In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:

The real issue is sex between a child (16) and an adult. That was the
crime that the subject of the article committed. It was an immoral and
illegal act. Rationalizing it on the basis of the minor's behavior is
offensive. It's classic blame the victim.

Peter misses my point. What Boyer did is far less offensive that an
adult buggering [1] a pre-pubescent child. Calling Boyer a criminal or
immoral is fine, categorizing him with the highly pejorative "child
molester" is too strong of a statement.

[1] Used in the legal sense.

Kids who get caught up one way or another in sexual
relations with adults seem to wind up all psychologically
messed up in their later years.

With casual hetero sex there's always a risk of
ensuing pregnancy. It takes an uncaring, unloving,
selfish lout to foist that risk upon a girl who's
simply not prepared for it. Even if it's the girl
who breaks down the man's resistance to temptation,
and does the seducing. Girls generally do not
demand sexual favours from adult men at gunpoint;
men are free to say "no," and do the right thing
(or not do the wrong thing.)

When one thinks about it, "immoral" is a stronger,
albeit less socially charged statement than "molester."

I dunno that making a show of being such an humanitarian
or riding a bicycle somehow negates one from being an
uncaring, unloving, selfish lout. I guess it can be
conscience-massaging.

If this Jonathan Boyer guy really wants to make amends,
he should become pregnant, and develop maternal instincts.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca