter if the victim is over it, because this is People v. Polanski, it's not her case.

Arianddu wrote:I've got to wonder though, what the hell was a 13 year old girl doing in Jack Nicholson's house, a place well known for wild stuff with sex and drugs to be occuring? What the hell was her mother doing allowing a photography session unsupervised? Or jsut taking her there in the first place? I'd really like to know what the hell was going on, because sadly I have known women who if they couldn't get into that celebrity set up on their own tod, wouldn't think twice about pushing a pretty, underage daughter in to ride on her coat tails.

Did you hear about the recent Brooke Shields preteen-nude-picture-in-a-museum scandal? Apparently moms were all about signing away their daughter's innocence in the 70s.

Sarah wrote:Did you hear about the recent Brooke Shields preteen-nude-picture-in-a-museum scandal? Apparently moms were all about signing away their daughter's innocence in the 70s.

I saw that and I totally think that Brooke's mom exploited her. There was all kinds of controversy surrounding her in the movie Blue Lagoon and her nude scene in that when she was only 15 years old.

People think things are so bad now, but the 70's were WORSE when it came to movies. Rated-X movie theaters were a norm, not just in the "bad" part of town. It was a time when a lot of things were exploited, including children but then the 80's came along and they tried to snuff it all out with all the "morals" talk and censorship. I'm sure it's heading back the other way these days. I think what we see on television now proves that. I can't name one "family" oriented sitcom these days that I can sit down and watch with my kids the way I did with my parents. There aren't any. Unless you put on the Disney channel

How could it be worth it to fuck a 13-year-old? I mean seriously. That's fucked up. This guy is scum.

Arianddu wrote:

Playitloudforme wrote: He ass-raped a little girl after drugging her up with qualudes & booze. Buh-bye.

Not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I think this highlights why sex crimes involving teenagers gets really hard, really fast. She wasn't a little girl, she was thirteen. Thirteen year olds vary wildly when it comes to maturity, physically, mentally and emotionally. When I was twelve I routinely got hit on by guys who assumed I was eighteen (and who freaked out when I said I was twelve.) Physically mature, sure. Mentally mature - absolutely; I was smarter than pretty much everyone I knew, including most adults, and while I had a lot of friends my own age, I had been more than capable of holding my own in adult company for several years. Emotionally mature? Not in the slightest and was totally freaked by every single sexual comment and advance made to me; that stopped only because I had to learn to deal with it.

At thirteen I had 2 classmates, one of them a good friend, who were sexually active and in a normal, healthy, adult way (i.e. consensual, and not as a misplaced need for affection.) I looked older than both of them, mentally I was years ahead, but emotionally they were a lot more grown up than I was. At 18, I still had friends who were emotionally children. At 19, one of my male friends finally had that last growth spurt and went from being 5'3" to being 6'1" and stopped looking like a 10 year old (he didn't finish growing and bulking out until he was 24.)

My great-grandfather at 13 was a sailor and the main source of income for his family. My grandmother left school at 14 to go work full time. Both of them, in their time, were considered to be adults with adult responsibilities. Most people today say 18 is an adult, but for some crimes the US tries children as young as 10 as though they were adults. Some 12 year olds are more mature in every way than some 50 year olds.

So it gets really, really tricky when kids are at that 'in-between' stage. I'm not saying what he did was ok - the moment drugs and booze got involved, he lost any case in my eyes; consensual sex does not include using anything that will lower your 'partner's' inhibitions or affect their decision making. But I am saying, we have to accept that this was not a child - she was physically mature enough to be modelling for a (supposed) fashion magazine, and she was in a very grown up situation before the incident occured. She was underage, and she did not consent - both good reasons to throw the book at him. But this isn't the same as someone raping a 9 year old. Not saying it's ok, just saying it's different.

Ari, I'm not saying that this girl behaved or didn't behave like a 'little girl'. But Polanski DID know that she was a child. Why? Cause the mother was told "don't come to the photo shoot'.

He wanted her, knew it, didn't care, and told the mother not to come to the shoot, so he could do what he wanted. If mom had been present (and she should have been, idiot mother) it would not have happened at all. The girl may have acted and even looked older, but the fact remains she was a child (albeit a teenager) but still a child, with a mother involved.

Playitloudforme wrote:

Arianddu wrote:

Playitloudforme wrote: He ass-raped a little girl after drugging her up with qualudes & booze. Buh-bye.

Not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I think this highlights why sex crimes involving teenagers gets really hard, really fast. She wasn't a little girl, she was thirteen. Thirteen year olds vary wildly when it comes to maturity, physically, mentally and emotionally. When I was twelve I routinely got hit on by guys who assumed I was eighteen (and who freaked out when I said I was twelve.) Physically mature, sure. Mentally mature - absolutely; I was smarter than pretty much everyone I knew, including most adults, and while I had a lot of friends my own age, I had been more than capable of holding my own in adult company for several years. Emotionally mature? Not in the slightest and was totally freaked by every single sexual comment and advance made to me; that stopped only because I had to learn to deal with it.

