PDA

View Full Version : Mother Gives Daughter to Boyfriend for Sex


The Central Scrutinizer
11th August 2006, 11:24 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/11/underage.sex.pact.ap/index.html

I'm guessing this will hurt her chances for Mother Of The Year?

Katana
11th August 2006, 11:31 AM
That's pathetic. Your relationship is on such shaky ground that you have to provide your 15yr-old daughter as a substitute in bed?

http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/mad/1441.gif

Crossbow
11th August 2006, 11:43 AM
Sounds like the sort of nonsense you hear on the "Jerry Springer Show", but it sure is sad all the way around.

Trantor
11th August 2006, 11:47 AM
Well, if the guy just had to have it on a regular basis and could not wait for the mother's recovery, the mother should have purchased a rubber doll for him. Truly amazing stupidity.

headscratcher4
11th August 2006, 11:54 AM
Gonna make for interesting holiday dinner conversations for years to come...

"Hey mom, remember the time you sold me to that sleazeball boyfriend of yours...what ever happened to him?"

kittykatkarma
11th August 2006, 12:05 PM
Truly amazing how stupid people can be!

Mycroft
11th August 2006, 12:13 PM
Police said the three signed an agreement specifying the sexual services the girl would perform and the compensation she would receive, including clothing and body piercings. The 37-year-old man and the girl had sex about 20 times over two months, police said.

It seems to have been consentual.

The Central Scrutinizer
11th August 2006, 12:15 PM
It seems to have been consentual.

Yep, but still illegal. :)

Mycroft
11th August 2006, 12:22 PM
Yep, but still illegal. :)

It's my opinion that people move into trailer-parks not for the cheap rent, which isn't all that cheap once you figure in everything, but to join with this sub-culture where everyone lives off of disability or unemployment and normal sexual taboos just don't apply.

brooklyn44
11th August 2006, 12:25 PM
It seems to have been consentual.

And would you say the same if it were a 14-year-old girl, or a 13-year-old girl? There is no "consent" from a minor. It is not only illegal it is depraved.

Mycroft
11th August 2006, 12:36 PM
And would you say the same if it were a 14-year-old girl, or a 13-year-old girl? There is no "consent" from a minor. It is not only illegal it is depraved.

Unless you're in Spain.

Trantor
11th August 2006, 12:40 PM
Well, I think the two adults were a couple of fools. Perhaps their religion played a role in the matter. Maybe they were a couple of Bible thumpers, who thought that it was ok. After all the Bible says that Mary became pregnant at age 12. If it's good enough for God the Father, then...

ponderingturtle
11th August 2006, 12:43 PM
Well, if the guy just had to have it on a regular basis and could not wait for the mother's recovery, the mother should have purchased a rubber doll for him. Truly amazing stupidity.

Or let him take matters into his own hands.

Hey he could even have done that for charity.

The Central Scrutinizer
11th August 2006, 02:31 PM
It's my opinion that people move into trailer-parks not for the cheap rent, which isn't all that cheap once you figure in everything, but to join with this sub-culture where everyone lives off of disability or unemployment and normal sexual taboos just don't apply.

You may have a point there.

Morrigan
11th August 2006, 03:30 PM
It seems to have been consentual.
No, it seems it wasn't. (http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1155224765298410.xml&coll=8)

And the legality or lack thereof isn't the most disturbing part, really. Would it have been less sick had she been one year older, the legal age in Michigan? Or if it had happened in Canada? Please.

fuelair
11th August 2006, 07:39 PM
No, it seems it wasn't. (http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1155224765298410.xml&coll=8)

And the legality or lack thereof isn't the most disturbing part, really. Would it have been less sick had she been one year older, the legal age in Michigan? Or if it had happened in Canada? Please.
And there is a cure, if properly applied, for this kind of behavior. Lead/copper uh "capsules".

American
11th August 2006, 08:11 PM
I know exactly what every one of yous chest-thumpers is really thinking- 15 ain't THAT young.

aerosolben
11th August 2006, 08:19 PM
I know exactly what every one of yous chest-thumpers is really thinking- 15 ain't THAT young.
They say that no one is more afraid of being robbed than a thief.

slingblade
11th August 2006, 09:34 PM
It's my opinion that people move into trailer-parks not for the cheap rent, which isn't all that cheap once you figure in everything, but to join with this sub-culture where everyone lives off of disability or unemployment and normal sexual taboos just don't apply.

