Teenage boy convicted of rape for consential sex with 3 teenage girls

[Jetsetlemming]

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x439281556/Court-questions-whether-Plymouth-County-prosecutors-should-have-charged-preteen-girls-in-rape-case
In a ruling Friday, the state Supreme Judicial Court raised questions about whether Plymouth County prosecutors should have charged three preteen girls in a 2007 rape case, and not just a teenage boy.
The state’s highest court ruled that Plymouth County prosecutors must turn over statistics on statutory rape cases to the teenage boy, who claims he is suffering discrimination because he was the only person charged after he had what he claimed was consensual sex with the three girls.

The Plymouth County District Attorney’s spokeswoman, Bridget Norton Middleton, would not say what towns the four children lived in at the time of the alleged assaults between Aug. 10 and Oct. 15, 2007.

The boy was 14 when he was accused of having sex with two 12-year-old girls and one 11-year-old girl who were his friends. He was charged with nine counts, including statutory rape and indecent assault and battery of a child under the age of 14.

After his lawyer tried unsuccessfully to have the girls also charged with raping him, the defense sought statistics from prosecutors to support his claim that he was being selectively prosecuted because he was a boy.

The Supreme Judicial Court last fall ordered Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz to turn over information on statutory rape cases prosecuted over the last five years. The court issued a written decision on the case Friday.

In its ruling, the court said that statutory rape laws, which once protected only girls, have been amended over the years to give the same protections to both boys and girls. The court also noted that the girls said they willingly performed sex acts on the boy. “Indeed, sexual behavior seemed to melt seamlessly into games of ‘manhunt,’ ‘truth or dare,’ and ‘making out,’ “ Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote for the majority in the 3-2 ruling.

But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Francis Spina noted that the boy was at least two years older than the girls and was entering the ninth grade, while the girls were entering the sixth and seventh grades. Spina also said the boy had not shown “intentional or deliberate discrimination by the prosecutor.”

“The gender difference here is purely incidental. The age difference and grade difference were the basis for the decision,” Spina wrote.

The boy’s attorney, Janice Bassil, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

In its ruling, the court said that after the boy was arrested, he was suspended from school and thrown off the football team.

Cruz said the circumstances of the case prompted the decision to prosecute the boy and not the girls.

“There are three victims in this case who are two to three years younger and two grade levels behind the juvenile,” Cruz said in a statement. “The facts ... are not only deeply troubling but they also soundly support this prosecution.”

In the ruling, the court said the boy’s father found out about the activity when he read a sexually explicit text message his son had received from one of the girls. The father called the mother of another one of the girls to express his concerns. After talking to her daughter and with other parents, the woman called police and said the boy had sexually assaulted the three girls.
Justice, truly, has been served. :bored:
The worst part is that they kick him out of school, because obviously the best thing to do for a troubled teen is to make him an uneducated registered sex offender.

[SlickWilly440]

In its ruling, the court said that statutory rape laws, which once protected only girls, have been amended over the years to give the same protections to both boys and girls.
This is gender discrimination against males. The women must protest to gain the same equal rights to be charged with statutory rape laws just like men.
In its ruling, the court said that after the boy was arrested, he was suspended from school and thrown off the football team.

Now the kid won't be able to score on either fields.
After talking to her daughter and with other parents, the woman called police and said the boy had sexually assaulted the three girls.
Another classic case of the mother thinking that the girls are the victims and didn't voluntarily participate.

[darighaz]

Just... fail all around in every side of the case. Literally every person involved here Fails.

[whispering]

...is having sex illegal in US?

[kwad8]

Wow that is totally messed up. That just shows how the law is always on the side of females. It is quite a double standard when it comes to charging women with those type of crimes. They are almost never charged and if they are they get a much lighter sentence than males. This boy is totally being screwed by the system and will now be screwed for the rest of his life. I would not be surprised if the 3 girls are in the news again for getting some other guy in trouble because they were promiscuous.

[Juvenyle]

Wow 2 years is a big difference? The whole law about sex when your underage is fucked up to begin with.

