Thats simply not true and i can tell you some of them were being really damned honest... warped but honest none the less.
of course, they didn't do anything other than show up - unless they are one of the idiots to get naked. so if anything, they are petty charges. the damage comes from there face being on the show
Well i would imagine that they wont be trying it again anytime soon, hopefully it might be a wake up call for some of them to get their head straightened on.
Okay now I have a question. These men think the 'decoy' is consenting. Does that make them any different, or the sentence any different, from a pedo who commits a crime with a nonconsenting.
Well it's not a prosecution. It's not really illegal. It's just trying to shame people I guess. But as Fitzy very eloquently stated... the real problem is from people the children now. Family members of friends of the family. By about a 10 to 1 ratio. As an intresting aside, Obama voted for a bill that encouraged the teaching to kindergarten children good touch and bad touch. So the McCain campaign came out and said that Obama was trying to teach children 'sex ed.'
Thats a really good question, personaly i think the law is messed up i'd prefer taking it from a moral stand point myself. So how much worse (morally) is a some one who forces a child to have sex against their will and some one who convinces/tricks a child into sex?
what if they do neither? If the child is consenting? Because thats what it seems like the decoy is acting as.
On one hand i agree that children need to be taught that, on the other hand it seems to me that is the kind of thing a parent needs to be teaching not the schools.
being that the decoy is "underage", which means the decoy acting as an underage girl can't give consent, but she is really of age in real life. so if they did have sex, the older guy would still get thrown the books for something
Well a child can be convinced but i didnt mean it means it is ok or legal and i did qualify with the word 'trick' i just used both to make it easier for people to understand what i am saying... i hope it didnt make things more confusing.
Some kids don't have parents who will teach them. Does that mean they shouldn't learn something that could protect them? I say of course not.
I think schools, at the very least, must educate teenagers and preteens about their bodies, their health, changes in puberty, etc. I dont know the curriculum in the United States. I remember in gr 5 or 6ish, the school sent the parents a consent form they could sign if they wanted us to begin sex ed. I think that is fair.
Yeah you're right that every child should be taught how to protect themselves but all i can picture is the pedo teacher demonstrating the 'bad' touch... want to guess where i met my pedo?
You couldn’t possibly be that gullible; or do I sense a bit of the stockholm syndrome type shit going on here? (and yes, I know it applies to kidnapped victims) I’ve seen every episode of the show; and none of these guys convinced me they were simply trying to befriend the 13 or 14 year old boy or girl they visited Hotwater
Well that's certainly a reasonable fear for you to have. But just because something horrible happened to you is no reason for not giving children the tools to protect themselves in other environments. You don't have to demonstrate anything. Just tell the kids the swiming suit analogy.
Well obviously not those guys, but there was the one guy that was basically like "yeah i have a problem and if you weren't here i would be fucking her right now" he also went on to explain his entire history of his behaviour.
Again, we're not talking about sex ed in any manner here. We're talking about good touch bad touch which isn't sex. It's self defense for children.