Thanks. Yeah, that's why I live in a trailer, all right. It's just party, party, party.

Cripes.

Jorghnassen
12th August 2006, 08:14 AM
No, it seems it wasn't. (http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1155224765298410.xml&coll=8)

And the legality or lack thereof isn't the most disturbing part, really. Would it have been less sick had she been one year older, the legal age in Michigan? Or if it had happened in Canada? Please.

It don't think it would be legal in Canada. You see, the age of consent being 14 comes with the caveat that the other person cannot be in a position of power/authority (e.g. teacher, coach, doctor, etc.). My guess would be that parent's unrelated significant other is considered "authority".

nightwind
12th August 2006, 08:56 AM
Yes, 15 isn't that young. Better a show for Springer than a court case. Put them on! Go Jerry! Go Jerry!

ImaginalDisc
12th August 2006, 08:59 AM
It's my opinion that people move into trailer-parks not for the cheap rent, which isn't all that cheap once you figure in everything, but to join with this sub-culture where everyone lives off of disability or unemployment and normal sexual taboos just don't apply.

Yes, because poor people aren't really poor, they conspire to appear poor to live a bohemian life of wild and reckless abandon.

Meadmaker
12th August 2006, 09:28 AM
Well, I think the two adults were a couple of fools. Perhaps their religion played a role in the matter. Maybe they were a couple of Bible thumpers, who thought that it was ok. After all the Bible says that Mary became pregnant at age 12. If it's good enough for God the Father, then...

That would be a very odd interpretation of Christian doctrine, although stranger ones have been made. Still, I would be betting against Bible-thumping as a motive in this case.

The one verifiable assertion from your post is false. The Bible says nothing about Mary's age.

ImaginalDisc
12th August 2006, 09:33 AM
That would be a very odd interpretation of Christian doctrine, although stranger ones have been made. Still, I would be betting against Bible-thumping as a motive in this case.

The one verifiable assertion from your post is false. The Bible says nothing about Mary's age.
It describes her as "parthenos" which means virgin or young woman. The later refered to girls aged 13-15 or so, which is when girl were commonly married off.

WildCat
12th August 2006, 09:35 AM
Yes, 15 isn't that young. Better a show for Springer than a court case. Put them on! Go Jerry! Go Jerry!
Dis Springer all you want, but he stayed clear of kids IIRC. Maury Povich, OTOH, had a show closely resembling the topic of this thread at least once.

WildCat
12th August 2006, 06:27 PM
It gets worse (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006608120315):
On Friday, Mahan said authorities also learned that the man had given his own daughter -- who had been staying with him after living with her biological mother -- packs of cigarettes for sex. According to the Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office, the man had sex with his daughter from sometime in November of last year to July 15.
In the case involving his daughter, the man is charged with six counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a child under age 13; in the other case, he is charged with six counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct with a child 13-15 years old.
:eek:

Dave1001
13th August 2006, 06:10 AM
It gets worse (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006608120315):

:eek:

I can't believe a parent would give their own child a pack of cigarettes, with everything we know today about how bad smoking is for one's health.:(

a_unique_person
13th August 2006, 06:12 AM
Thanks. Yeah, that's why I live in a trailer, all right. It's just party, party, party.

Cripes.

Which one are you then? There's only two possibilities, apparently.

Mephisto
13th August 2006, 06:48 AM
It's my opinion that people move into trailer-parks not for the cheap rent, which isn't all that cheap once you figure in everything, but to join with this sub-culture where everyone lives off of disability or unemployment and normal sexual taboos just don't apply.

You forgot to add that they like to play "chicken" with tornados too. You really don't have much empathy for the poor, do you?

nightwind
13th August 2006, 04:26 PM
Yea, this would probably be better for Povich. Go Maury! Go Maury! And if she could get pregnant, they could do some testing to see who the real dad was. Yes! What a show!