[Roxie]

I don't really think it's at all helpful to prosecute any of the minors in this situation. I mean, really, wtf?
That just shows how the law is always on the side of females.
it is not "on the side of females". It's not really serving anyone here, to the detriment of everyone and in particular to the detriment of that young boy. Even if they were going to prosecute, all minor identities need to be protected, including his

[kwad8]

[QUOTE=Roxie it is not "on the side of females". It's not really serving anyone here, to the detriment of everyone and in particular to the detriment of that young boy. Even if they were going to prosecute, all minor identities need to be protected, including his[/QUOTE]

Well I agree with most of what you said. Prosecuting anyone in this situation helps no one and just causes problems for all and costs taxpayer money. However I disagree with you and stand by my previous statement when i said the law on the side of females when it comes to sex crimes. thats in most situations not just this one.

For example if a male teacher had sex with a female student the courts will throw the book at him and charge him with anything and everything they can. While if a female had sex with a male student. She would only get a slap on the wrist. Last time I checked, in Georgia only men can be charged with rape, a women cannot be charged with rape.

[Roxie]

For example if a male teacher had sex with a female student the courts will throw the book at him and charge him with anything and everything they can. While if a female had sex with a male student. She would only get a slap on the wrist. Last time I checked, in Georgia only men can be charged with rape, a women cannot be charged with rape.
That is completely incorrect. Women in GA can and have been charged with rape. (http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9749006&nav=menu89_2)

Still, that is not "in favor of the woman" it's indicative of inequality in treatment of genders/sex in the law and inequality in treatment of rape victims.

The reason it isn't treated as seriously is because it's not considered a real crime when a woman rapes man b/c that's something every man should want. That the man, on some level, must've wanted it, etc.. It's BaU victim blaming

[kwad8]

OK i read the article thats statutory rape, which is different from the kind of rape i was referring to, but moving I will concede that one to you its been forever since i looked up Georgia's sex laws. Maybe my word choice was off but you proved the point I was trying to make. Considering gender inequality under the law in the US. SO i had my say now. Thanks Roxie. Lets see what everyone else has to say hehe.

[Juvenyle]

That is completely incorrect. Women in GA can and have been charged with rape. (http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9749006&nav=menu89_2)

Still, that is not "in favor of the woman" it's indicative of inequality in treatment of genders/sex in the law and inequality in treatment of rape victims.

The reason it isn't treated as seriously is because it's not considered a real crime when a woman rapes man b/c that's something every man should want. That the man, on some level, must've wanted it, etc.. It's BaU victim blaming

Every man enjoys being raped? Women raping men happens a lot more than you would think. We had to do a paper on this in my Philosophy class, where the defendant claimed that the male was stiff so it shouldn't count as rape. Men get stiff for all sorts of things that does not mean it is wanted, also if a woman climaxes should it be counted as rape? Most of the time it is not reported because you would have trouble convincing a jury that you were not a willing participant, let alone the embarrassment you would under go.

[riona]

...is having sex illegal in US?

Having sex with minors (under age 16-18, depending on the state), or minors having sex is illegal. Sex between consenting adults is not.

In my law class, they said the person who is more "powerful," physically or otherwise, is the one who will be prosecuted with rape. The boy here was older, and in all likihood, bigger than the girls, so he was prosecuted.
I don't necessarily agree with that though. The girls were definitely participating, from what I gather, and there were THREE of them (if this was like an orgy-situation), which definitely puts them in the postition of power.
The judicial system is screwed up, in my opinion. Now this kid is going to be a sex offender (though he'll actually probably get it exponged on his record when he turns 18), even though he, essentially, did nothing wrong.

He should have known better, but dumb kids make dumb mistakes. Especially horny dumb boys.

[h2orowe]

Haha, way to go, man. Three for the price of one.

[Roxie]

Every man enjoys being raped?
Uhm. That's not what I said at all. We're actually arguing the on the same side here.

[Digital Masta]

Is the Supreme Court trying to be clever and say either charge all of them or charge none of them. So if they don't charge all of them they can't charge him either.

