Lit will be missing one of its Group Sex Cat readers for a while

[Kev H]

Check out this wild stuff: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.ridge.woman.2.1806603.html

The slant of the article struck me, and I almost laughed every time I saw the word "victim." Talk about work abuse. Sure, the charges are technically legal, but if the boys didn't complain (note it was a parent of some other kid--presumably a jealous girl--who reported it), should this be passed over with a wrist slapping? Very few boys aren't good-to-go by that age.

 

[sadangel]

Check out this wild stuff: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.ridge.woman.2.1806603.html

The slant of the article struck me, and I almost laughed every time I saw the word "victim." Talk about work abuse. Sure, the charges are technically legal, but if the boys didn't complain (note it was a parent of some other kid--presumably a jealous girl--who reported it), should this be passed over with a wrist slapping? Very few boys aren't good-to-go by that age.

Trying to understand how you find any part of child molesting; whether done by a male or female, funny.

No, I don't think she should get a wrist-slapping. She needs to be charged the same as they charge a man for the same crimes.

Oh. They boys are victims. Sorry you're too mule-headed to realize that.

 

[Neast19]

People seem to assume that young men/boys are always willing participants due to the perception that they are all horny and desperate. This doesn't mean they aren't victims. Any sort of sex with a minor is illegal and deplorable, so no this shouldn't be a 'wrist-slapping' offense. This is a deep abuse of trust.

Ask yourself this. If it was 14 - 15 year old girls who were in the same situation but 'didn't complain' (as you put it), would you be okay with a old man having sex with them?

Edit: Also note that she plied them with alcohol and drugs, hardly making them willing participants.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SADANGEL

Its actually a hoot. Just cuz youre a poor soul and traumatized forever is not proof that most boys object to older female attention. Youll never get it cuz your head is buried in your butt. Plus youre stupid.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

People seem to assume that young men/boys are always willing participants due to the perception that they are all horny and desperate. This doesn't mean they aren't victims. Any sort of sex with a minor is illegal and deplorable, so no this shouldn't be a 'wrist-slapping' offense. This is a deep abuse of trust.

Ask yourself this. If it was 14 - 15 year old girls who were in the same situation but 'didn't complain' (as you put it), would you be okay with a old man having sex with them?

Kiss my ass. The victim bullshit came along cuz old biddies need shit to be upset about.

 

[Kev H]

Trying to understand how you find any part of child molesting; whether done by a male or female, funny.

No, I don't think she should get a wrist-slapping. She needs to be charged the same as they charge a man for the same crimes.

Oh. They boys are victims. Sorry you're too mule-headed to realize that.

Hey now, no need to be vile. If they were so abused getting their jollies, enlighten me. There probably isn't a boy on the planet whose body isn't pushing him to have sex (it's biology, baby), and isn't masturbating/fantasizing. Maybe my perspective needs changing, since I began the festivities at 15 (over two decades ago) and saw no issues with it. So convince me I'm wrong rather than confirming to me that your repressive mentality is in the way of reason.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Kev H]

People seem to assume that young men/boys are always willing participants due to the perception that they are all horny and desperate. This doesn't mean they aren't victims. Any sort of sex with a minor is illegal and deplorable, so no this shouldn't be a 'wrist-slapping' offense. This is a deep abuse of trust.

Ask yourself this. If it was 14 - 15 year old girls who were in the same situation but 'didn't complain' (as you put it), would you be okay with a old man having sex with them?

Edit: Also note that she plied them with alcohol and drugs, hardly making them willing participants.

Please tell me you are just saying this because you want to feel "righteous" and not because you have truly reasoned this out. Listen to what you're saying...do you have any experience that actually backs this up, because I have experience that makes what you wrote sound like religious posturing. Everyone without brainwashing knows girls and guys are different--girls can get pregnant, they peak at 30ish, guys peak at 18ish, girls have breakable membranes, guys have raging erections and nocturnal emissions, etc.

Yes, I could make up some horrific scenario where they would be slightly traumatized by some gnarled hag forcing them, and it might even take them a month or two to get over it if they are really sensitive. That's nothing like having a hymen ripped.

And I've been around a ton of drunk party people back in my high school and college days, and I never saw anyone do what they didn't want to do in the first place--alcohol doesn't make you lose your mind, it simply lowers your inhibitions, and again, all but the brainwashed know this. ETA: I've seen ordinary, very drunk people refuse to do things they weren't comfortable with, and I've personally had no problems drawing the line (and I believe I was quite the typical student). So where do you get this "they were somehow forced to do drugs by this evil whore" bit? If I were one of those boys and didn't want to fuck her, I'd have said, "no thanks, Mrs. So-and-so, I need to go home" and that would have been the end of it.