Mycroft
13th August 2006, 08:56 PM
You forgot to add that they like to play "chicken" with tornados too. You really don't have much empathy for the poor, do you?

I have plenty of empathy for the poor. Just not the poor that live in trailer parks. Or that buy sex from their teenage children with cigarettes and body-piercings.

The Fool
13th August 2006, 10:23 PM
I have plenty of empathy for the poor. Just not the poor that live in trailer parks.
Have a bad experience in a trailer park? Anything you want to unburden on us?

SuperSquirrel
13th August 2006, 10:49 PM
I can't believe how sick some people are. How could a mother ever do something like that to her daughter. It's amazing how fast the world is turning to crap.

SezMe
14th August 2006, 01:41 AM
I have plenty of empathy for the poor. Just not the poor that live in trailer parks.
I'll bet the thousands of people around New Orleans who have been forced to live in trailers are relieved to read of your generous heart.

gtc
14th August 2006, 01:48 AM
Have a bad experience in a trailer park? Anything you want to unburden on us?

Maybe you need to give a teddy bear shaped like a trailer.

'Where in the trailer did 'the incident' happen'.

Mycroft
14th August 2006, 02:02 AM
I'll bet the thousands of people around New Orleans who have been forced to live in trailers are relieved to read of your generous heart.

Do you think many of them have computers yet?

Mephisto
14th August 2006, 06:50 AM
I have plenty of empathy for the poor. Just not the poor that live in trailer parks. Or that buy sex from their teenage children with cigarettes and body-piercings.

Would tents suit you better? Maybe their RVs are in the shop?

I'm frankly surprised that someone of your obvious intellect could draw a parallel between low cost housing and aberrant sexual behavior on the part of everyone concerned in this circumstance. My sister lived in a trailer park for over 14 years and all of her neighbors were hard-working and HONEST people. You really should take a reality check on your stereotypes.

pgwenthold
14th August 2006, 07:10 AM
I can't believe how sick some people are. How could a mother ever do something like that to her daughter. It's amazing how fast the world is turning to crap.

What do you mean "turning to crap"?

According to the bible, Lot gave his daughters to angels for sex, so apparently this kind of sick stuff has been going on for thousands of years.

The good old days weren't always good.

Mephisto
14th August 2006, 07:14 AM
What do you mean "turning to crap"?

According to the bible, Lot gave his daughters to angels for sex, so apparently this kind of sick stuff has been going on for thousands of years.

The good old days weren't always good.

Even worse, I think that Lot was willing to give up his daughters to a crowd of men who were MORE interested in the angels. :)

Their interests in the angels apparently stemmed from the name of their city. ;)

Ian Osborne
14th August 2006, 07:15 AM
I have plenty of empathy for the poor. Just not the poor that live in trailer parks. Or that buy sex from their teenage children with cigarettes and body-piercings.
Perhaps he should've been more clear, but I think Mycroft was referring to stereotypical trailer trash rather than anyone who lives in a trailer.

brodski
14th August 2006, 07:32 AM
Perhaps he should've been more clear, but I think Mycroft was referring to stereotypical trailer trash rather than anyone who lives in a trailer.
Is this the worlds first sighting of the "no true trailer trash" fallacy? ;)
Mycroft was pretty clear, his opening gambit was to suggest that people lived in trailers, not because they where cheep, but to join some kind of deviant cult sponging off of the state, neither of his posts on this matter have left any room for differentiating between the "deserving" and "undeserving" trailer denizens . I took Mycroft's original statement to be a joke, but I can see how some people could find it offensive.

Trantor
14th August 2006, 07:34 AM
It describes her as "parthenos" which means virgin or young woman. The later refered to girls aged 13-15 or so, which is when girl were commonly married off.

I remember reading that in those days, when a girl first started her menstration, it was a sign that she was now ready for marriage. I believe this general rule still applies to many parts of the world today and is practiced by some religious groups; where girls are married at a very young age, in arranged marriages.

Mephisto
14th August 2006, 07:38 AM
Perhaps he should've been more clear, but I think Mycroft was referring to stereotypical trailer trash rather than anyone who lives in a trailer.