I find it funny that the father of the boy is the one who found the explicit message FROM ONE OF THE GIRLS, calls up the parents to be like "I think our kids are having sex." and the mother and other parents pull this shit.

[Charrington]

Uhm. That's not what I said at all. We're actually arguing the on the same side here.

You're arguing semantics, basically. It's pretty dumb. There's obviously a double standard in play here.

Kid should have taken measures as to not get caught. The Napoleonic code is superior to most American law.

[archdukezeb]

I knew a kid in middle school who was about to get hit with a rape charge after having sex with two girls(his same age) in the boy's restroom. Seriously how one boy without using any force get to girls into the boy's restroom and rape them? The girls finally came clean but he still got kicked out of the school and the girls didn't. I can understand why the girls might lie, it's an embarrassing situation there in a lot of trouble, they're just kids, but why can't adults think about these situations with any hint of logic?

[D-pad]

Roxie, saying that the law is not on the side of female's when it comes to sex crimes is about as delusional as I've seen you.

[harper]

Last I checked, 11 and 12 year olds aren't teenagers (referring to the thread title).

I think the boy was wrong to have sex with the girls, but is still a minor himself and that should be taken into consideration.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Does any guy remember what it was like to be that age?

A boner everywhere you walked and you didn't even want it.So you crossed your legs whilst you wondered what that developing girl in front of you brests look like. Then you wonder how you actually put it in and what it looks like.

Then I got the Internet, but that's a whole other story.

Anyway, what I am saying is that around that age and in the age of zero sex education those kids are confused and don't even know that having sex with someone as young as 11 and 12 is wrong.

Not to mention I'm not even sure if those girls really understood anything what was happening.

It's all a confusing case and this kid is gonna walk around the rest of his life as a registered sex offender. Which, by the way, means his life is ruined. Forever.

He'll be constantly watched at whatever High School he goes to. He won't be able to get into a college. Not to mention he'll have a hard time getting a job.

Our laws are fucked sometimes.

[Charrington]

Roxie, saying that the law is not on the side of female's when it comes to sex crimes is about as delusional as I've seen you.

This is where the semantics thing comes in. Females get less fucked by the laws in sexual cases. They don't exactly benefit, as the benefit is created by the (relative) lack of an unjust negative. It's more fair to females than to males but I wouldn't say it's on anyone's side.

[D-pad]

I'm not just talking about when they are being prosecuted(when the fuck does that happen?), but the law is always there for them as defendants.

[Roxie]

(when the fuck does that happen?)
You do know they have prisons full of women, right?

[D-pad]

The subject was sex crimes. And yes, I know even dumb woomez can commit tax fraud.

[Roxie]

The subject was sex crimes.
Except that you were trying to expand it to "women as defendants", which is what I was replying about. You want to know when it happens specifically with sex crimes? I just linked you to one. Also, you're on the internet, I'm sure you can google it. And yes, I know even dumb woomez can commit tax fraud.
:yawn:

[blank slate]

I'm with darighaz, FAIL everywhere. They really need to take age into consideration, and realize that all of these kids need a good talking to. But to screw over the boy with those charges is pretty messed up.

[Charrington]

Except that you were trying to expand it to "women as defendants", which is what I was replying about. You want to know when it happens specifically with sex crimes? I just linked you to one. Also, you're on the internet, I'm sure you can google it.
:yawn:

Obviously the "women as defendants" was in reference to sex crimes. Tell me Roxie, how does one manage to develop a victim/persecution complex as a spoiled child in suburbia?

It's very well known that when it comes to statutory rape/general sex crimes, female perpetrators are treated much more leniently than males by the "justice" system. Why must you blatantly deny reality? It's funny how you have such a love of egalitarianism except for when women or blacks are the ones benefiting proportionately.

[Roxie]

Obviously the "women as defendants" was in reference to sex crimes.
Then it was my misunderstanding, as I took him to mean "women as defendants" in a more general way. Tell me Roxie, how does one manage to develop a victim/persecution complex as a spoiled child in suburbia?
After you.