 

[Kev H]

Excellent point.

It would be looked at far differently if it were a 40-year-old man fondling several 14-year-old girls, especially after he gave them dope and alcohol.

Or if it were a priest who was fondling the boys.

But regardless the age or sex of the adult the victims are still kids. And it is still a felony.

Come on, Sweets, you know boys and girls are completely different at that age (never more different, I'd wager) and that applying a one-size-fits-all rule is unwise. She partied with them and they piled on her and someone else not involved reported it. And to compare her to a priest who's taken religious vows? *laughs*

And yes, it's still against the law, but so is the pot smoking/possession and she didn't get charged with that, apparently (I bet it belonged to one of the boys, or she'd have been nailed with that, as well). So, back to the implication of my initial question: you honestly think she should have the book thrown at her? What if it comes out that the boys talked her into it? Four tiny helpless little boys against one mean old woman, right?

 

[Neast19]

Please tell me you are just saying this because you want to feel "righteous" and not because you have truly reasoned this out. Listen to what you're saying...do you have any experience that actually backs this up, because I have experience that makes what you wrote sound like religious posturing. Everyone without brainwashing knows girls and guys are different--girls can get pregnant, they peak at 30ish, guys peak at 18ish, girls have breakable membranes, guys have raging erections and nocturnal emissions, etc.

Yes, I could make up some horrific scenario where they would be slightly traumatized by some gnarled hag forcing them, and it might even take them a month or two to get over it if they are really sensitive. That's nothing like having a hymen ripped.

And I've been around a ton of drunk party people back in my high school and college days, and I never saw anyone do what they didn't want to do in the first place--alcohol doesn't make you lose your mind, it simply lowers your inhibitions, and again, all but the brainwashed know this. ETA: I've seen ordinary, very drunk people refuse to do things they weren't comfortable with, and I've personally had no problems drawing the line (and I believe I was quite the typical student). So where do you get this "they were somehow forced to do drugs by this evil whore" bit? If I were one of those boys and didn't want to fuck her, I'd have said, "no thanks, Mrs. So-and-so, I need to go home" and that would have been the end of it.

You make some sweeping generalisations. Not all guys peak at 18, not all girls peak at 30. Either way 14 is a lot younger then 18, these guys are barely teenagers. Your arguing that because guys at that age have raging hormones that means they should be taken advantage off? Guys and girls cant be treated differently because it's your belief guys will get over it in a couple months whereas girls wont. Another generalisation. If a girl develops early and has lost her virginity by 14 is it then okay for a 40 yo to fool around with her? Since she's obviously 'up for it' and the hymen isn't a issue anymore.

To suggest alcohol and drugs doesn't effect decision-making is ludicrous. Of course it does. Even if it only lowers inhibitions as you suggest, that still means your not making a decision with clear judgement.

All these arguments aside it's still classed as rape having sex with a minor, consensual or not. She knew that, and broke the law. Rape is not a 'wrist-slapping' offense.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Kev H]

You make some sweeping generalisations.

And note, so do you--we all make generalizations when talking about stuff. Is that really your argument for why your generalizations are better than mine? So, specifics--here's what we know of this particular case: all parties were at a party where illegal substances were being shared, as far as we know no one was abducted and dragged to the party, four boys had various sexual activities with one 40-year-old woman, none of the boys having sex complained about being tricked/forced/etc., someone else at the party told their parents, who then rightly made it their business (concerned parent--I get that part). The involved woman got busted because the boys were under-aged. Now, everything after this, by necessity, must use generalizations while discussing, right? So from now on, please try avoiding the weak beside-the-point arguments and delve into the heart of the matter.

Your arguing that because guys at that age have raging hormones that means they should be taken advantage off?

Now look who's horribly slanting their tone (and that's what I was musing about in the article, the slant as emphasized by the repeated use of the word victim). You're jumping to conclusions in claiming they were taken advantage of (or victims). Come on--I challenge you to think for yourself!

Guys and girls cant be treated differently because it's your belief guys will get over it in a couple months whereas girls wont. Another generalisation.