Excuses, excuses . . . he's already admitted to not having any empathy for the poor who live in trailer parks. I think that's pretty clear.

Ian Osborne
14th August 2006, 07:44 AM
Excuses, excuses . . .
Perhaps, but let's wait for Mycroft's take on the matter.

Mephisto
14th August 2006, 07:55 AM
Perhaps, but let's wait for Mycroft's take on the matter.

But this IS Mycroft's take on the matter. I'm not normally one to put words in people's mouths, but since they're his words anyway . . .

I have plenty of empathy for the poor. Just not the poor that live in trailer parks. Or that buy sex from their teenage children with cigarettes and body-piercings.

Again, it sounds pretty clear to me. :(

pgwenthold
14th August 2006, 08:00 AM
Even worse, I think that Lot was willing to give up his daughters to a crowd of men who were MORE interested in the angels. :)


Correction noted.

Recall, moreover, that Lot was still considered a righteous dude by God after this, so much so that he was the only one God let escape.

So instead of "turning to crap," I see progress. In the old days, this sort of activity was considered a virtue. At least now we can look upon it as repulsive.

SezMe
14th August 2006, 12:00 PM
Do you think many of them have computers yet?
I'm going to ignore that and ask, Mycroft, was your post tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic, something else, or an accurate reflection of your position?

ImaginalDisc
14th August 2006, 12:08 PM
But this IS Mycroft's take on the matter. I'm not normally one to put words in people's mouths, but since they're his words anyway . . .



Again, it sounds pretty clear to me. :(

It's really very Calvinist.

shemp
14th August 2006, 12:10 PM
It's my opinion that people move into trailer-parks not for the cheap rent, which isn't all that cheap once you figure in everything, but to join with this sub-culture where everyone lives off of disability or unemployment and normal sexual taboos just don't apply.

Glad to see you're continuing to morph into a clone of American.

HeavyAaron
14th August 2006, 12:10 PM
It's really very Calvinist.

Okay, I give up. In what way is the statement Calvinist?

Aaron

ImaginalDisc
14th August 2006, 12:48 PM
Okay, I give up. In what way is the statement Calvinist?

Aaron

In Calvinism, all things, secluar (such as wealth) or divine (such as salvation) are provded by God's mercy, and nothing anyone does can have any effect on that. Ergo; the right are rich because god loves them, and the poor are poor because they are wicked.

Mycroft
14th August 2006, 12:51 PM
I'm going to ignore that and ask, Mycroft, was your post tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic, something else, or an accurate reflection of your position?


I did mean it as a joke, but the problem with fessing up to a joke like that is the people who were offended will still be offended, and the people who took it as a joke to begin with have already lost interest.

Many fine people live in trailor parks. I've ven been tempted to get one myself. ;)


Glad to see you're continuing to morph into a clone of American.

Oh, and for the record, I think American is hysterically funny. I did have him in mind, or at least his attitude when I said that.

HeavyAaron
14th August 2006, 12:52 PM
In Calvinism, all things, secluar (such as wealth) or divine (such as salvation) are provded by God's mercy, and nothing anyone does can have any effect on that. Ergo; the right are rich because god loves them, and the poor are poor because they are wicked.

Okay, then my failure to understand you stems from a difference in understanding of Calvinism.

As I understand Calvinism, everything is indeed forseen and decided on by God in His sovergnty. However, to say He blessed some and cursed others BECAUSE they are wicked implies a causality I do not believe is part of Calvinism. In my understanding of Calvinism God does not react to us in any way. All actions are in His order and plan and we have no bearing on them.

I welcome to be corrected. I actually find Calvinism interesting.

Aaron

ponderingturtle
14th August 2006, 12:52 PM
Is this the worlds first sighting of the "no true trailer trash" fallacy? ;)
Mycroft was pretty clear, his opening gambit was to suggest that people lived in trailers, not because they where cheep, but to join some kind of deviant cult sponging off of the state, neither of his posts on this matter have left any room for differentiating between the "deserving" and "undeserving" trailer denizens . I took Mycroft's original statement to be a joke, but I can see how some people could find it offensive.

I took the orrional post to mean not that they where not cheap, but when the whole cost is factored in, not any cheaper than similar cheap houseing.