It's very well known that when it comes to statutory rape/general sex crimes, female perpetrators are treated much more leniently than males by the "justice" system. Why must you blatantly deny reality? I wasn't arguing that isn't true. I meant as you explained it,
This is where the semantics thing comes in. Females get less fucked by the laws in sexual cases. They don't exactly benefit, as the benefit is created by the (relative) lack of an unjust negative. It's more fair to females than to males but I wouldn't say it's on anyone's side. It's funny how you have such a love of egalitarianism except for when women or blacks are the ones benefiting proportionately.
And as you said, it's not really a "benefit".

[Charrington]

Then it was my misunderstanding, as I took him to mean "women as defendants" in a more general way.

Fair enough.

After you.

The difference would be that A: I didn't grow up in suburbia B: IMO am not a child C: I don't see myself as a victim of a specific ethnic/gender group as you would seem to D: Don't consider myself to be a part of a group of people because we share a gender/skin color.

I wasn't arguing that isn't true. I meant as you explained it,
And as you said, it's not really a "benefit".

Allow me to reword. A certain group is getting less fucked over than the other. A true patron of equality would want everyone to get fucked over in the same degree.

Now, let me give you a pro tip. One of the most effective tools a government has for controlling its people and securing it's own interest is to give the people who would normally lean more towards the side of... rebellion, for lack of a better word, the impression that they're affecting some change.

For example, you're an Obama supporter, no? To be fair, he was a bit different than the last administration but his differences are contained within a very narrow field. The government has, in essence, manipulated your mind so as to narrow your political ideology vocabulary to a very small stream. So that when you do try to enact change, the change you've achieved is actually very little different than the previous status quo and is a "change" approved and designed by the government. A false revolutionary does far more damage to society than the typical "sheep".

[archdukezeb]

The government has, in essence, manipulated your mind so as to narrow your political ideology vocabulary to a very small stream. So that when you do try to enact change, the change you've achieved is actually very little different than the previous status quo and is a "change" approved and designed by the government. A false revolutionary does far more damage to society than the typical "sheep".

You sound like a victim to me.

[darighaz]

When i was 16, i didn't want to go around boning 12 year olds.

Seriously.

[Charrington]

You sound like a victim to me.

What exactly are you trying to imply? Note I said I didn't consider myself a victim of any specific ethnic/gender group. I didn't mention anything about the federal government.

[Gorlam]

When i was 16, i didn't want to go around boning 12 year olds.

Seriously.

they were all underaged. Just like when you were 16 and you might have wanted to bone a 15 year old. If you got the chance and got caught, congratulations, you are a sex offender. This is the problem with what happened, they decided the boy was at fault despite the fact that the girls were more then willing participants.

[D-pad]

Oh no! They caught Jeth!

[archdukezeb]

What exactly are you trying to imply? Note I said I didn't consider myself a victim of any specific ethnic/gender group. I didn't mention anything about the federal government.

True true.

[MNJetter]

It's all a confusing case and this kid is gonna walk around the rest of his life as a registered sex offender. Which, by the way, means his life is ruined. Forever.
This.

I'm not sure if it's true. Will he have to? I mean, there are a lot of different types of sexual crime, and not all of them involve registering if the offender is a juvenile.

But if it is true, there is absolutely no way that this punishment is fair. The girls' mothers should be punished for ruining the life of a child, for that is what this boy still is. A child. If he is forced to register as a sex offender, he will be barred from ever pursuing a career in medicine, education, and a host of other things. And he will be hounded for the rest of his days by people who look up their neighborhood on the registry, see his name there, and assume without even looking into the circumstances of his conviction that he is an evil child-molesting woman-hating serial rapist psychopath who doesn't deserve a second chance.

This (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/368007_youthoffenders23.html) article isn't directly related to the case, but seemed pertinent to the point I'm replying to.

[kwad8]

It's funny how you have such a love of egalitarianism except for when women or blacks are the ones benefiting proportionately.

I am really curious about what you mean by that.


I was content in having said what i wanted to say but now i might have to jump back in. although i would rather not.

[Charrington]

I am really curious about what you mean by that.