And another great spot to point out how your accusing is lame, misdirected, and lacking substance. You want to ignore biological differences? Why, just say so! Then I can write you off as hopeless and move on. Look carefully at what I posted before making up shit like "if a girl lost her hymen then you're saying she's obviously 'up for it'"--you only damage your position and dig trenches. So, seriously, do you want to ignore biological facts when making your arguments here?

To suggest alcohol and drugs doesn't effect decision-making is ludicrous. Of course it does. Even if it only lowers inhibitions as you suggest, that still means your not making a decision with clear judgement.

Yes, alcohol lowers inhibitions--do you even know what that means? Allow me to enlighten you: Inhibitions are repressive mechanisms (not always a bad thing, so don't even be tempted to put words in my mouth), and have nothing to do with the formation of what we want (our desires), only the stifling of them.

For example, inhibitions keep those "I'd like to fuck" thoughts tucked under a barrier of civility/prudence/what-have-you. So, I am happy to agree that alcohol lowers inhibitions (it does not obliterate them), because I understand what it means; alcohol (I cannot speak for weed) does not create desires where none existed before--it's doesn't implant thoughts in our head. Are you contending that? Understand, those thoughts already have to be there for alcohol to be a factor in letting you explore a desire (by that lowering of inhibitions).

Again, I've seen plenty of people still say no, even though they feel wonderfully buzzed--I've been one of them, so I get miffed when I see morons using the alcohol as an excuse. *flapping hands in imitation of said morons* "Look at me--I got drunk and not responsible--victimize me!"

Get real, or get out.

All these arguments aside it's still classed as rape having sex with a minor, consensual or not. She knew that, and broke the law. Rape is not a 'wrist-slapping' offense.

You keep going back to the law like some parrot, highlighting your mindless desire to feel safe and lawful, as opposed to thoughtful and conscientious. Am I wasting my time to ask for better from you?

 

[AngeloMichael]

Kev H,
The fact that you and JBJ are on the same side on this should tell you something.

Statutory rape is still rape, this woman needs to be put behind bars.

 

[Kev H]

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/cathleen-miller-mom-molesting-teenage-boys-20100713

Chicago Ridge Mother Accused of Molesting Teenage Boys

Updated: Tuesday, 13 Jul 2010, 11:37 PM CDT
Published : Tuesday, 13 Jul 2010, 7:50 PM CDT

By Mark Saxenmeyer, FOX Chicago News

Chicago Ridge, Ill. - A suburban mother was charged Tuesday with seducing and molesting teenage boys; prosecutors said the teens were friends of her daughter, who's in junior high.

[...]Prosecutors said the abuse, including intercourse, oral sex, and fondling, occurred at Miller's home in Chicago Ridge over the course of five months, beginning in February 2010.[...]

According to a FOX Chicago source, the pattern of abuse was exposed when Miller's 13-year-old daughter walked in on her mother and one of the boys having sex. The boy posted an apology to the girl on Facebook, according to the source. The boy's parents then saw it and alerted authorities.[...]



Kev, just because a boy is physically able to have sex (or a girl to become pregnant) doesn't mean they are mentally ready to deal with the issues, especially when introduced by a much older adult.

This woman is an adult, and as a parent to one of their friends, is probably seen as an authority figure to the boys. It's a power issue.

She must be a very weak individual to take advantage of youth and inexperience in this way. Weak and in need of constant praise, perhaps? This wasn't an equal partnership, by any means. And this went on for months.

No one here said anything about "forced to do drugs by this evil whore", by the way.

But she is certainly in the wrong here.

You won't hear me saying she did the right thing, but listen to the harsh verbiage of these reports--everyone is so goddamned eager to throw the first stone (paradoxically, even the bible rails on this kind of irrational, hypocritical, overreaction, though it's used as a source for much of this kind of reaction).

I can understand your rationality, Sweets, but please say it this way: it might be a power issue. And yes, it went on for months--that's very telling, in my opinion. These boys loved it, and both parties got something out of it, or it'd have been an embarrassing one-time thing.

Here's the likely scenario: She had an abusive husband and her marriage failed in a most painful way. She tries to pick up the pieces and finds pleasure in playing hostess to the high schoolers. As so many parents do these days, she acts like "just one of the gang" and is an enabler (again, not claiming this is right). At some point, she realizes that the horny guys (and why only these few and not the entire house full of them if she's so depraved? here's why: ) are flirtatious, playing at being men. She is extremely flattered, and begins playing back.