HeavyAaron
14th August 2006, 12:54 PM
I did mean it as a joke, but the problem with fessing up to a joke like that is the people who were offended will still be offended, and the people who took it as a joke to begin with have already lost interest.

Many fine people live in trailor parks. I've ven been tempted to get one myself. ;)




Oh, and for the record, I think American is hysterically funny. I did have him in mind, or at least his attitude when I said that.

I have to say Mycroft, I generally respect you but either my humor detector was malfunctioning or your setup for a joke just didn't fly.

I'm glad to see it wasn't a sincere sentiment, however.

Aaron

ImaginalDisc
14th August 2006, 12:56 PM
Okay, then my failure to understand you stems from a difference in understanding of Calvinism.

As I understand Calvinism, everything is indeed forseen and decided on by God in His sovergnty. However, to say He blessed some and cursed others BECAUSE they are wicked implies a causality I do not believe is part of Calvinism. In my understanding of Calvinism God does not react to us in any way. All actions are in His order and plan and we have no bearing on them.

I welcome to be corrected. I actually find Calvinism interesting.

Aaron

I think the underlying logic is inherently circular. They're poor because they're wicked, but being wicked makes them poor.

HeavyAaron
14th August 2006, 01:46 PM
I think the underlying logic is inherently circular. They're poor because they're wicked, but being wicked makes them poor.

I'm thinking this isn't what you meant to say.

To break it into parts:
They're poor because they're wicked

Cause: wickedness
Result: poverty

being wicked makes them poor

Cause: wickedness
Result: poverty

That's not circular. That's redundant.

I haven't had the time to investigate this, but I still think this isn't actually Calvinism.

Aaron

ImaginalDisc
14th August 2006, 01:59 PM
I'm thinking this isn't what you meant to say.

To break it into parts:


Cause: wickedness
Result: poverty



Cause: wickedness
Result: poverty

That's not circular. That's redundant.

I haven't had the time to investigate this, but I still think this isn't actually Calvinism.

Aaron
*Sigh*, No, what you just outlined IS circular logic. Just like saying that the bible is true because god says so, and we know everything that god says is true because it says so in the bible.

Calvinism: The First Class War

What does one make of Calvinism? What was it about Calvin's doctrines which made them particularly palatable to the townspeople of Europe?

A careful examination of the doctrines of Calvinism makes it clear that this revolutionary sect appealed not to all the townspeople, but only to the upper echelons of those people, the bourgeoisie. Indeed, it was at heart the very first recorded class war in the history of Europe.

In the first place, the bourgeoisie had need to control every facet of town life, including leisure pursuits. They themselves based their social conduct on the principle of thrift and maximum utilization of time. The apprentices, journeymen and labourers, however, did not. Since the bourgeoisie believed that laziness was a sin, they therefore saw the principle of hard work to be essentially tied up with religion.

Linked to this were such things as amusements, dancing, styles of dress and jewellery. Not only were these connected with flippancy and debauchery, but they were essentially the modes of activity of both the aristocracy and the labourers. Hence the bourgeoisie were able to put a stress on a puritanical life-style as part of a religious belief.

The essence of Calvinism was predestination which was also the essence of bourgeois belief. They believed that wealth acquired through hard work was a blessing but they were caught up in the Catholic Church's innate condemnation of wealth as such: it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle. There was for them nevertheless a clear distinction between the wealth of the aristocracy (which they believed was acquired through idleness) and the wealth of the bourgeoisie (acquired through long hours of hard work and thrift).
Calvinist paradigm of religion

Calvin's concept of Predestination preaches essentially that wealth or poverty is not a pre-requisite for salvation because God has already predestined those who are to be saved. On the other hand, those who are predestined for salvation will reveal this by their way of life. The principles whereby one will know that one is predestined for salvation are therefore:

* success in business attained through hard work and thrift;

* non-ostentatious mode of living and dress;

* obedience to civil authorities, etc.


http://www.knowledge4africa.co.za/worldhistory/reformation05.htm

HeavyAaron
14th August 2006, 02:04 PM
*Sigh*, No, what you just outlined IS circular logic. Just like saying that the bible is true because god says so, and we know everything that god says is true because it says so in the bible.