I was content in having said what i wanted to say but now i might have to jump back in. although i would rather not.

Which part are you curious about? Most people that claim to strive for equality actually want, consciously or otherwise, actually strive for their preferred group to have preference over the others. Whites, blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Christians, Jews etc it's all the same. In a true egalitarian society, everyone shares the successes and miseries equally.

[Digital Masta]

Can the Supreme Court actually go, "You clearly discrimated...charge all of them." at which point the charges would likely be dropped seeing as if they followed through everyone goes to jail.

[Karthak]

In Dungeons & Dragons terms, I'd say the authorities suffered from a terminal case of Lawful Stupid. (which seems to be the case awfully often. Sometimes it feels like the people in charge don't even bother applying common sense to anything)

[SlickWilly440]

I can believe no one has mentioned this yet. This kid has accomplished what many full grown men dream of doing; having a 4 way with 3 other women/females/girls...W00T!

[japanat]

You know, if he were 16 or older and had had sex with three 11- and 12-yr-old girls, I'd say he deserves some punishment. But with the explicit emails, it sound like the girls were the aggressors, and they are only 2-2 1/2 years different in age. There is a point where minors need to be educated, not prosecuted, it's not like he forced them to do anything or was in a position of authority.

Hell, I dated a girl who was still in JHS for a short time when I was a senior in HS. Sounds like a pedo? But her parents introduced us. They knew that she was mentally more mature than the other 14-yr-old boys, and trusted her to do the right thing. And no, I didn't bone her; but yes, I enjoyed being with her.

[Roxie]

The difference would be that A: I didn't grow up in suburbia B: IMO am not a child C: I don't see myself as a victim of a specific ethnic/gender group as you would seem to D: Don't consider myself to be a part of a group of people because we share a gender/skin color.

Cause growing up in the suburbs automatically precludes you from knowing about any other harsher existence, right? I am not a child neither do I feel like a victim. I just realize this society works differently for different people. Whether I want to be or not I am part of a group, b/c I am treated that way and on a daily basis and am never allowed to forget that. However, this doesn't keep me from acting as an individual and recognizing others as individuals.


Allow me to reword. A certain group is getting less fucked over than the other. A true patron of equality would want everyone to get fucked over in the same degree.
So what part of me talking about why women aren't prosecuted as harshly and how this is unfair to rape victims did you not understand?

The government has, in essence, manipulated your mind so as to narrow your political ideology vocabulary to a very small stream.
You are very presumptuous

[MNJetter]

Charrington reads what he wants to regardless of whose post he's reading. Just ignore him. ^^

[Plekto]

...is having sex illegal in US?

Most of the time, yes. You can even be charged with rape if your date doesn't like you or just feels like it, pretty much, these days. And guys are essentially SOL in court as well.

[Charrington]

Charrington reads what he wants to regardless of whose post he's reading. Just ignore him. ^^

Cite. You're still mad about that whole "Christians are scum thing" right? They are, just not more so or less than any other religious. They live their lives by the laws of a 2000+ year old civilization out of fear some completely unproven "benevolent" being damning them to an eternity of torture. It's the antithesis of human progress. They should all be sent to an island somewhere (Australia?) while the rest of us actually evolve and advance. 85% of the worlds man made problems are caused by religion.

Cause growing up in the suburbs automatically precludes you from knowing about any other harsher existence, right?

No. However, experiencing something and reading about it/having it described to you are apples and oranges.

You are very presumptuous

Probably.

[riona]

They live their lives by the laws of a 2000+ year old civilization out of fear some completely unproven "benevolent" being damning them to an eternity of torture. It's the antithesis of human progress.

This is the only thing I have ever agreed with you about, and it's not even on topic.

Also, stop being an idiot for the sake of it. I mean, c'mon. You're just annoying.

[MNJetter]

Cite. You're still mad about that whole "Christians are scum thing" right?
No, that hadn't actually come to mind. Why would I be mad at someone I don't even know just because they're making sweeping generalizations? I tend to pity ignorance more than let it frustrate me. My post in question was based more on observing how your posts come off in a general sense, as opposed to a specific incident. It isn't precisely that you only read what you want to read. But it seems that you only read as far as you feel you need to in order to make a snap judgment about a situation or person. Or maybe you do it to get a rise out of people. I don't care. I was just putting in a word of support for Roxie.