She has just as much alcohol as the first guy does, and they both want it. The boy thinks she's hot "for an old lady" and knows without a doubt she could enhance his training (the guys involved here most likely do think like this, or they'd not have become involved--seriously, you do not have this kind of long-term fucking if it's only one-sided). His hormones rage and she succumbs to the temptation of a doting kid (again, for the parrots out there like Neast, I'm not condoning it); afterwards she cries to him about her problems--now, don't confuse young/naive with being an idiot, as so many parents do (some seem to think part of becoming an adult is forgetting kids still have a brain, and by 15ish, can be very independent).

The boy obviously knows she has issues, and he even feels like more of a man holding her while she weeps, all the time wishing they could get back to the fucking (he's ready again). He even feels like he's helping her, though that's just a rationalization. Later, he will feel like a schmuck when he's caught by his friend (her daughter), and that will prompt the apology (but not because he was a victim or didn't like fucking the mother). Chances are good, this first guy told his best buds about it and they got in on the action.

Where's the victimization/rape here? Again, should she really get stoned to death over this? Hopefully it's clear to you by now, but in case it isn't, I hope she only gets counseling and close monitor to keep her from making any more of a mess. And maybe lots of community service, since that's always a good thing (and might make her feel worthwhile for something else other than being the sex toy of some boys).

 

[Kev H]

Kev H,
The fact that you and JBJ are on the same side on this should tell you something.

Statutory rape is still rape, this woman needs to be put behind bars.

What nonsensical mind-rot! Do you honestly want to pressure me into changing my feelings based on who is "on my side"? I don't care what JBJ says when he's obviously flinging poo, and why should you? Step up and add something important to the discussion, or continue feeling worthless about yourself.

And before you reply with your law-only-black-and-white "rationality," please read post#14.

 

[cloudy]

The thing is, Kev, is that it's been scientifically proven that adolescent brains don't function the same way that those of adults do. They're still forming, still growing.

I'm not sure I'd be as quick to demonize the woman as some, but I still think that what she did is absolutely wrong, and the boys were definitely victims, though I wouldn't load that word as heavily as some might.

The kids aren't adults - period - so what she did was wrong, and deserving of some sort of punishment.

 

[Kev H]

What nonsensical mind-rot! Do you honestly want to pressure me into changing my feelings based on who is "on my side"? I don't care what JBJ says when he's obviously flinging poo, and why should you? Step up and add something important to the discussion, or continue feeling worthless about yourself.

And before you reply with your law-only-black-and-white "rationality," please read post#14.

And please, for your own sake, understand that laws are merely guidelines, to be applied and analyzed by conscientious people. Otherwise, there'd be only policemen and no judges. Think about it. The oldest judges in recorded history (and the most famous, Solomon), knew this well, and people called it wisdom. If you lose sight of that point, then you are stymieing yourself.

 

[AngeloMichael]

What nonsensical mind-rot! Do you honestly want to pressure me into changing my feelings based on who is "on my side"? I don't care what JBJ says when he's obviously flinging poo, and why should you? Step up and add something important to the discussion, or continue feeling worthless about yourself.

Not pressuring there, just felt in the mood for a little snark.

But seriously, there's a reason this is a felony. They're kids for crying out loud. Whether you think they could have "just said no" I don't think they could have with all the pressure they must have been under. At that age you're still emotionally and intellectually undeveloped, you look at adults as authority figures and it's tremdously difficult to stand your own ground, add to that the pressure of being in with a group of your peers and afraid of being seen as less than a man or whatever by them and there's no way a normal kid could assert themselves in that situation.

The adult holds a big power trip over the minor and it is quite certainly abuse when this happens to children, no matter the gender.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Kev H]

The thing is, Kev, is that it's been scientifically proven that adolescent brains don't function the same way that those of adults do. They're still forming, still growing.

I'm not sure I'd be as quick to demonize the woman as some, but I still think that what she did is absolutely wrong, and the boys were definitely victims, though I wouldn't load that word as heavily as some might.

The kids aren't adults - period - so what she did was wrong, and deserving of some sort of punishment.

I mostly agree with you, cloudy--the science is pretty solid on this (and thank you for being the first to bring it into the discussion). This involved woman was wrong, and certainly needs to know it in a way that won't screw her life up more. What I have a serious problem with is the whole victim/victimization mentality.

So to the science of the issue, and whether or not that makes the boys victims. What we know is this: growing children-to-adolescents are absorbing their surroundings like a sponge, and are worthy of a cautious guidance to help them take their first steps wisely; then they turn into adults "who have arrived" and can now stop learning/questioning what they hear. Fair enough?