At thirteen I had 2 classmates, one of them a good friend, who were sexually active and in a normal, healthy, adult way (i.e. consensual, and not as a misplaced need for affection.) I looked older than both of them, mentally I was years ahead, but emotionally they were a lot more grown up than I was. At 18, I still had friends who were emotionally children. At 19, one of my male friends finally had that last growth spurt and went from being 5'3" to being 6'1" and stopped looking like a 10 year old (he didn't finish growing and bulking out until he was 24.)

My great-grandfather at 13 was a sailor and the main source of income for his family. My grandmother left school at 14 to go work full time. Both of them, in their time, were considered to be adults with adult responsibilities. Most people today say 18 is an adult, but for some crimes the US tries children as young as 10 as though they were adults. Some 12 year olds are more mature in every way than some 50 year olds.

So it gets really, really tricky when kids are at that 'in-between' stage. I'm not saying what he did was ok - the moment drugs and booze got involved, he lost any case in my eyes; consensual sex does not include using anything that will lower your 'partner's' inhibitions or affect their decision making. But I am saying, we have to accept that this was not a child - she was physically mature enough to be modelling for a (supposed) fashion magazine, and she was in a very grown up situation before the incident occured. She was underage, and she did not consent - both good reasons to throw the book at him. But this isn't the same as someone raping a 9 year old. Not saying it's ok, just saying it's different.

Ari, I'm not saying that this girl behaved or didn't behave like a 'little girl'. But Polanski DID know that she was a child. Why? Cause the mother was told "don't come to the photo shoot'.

He wanted her, knew it, didn't care, and told the mother not to come to the shoot, so he could do what he wanted. If mom had been present (and she should have been, idiot mother) it would not have happened at all. The girl may have acted and even looked older, but the fact remains she was a child (albeit a teenager) but still a child, with a mother involved.

Absolutely agree with you on all counts, just pointing out that it isn't the same as if, say, she were 9. She was still a child, but she wasn't a little girl. It's emotive, but I do think there is a difference in psyche between someone who seeks out adolescent girls and one who seeks out pre-adolescent ones. Still abhorent, but not exactly the same thing, and the former is a lot more complicated. I do not believe there can be such a thing as consensual sex with a pre-adolescent child; I do think that some adolescent children are capable of making that choice, but the younger they are, the fewer there are. And this case was not consensual in any sense of the word, so it's kind of moot.

Arianddu wrote:

Playitloudforme wrote:

Arianddu wrote:

Playitloudforme wrote: He ass-raped a little girl after drugging her up with qualudes & booze. Buh-bye.

Not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I think this highlights why sex crimes involving teenagers gets really hard, really fast. She wasn't a little girl, she was thirteen. Thirteen year olds vary wildly when it comes to maturity, physically, mentally and emotionally. When I was twelve I routinely got hit on by guys who assumed I was eighteen (and who freaked out when I said I was twelve.) Physically mature, sure. Mentally mature - absolutely; I was smarter than pretty much everyone I knew, including most adults, and while I had a lot of friends my own age, I had been more than capable of holding my own in adult company for several years. Emotionally mature? Not in the slightest and was totally freaked by every single sexual comment and advance made to me; that stopped only because I had to learn to deal with it.

At thirteen I had 2 classmates, one of them a good friend, who were sexually active and in a normal, healthy, adult way (i.e. consensual, and not as a misplaced need for affection.) I looked older than both of them, mentally I was years ahead, but emotionally they were a lot more grown up than I was. At 18, I still had friends who were emotionally children. At 19, one of my male friends finally had that last growth spurt and went from being 5'3" to being 6'1" and stopped looking like a 10 year old (he didn't finish growing and bulking out until he was 24.)

My great-grandfather at 13 was a sailor and the main source of income for his family. My grandmother left school at 14 to go work full time. Both of them, in their time, were considered to be adults with adult responsibilities. Most people today say 18 is an adult, but for some crimes the US tries children as young as 10 as though they were adults. Some 12 year olds are more mature in every way than some 50 year olds.

So it gets really, really tricky when kids are at that 'in-between' stage. I'm not saying what he did was ok - the moment drugs and booze got involved, he lost any case in my eyes; consensual sex does not include using anything that will lower your 'partner's' inhibitions or affect their decision making. But I am saying, we have to accept that this was not a child - she was physically mature enough to be modelling for a (supposed) fashion magazine, and she was in a very grown up situation before the incident occured. She was underage, and she did not consent - both good reasons to throw the book at him. But this isn't the same as someone raping a 9 year old. Not saying it's ok, just saying it's different.

Ari, I'm not saying that this girl behaved or didn't behave like a 'little girl'. But Polanski DID know that she was a child. Why? Cause the mother was told "don't come to the photo shoot'.

He wanted her, knew it, didn't care, and told the mother not to come to the shoot, so he could do what he wanted. If mom had been present (and she should have been, idiot mother) it would not have happened at all. The girl may have acted and even looked older, but the fact remains she was a child (albeit a teenager) but still a child, with a mother involved.