[Kannon]

Funny how he asks you to cite an example, promply followed by one.

[archdukezeb]

Charrington reads what he wants to regardless of whose post he's reading

What's the point of pointing out gaps in Charrington's logic when he points it out himself.

Foot in mouth, head up ass

He's so edgy he's proud of his ignorance.

[Charrington]

No, that hadn't actually come to mind. Why would I be mad at someone I don't even know just because they're making sweeping generalizations? I tend to pity ignorance more than let it frustrate me. My post in question was based more on observing how your posts come off in a general sense, as opposed to a specific incident. It isn't precisely that you only read what you want to read. But it seems that you only read as far as you feel you need to in order to make a snap judgment about a situation or person. Or maybe you do it to get a rise out of people. I don't care. I was just putting in a word of support for Roxie.

What's the matter? Too deep for you? Link one of my posts and point out where I misconstrued the meaning of something I was replying to, as you've implied.

Funny how he asks you to cite an example, promply followed by one.

No comments from the peanut gallery please.

[MNJetter]

What's the matter? Too deep for you? Link one of my posts and point out where I misconstrued the meaning of something I was replying to, as you've implied.
Not worth the effort. The rest of the forum can agree or disagree with me as they please. I only cite things when I'm trying to convince people of it, and I don't really care whether or not you believe me.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Don't like the stupidity in Charrington's posts? Then put him on ignore, otherwise you're just giving him attention.

The case itself is really ridiculous and should be dropped, especially since the boy was only 14 and it doesn't appear as though it was entirely his idea to do this. The lawyer Cruz is just infuriated as well. "Three victims in this case"? Really? The boy is probably going to have his entire life ruined and that mother should be sued by the father of the boy. Ridiculous.

...is having sex illegal in US?
No and clever rhetorical questions like this don't help the discussion. In this case the district attorney (Which acts as the prosecutor for the county and the one that decides which cases to bring to court, essentially) took this as an opportunity to try and charge a boy with statutory rape because the girls were all underage despite it being consensual and that one of the girls probably helped instigate this.

However I will say that a culture of young kids having sex being bad probably had something to do with this and why the DA would take it up in the first place. Sex education in America needs serious reform.

You can even be charged with rape if your date doesn't like you or just feels like it, pretty much, these days. And guys are essentially SOL in court as well.
I don't know if you have a chip on your shoulder or anything but this doesn't really have anything to do with whispering's question.

[MNJetter]

Don't like the stupidity in Charrington's posts? Then put him on ignore, otherwise you're just giving him attention.
I don't put people on ignore. Unless they're stalking you or something, that's like putting your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALAICANTHEARYOULALALA". Besides, I never complained about Char's posts.

I'm confused by the article. Has the boy been convicted of anything, or has it just been charged? How old is this case -- the article says the boy was 14 at the time. How old is he now?

Also, it's not much of a news story if the state supreme court has "ruled to raise questions" about the case. They haven't even made a ruling on the case yet. Just decided to look into it.

I get the feeling that the court will decide to drop all charges, and this story will slip quietly back into the place that all stories go to when the news networks are scrabbling desperately for things to do and end up trying to dress up something mundane as something monumental. Ridiculous court cases get questioned and overturned all the time.

[whispering]

No and clever rhetorical questions like this don't help the discussion. In this case the district attorney (Which acts as the prosecutor for the county and the one that decides which cases to bring to court, essentially) took this as an opportunity to try and charge a boy with statutory rape because the girls were all underage despite it being consensual and that one of the girls probably helped instigate this.
I wasnt sure how the law works, and if having sex itself was illegal. Anyway personally i dont think the kids did anything wrong. Stupid, yes. But nothing that should be punished for.

[Ichisan]

The girls were 11 and 12?! It looks like it was consensual but that's still fucked up. They were prepubescent or just barely pubescent. Why was he attracted to them and not at least to girls who actually need to wear bras?