Seriously, wisdom urges that "adults" continue to be growing children (I remember some line about being childlike), and that children be taught to make their own decisions based on what's important to the long-term health/sensibility/etc. Only in extreme conditions are juvenile minds more malleable than adult minds (isolation, stigmatization, shocking news and overreactions from everyone around them, including parents and fellow kids playing at being repressive parents). If you argue kids don't have protective filters in their mind, then you are one very slippery step away from religious dogma. Or from thinking they are really more stupid than they are--if anything, kids are more perceptive than the average adult. They have to be, and have every incentive to be. Plus, not only do they multi-task better, this also applies to how they can juggle and analyze varying sources of information (remember they never get only one source of information in a vacuum, but many sources, implied and otherwise--it's only once they become "adults" that they forgo this ability).

So tell me--what part of this story makes them victims (besides the story hullabaloo itself)? You think they are now programmed sex maniacs with no value judgment? Are they spoiled somehow and can no longer learn/absorb adequately, or will they now forever treat women as sex objects? We might as well put them down if they are going to be rabid. I fully realize that society needs to frown upon and prevent this kind of behavior for the sake of its integrity, but victimization? I don't get it.

 

[TE999]

In earlier times, boys this age were taken by their fathers to an 'experienced woman' who taught them what went where. It was a rite of passage.

Now days, with longer lifespans and adolescence extending into the mid-twenties, these boys are considered 'children'.

I'm not condoning what this woman did using drugs and alcohol to seduce these 'children'...that was sloppy and lazy on her part...the idea of getting some mature pussy would have been incentive enough.

I also notice that it was the kid who wasn't laid or blowed that ratted her off. What a wimp. He better watch it in school when his buddies see him.

She needs to be punished for the drugs and alky, but 'molesting children'? Puh-lease. There's a big difference in a 14 yo girl being seduced by a 40 yo guy and what happened in this case. The former is statutory rape, the latter's some young dudes getting lucky. I seriously doubt if they're 'traumatized' in any way, but I'm willing to bet they're pissed that the fun's over.

So-called 'Moral Equivalency' may sound good, but it doesn't work here.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[voluptuary_manque]

As was pointed out, I personally don't believe this is so much about sex as it is about power. When a female teacher takes up with a barely adolescent boy, is she really 'in love' with him? I beg to doubt. What happened is that she found a functional male who would do whatever she told him, unlike the ones her own age. That's why this is rape. Rape is about power, not about sex. Mrs. Robinson may make a grand daydream but as far as RL goes . . . no.

 

[Boota]

In earlier times, boys this age were taken by their fathers to an 'experienced woman' who taught them what went where. It was a rite of passage.

Now days, with longer lifespans and adolescence extending into the mid-twenties, these boys are considered 'children'.

I'm not condoning what this woman did using drugs and alcohol to seduce these 'children'...that was sloppy and lazy on her part...the idea of getting some mature pussy would have been incentive enough.

I also notice that it was the kid who wasn't laid or blowed that ratted her off. What a wimp. He better watch it in school when his buddies see him.

She needs to be punished for the drugs and alky, but 'molesting children'? Puh-lease. There's a big difference in a 14 yo girl being seduced by a 40 yo guy and what happened in this case. The former is statutory rape, the latter's some young dudes getting lucky. I seriously doubt if they're 'traumatized' in any way, but I'm willing to bet they're pissed that the fun's over.

So-called 'Moral Equivalency' may sound good, but it doesn't work here.

I agree with this. At twelve years old I was six feet tall with a hairy chest, a full beard and I could bench press almost three hundred pounds. Total freak of nature. My dad had to carry my birth certificate on him just so I could play Little League. I got hit on by older women ALL the time. My parents would always step in and set things straight. Until I was fourteen. I had a lot more freedom and no one around to cock block me. Things happened.

I was absolutely no victim.

Also, the women involved had no idea I was under eighteen, but that wouldn't have mattered in court.

I'm not saying what she did was right, but I highly doubt these boys were harmed. Double standards are not fair, but in this case I think it's unavoidable. I think the idea of a 40 year old man doing the same thing to young girls seems worse because with men it usually comes across as an overt predatory situation. With fourteen year old boys, and speaking as a former fourteen year old boy, I don't think any of that was necessary. They were probably partying with the booze and weed anyway and this was just something else that happened.

She needs to be punished to some extent because of the illegality of what was going on, but I think she needs more counseling than anything.

 

[Guest]

. . . .