That WOULD be circular. That's A leads to B and B leads to A. But you earlier said A leads to B and B comes from A, which is NOT circular, but simply saying the same thing twice. Please reread what you said carefully. I think you simply transposed things in the second clause.

Thanks for the link on Calvinism. I don't want to get into it here as that's too far a derail. I still don't concur, but I see where you're coming from.

Aaron

HeavyAaron
14th August 2006, 02:08 PM
I think the underlying logic is inherently circular. They're poor because they're wicked, but being wicked makes them poor.

Is THIS circular?

They're poor because they're lazy, but being lazy makes them poor.

It's a direct substitution of lazy for wicked. If it's circular you should be able to show me what claus of my sentence you disagree with.

This is silly, arguing about circularity. I think you're just not reading carefully enough. It most certainly is NOT circular.

Aaron

The Central Scrutinizer
14th August 2006, 02:21 PM
I can't believe how sick some people are. How could a mother ever do something like that to her daughter. It's amazing how fast the world is turning to crap.

I blame rock music.

SezMe
14th August 2006, 02:21 PM
I did mean it as a joke <snip>
Thanks. I'll take that at face value and close by noting a little smilie would have helped.

ImaginalDisc
14th August 2006, 02:41 PM
Is THIS circular?

They're poor because they're lazy, but being lazy makes them poor.

It's a direct substitution of lazy for wicked. If it's circular you should be able to show me what claus of my sentence you disagree with.

This is silly, arguing about circularity. I think you're just not reading carefully enough. It most certainly is NOT circular.

Aaron

They're poor because they're wicked, yet they are wicked bcause they are poor. Circle.

HeavyAaron
14th August 2006, 02:43 PM
They're poor because they're wicked, yet they are wicked bcause they are poor. Circle.

Yes, that's a circle. But it's not what you said before. (Is it so hard to admit a simple mistake?)

Aaron

ETA. even if you were right about Calvinism, this isn't quite right. By your interpritation (based on your source), righteousness leads to success so the contrapositive of failure would indicate wickedness. But that's not circular either.

Again, let me use laziness. Laziness leads to poverty. Poverty is therefore an indicator of laziness, not a cause.

Aaron

SezMe
14th August 2006, 03:01 PM
I blame rock music.
I dunno, Scrut. I'm pretty sure you had some influence but I just haven't been able to nail it down yet. ;)

HeavyAaron
14th August 2006, 03:02 PM
I dunno, Scrut. I'm pretty sure you had some influence but I just haven't been able to nail it down yet. ;)

He started a rock band.

Aaron

P.S. No I don't know that; I'm speculating.

Mephisto
14th August 2006, 04:12 PM
Thanks. I'll take that at face value and close by noting a little smilie would have helped.

I'll agree with you - a smilie would have helped, otherwise it's just one of the Anne Coulter jokes. You know, the ones that are only "jokes" after you realize no one is laughing. ;)

Beerina
15th August 2006, 11:16 AM
Well, I think the two adults were a couple of fools. Perhaps their religion played a role in the matter. Maybe they were a couple of Bible thumpers, who thought that it was ok. After all the Bible says that Mary became pregnant at age 12. If it's good enough for God the Father, then...

Really! I had no idea of this!

Yahweh would be breaking the law in modern society...

Beerina
15th August 2006, 11:23 AM
Even worse, I think that Lot was willing to give up his daughters to a crowd of men who were MORE interested in the angels. :)

Their interests in the angels apparently stemmed from the name of their city. ;)

There's a comedy routine in there somewhere.

An angel comes back into heaven, hair disheveled, clothes partly ripped and off-center.

"What happened to you?"

"Ehhh, Lot gave me up to the crowds."

"How horrible! You were meant by God to live a life throug all eternity of celibacy! And this happened!"

"Yeah, it sucks. Was had over and over again. 'Don't make me do that to that woman!' but nobody listened."

(earlier on)

Lot: No! Take my daughters instead!

Angel: It's ok, I'll go.

Lot: I won't hear of it. You are under my protection!

Angel: No, really. It's fine. Let me out there.