I do remember what it was like to be 14, and in my school girls who were 2 and 3 years younger were a world away and it never even occurred to us to look at them. Now, if it was a 17 year old boy and a 15 year old girl, attraction would at least be natural, but 11??!! Sick.

[Jetsetlemming]

The girls were 11 and 12?! It looks like it was consensual but that's still fucked up. They were prepubescent or just barely pubescent. Why was he attracted to them and not at least to girls who actually need to wear bras?

I do remember what it was like to be 14, and in my school girls who were 2 and 3 years younger were a world away and it never even occurred to us to look at them. Now, if it was a 17 year old boy and a 15 year old girl, attraction would at least be natural, but 11??!! Sick.
12yo girls and 14yo boys are pretty much on par. Girls start puberty on average of two to three years earlier than boys.

[SlickWilly440]

Most of the time, yes. You can even be charged with rape if your date doesn't like you or just feels like it, pretty much, these days. And guys are essentially SOL in court as well.

Oh great! Now Whispering is going to be turned off by American Women.

Sex education in America needs serious reform.

What's wrong with the current sex education system? That was probably the only time I ever paid attention in class.

[h2orowe]

What's wrong with the current sex education system? That was probably the only time I ever paid attention in class.
Surprising.

[MNJetter]

The girls were 11 and 12?! It looks like it was consensual but that's still fucked up. They were prepubescent or just barely pubescent. Why was he attracted to them and not at least to girls who actually need to wear bras?
It all depends on the girl. I started developing by age 9, and by 11, I was nearly a B-cup. Not only do boys start developing later than girls, but both boys and girls have been developing earlier and faster in recent years, most likely due to hormones and preservatives in milk and other foods.

[farstrider]

Just to stir it up again:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2233878.ece

[Charrington]

Just to stir it up again:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2233878.ece

The sun is basically the British equivalent of the weekly world news. Really though, most British newspapers are.

[farstrider]

The sun is basically the British equivalent of the weekly world news. Really though, most British newspapers are.

Very true, though I haven't seen any stories as entertaining as "Bat Boy" in The Sun.

Actually, I can't recall having come across a Weekly World News in several years. Are they even around anymore?

[SlickWilly440]

It all depends on the girl. I started developing by age 9, and by 11, I was nearly a B-cup.

So were the girls jealous because the boys were paying more attention to you.

[h2orowe]

Very true, though I haven't seen any stories as entertaining as "Bat Boy" in The Sun.

Actually, I can't recall having come across a Weekly World News in several years. Are they even around anymore?
I believe it ended in either early 08 or late 07? Not sure.

[MNJetter]

So were the girls jealous because the boys were paying more attention to you.
I honestly have no idea. I was too engrossed in books to find out (or care) whether anybody, girls or boys, knew I existed.

[Black fist]

Is the Supreme Court trying to be clever and say either charge all of them or charge none of them. So if they don't charge all of them they can't charge him either.

I find it funny that the father of the boy is the one who found the explicit message FROM ONE OF THE GIRLS, calls up the parents to be like "I think our kids are having sex." and the mother and other parents pull this shit.
This, the girl sent him the fucking text but he sexually assualted the girl. I guess I sexually assaulted a couple of girls. Fuck, I'm going to texas jail.

[Ichisan]

It all depends on the girl. I started developing by age 9, and by 11, I was nearly a B-cup. Not only do boys start developing later than girls, but both boys and girls have been developing earlier and faster in recent years, most likely due to hormones and preservatives in milk and other foods.

I'm aware of that but, remembering how it was when I was those ages, girls developing before age 11 were the exception rather than the rule and 12 year olds were developing but still with some way to go. Most 11 year olds (girls, that is) were still stick-insects and 12 year olds were stick-insects with a couple of small bumps.

If the age of puberty has really changed that much then I guess I'll have to stop being shocked.

[farstrider]

I don't even really remember what it was like when I was 13; but I'm pretty sure I would if the girls at that time had had anything worth ogling.