Absolutely agree with you on all counts, just pointing out that it isn't the same as if, say, she were 9. She was still a child, but she wasn't a little girl. It's emotive, but I do think there is a difference in psyche between someone who seeks out adolescent girls and one who seeks out pre-adolescent ones. Still abhorent, but not exactly the same thing, and the former is a lot more complicated. I do not believe there can be such a thing as consensual sex with a pre-adolescent child; I do think that some adolescent children are capable of making that choice, but the younger they are, the fewer there are. And this case was not consensual in any sense of the word, so it's kind of moot.

While I agree that there are some adolescent girls tho believe they can make that decision for consensual sex, the law does not agree. The law draws the line at 18, whether the girl thinks she is mature or not before that date, it doesn't matter. And at least for my part as a mom, I drilled the law into my sons' heads and reiterated that underage girls were a no-no beyond comprehension. Consensual or not, the law doesn't care, and all it would take is the girl getting pissed off, and then turning it around to say "he raped me and I was only 16". The bodies may be mature, but rarely is the brain to understand the consequences. These are the same people that are driving down the interstate in a TransAm doing 100 mph with their foot stuck out of the window (oh hey..that was me at 16..ooops -- see--- NOT wise, even though I considered myself VERY mature). I said the risk was just not worth it. As long as they were underage, they could call "rape", and the boys would be the ones doing jail time.

Then again, teenagers with teenagers isn't the issue either, it's 40 something adults with a teenager and in this case a new teenager. Any way you slice that, it's messed up. Is it as bad as the guy who just died (the Jessica Runford case)? Or the guy that took the 3 year old in San Diego (I won't go into details on what he did to her). Or the guy that took that girl that was just now found after over a decade? Forced to have his children. Gaaah. Do these guys NOT see that they are not adults, yet force upon them a very 'adult' behavior? I can't even put myself into their heads to figure out their logic at the time that it was a good idea to engage in what they did (Polanski included). In my mind, Polanski pre-planned this. Wanted her. Got Mom out of the picture so he could have control. Plied her with booze & ludes to control her. Took her. While it isn't a little girl, she wasn't an adult either, and he knew it. That's the messed up part. He didn't care. Not like he was 17 or 18 years old himself.

I love the comment from the LA County DA's office in response to the "sinister" accusations by France as though COLA engaged in some massive, shady, labryinthine plot to pinch him: "Well he put it on the internet where he'd be and when, so it kinda wasn;t that involved...'


BTW, this Geimer is clearly going through some kind of Stockholm Syndrome to be beating the drum to let him go.

He should at least be held accountable for fleeing...wasn't that a separate crime?

I don't know the timeline...was the rape of the 13 yr old before or after his affair with the teenage actress?

A forty-something-year-old with a 13-year-old girl. Whoever doesn't think this is rape is crazy. He groomed her, set her up with all the photoshoots other days, plied her with Champagne and a part of a Quaalude and so it went. She may not have fought him, but she was an impressionable 13 year old who felt powerless and was in awe of his power probably and didn't know what to do. Forty-something-year-old men don't pursue a 13 year old and set them up for sex by "photoshoots" and other enticements to be able to spend time with them alone unless they're sick individuals.

I'm gonna get "boo'd," but I don't care.....

Nobody at ANY age has ANY right whatsoever to have sex with ANY female under the age of 18 & no female under the age of 18 or at ANY age & still living at home with her parents has ANY right to have sex with ANYone ever. Yes, I said FEMALE & yes I said ANY age..... 30, 40, 50,....it's all the same to me. If she wants to do "grown up" things, than she needs to live on her own. I ain't having MY daughter coming home smelling like cigarettes & Armani cologne & smiling like that damn Cheshire cat. No effin' way!!!

My daughter had better be at least 18 years old AND living on her own before she has sex with ANY horny S.O.B. or she'll feel the wrath of dad thrust upon her.

.... & she ain't gonna wear no damn hussy make-up either!!!!----Not as long as there's breath in my body!!!!

JasonD wrote:I'm gonna get "boo'd," but I don't care.....

Nobody at ANY age has ANY right whatsoever to have sex with ANY female under the age of 18 & no female under the age of 18 or at ANY age & still living at home with her parents has ANY right to have sex with ANYone ever. Yes, I said FEMALE & yes I said ANY age..... 30, 40, 50,....it's all the same to me. If she wants to do "grown up" things, than she needs to live on her own. I ain't having MY daughter coming home smelling like cigarettes & Armani cologne & smiling like that damn Cheshire cat. No effin' way!!!

My daughter had better be at least 18 years old AND living on her own before she has sex with ANY horny S.O.B. or she'll feel the wrath of dad thrust upon her.

.... & she ain't gonna wear no damn hussy make-up either!!!!----Not as long as there's breath in my body!!!!

Good for you! Kids are growing up way too quickly and they would be better off maintaining their childhoods as long as they can. The innocence of childhood can't be recovered once its lost. They shouldn't have sex under 18 at all. Childhood is the shortest period of life....they have the rest of the vast majority of their years to be adults.