[tritium]

oh give me a break, what young teen male has not fantasized about having sex with an older women.

So this 16 year acted on his ambitions. Way to go kid.

0:

cougar.png [ 82.06 KiB | Viewed 124 times ]

[DerbyX]

Brenda Brenda:

Just for the record, I thought I was legally obligated to make sure my kids are fed and sheltered till they are at least 18. That includes childsupport in case of a divorce. Am I wrong here?

You are right. Parents are required by law to provide support but they aren't allowed by law to force their children or otherwise control their lives with regards to certain things.

In fact the law can make parents pay said child support but even deny them access to their children.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Really, it seems to me that it goes well beyond morality, and into the realm of common sense. A 42 year old should not be starting relationships with kids that she has to sneak out past curfew in order to have sex.

I think it's your morality that should be put to the check. Why are you so gung ho at trying to preserve or defend an inadequacy in our legal system that would allow her to jump on a plane and go back to Texas, when she should be in jail posting bail.

My morality includes not forcing my beliefs on others which is what you think should be done.

[Brenda]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Brenda Brenda:

True, Derb. They don't have to live their lifes by my standards. No one but me has to. I can still have an opinion about it, whether it is right or wrong in anyone elses eyes.

Yes you can. I find it creepy as much as you do. The difference is you seem to be saying that we should actively (or even forcibly) stop this. His parents were in fact doing that before he up and left with her so I'm thinking they might have been going about it the wrong way (assuming there is a right way).

This is just like parents trying to force their daughter not to date a boy (her own age) they don't like. How often do they simply drive her further into his arms?

Oh absolutely, you're right.

And no, I am not saying that, I am hoping that people are smarter than this woman is. Personally, I think what she is doing is very creepy, to use your words. I don't think there is anything more the parents could have done, but that doesn't make her a better person.

I wonder what she thinks she is gaining out of this, except for a dirty divorce, and probably (if she has them) losing her kids?

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Brenda Brenda:

Just for the record, I thought I was legally obligated to make sure my kids are fed and sheltered till they are at least 18. That includes childsupport in case of a divorce. Am I wrong here?

You are right. Parents are required by law to provide support but they aren't allowed by law to force their children or otherwise control their lives with regards to certain things.

In fact the law can make parents pay said child support but even deny them access to their children.

I know someone in Calgary who was committed to a drug program against her will when she was 17. Parents with legal gardianship have rights, DerbyX.

[ASLplease]

[quote="tritium"]oh give me a break, what young teen male has not fantasized about having sex with an older women.

So this 16 year acted on his ambitions. Way to go kid.[quote]


his ambitions? this guy was known as a homebody, not a social butterfly that stalked shopping malls for good looking women that wanted to have sex with him.

IMO, she used the internet to invade his home.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Brenda Brenda:

Just for the record, I thought I was legally obligated to make sure my kids are fed and sheltered till they are at least 18. That includes childsupport in case of a divorce. Am I wrong here?

You are right. Parents are required by law to provide support but they aren't allowed by law to force their children or otherwise control their lives with regards to certain things.

In fact the law can make parents pay said child support but even deny them access to their children.

I know someone in Calgary who was committed to a drug program against her will when she was 17. Parents with legal gardianship have rights, DerbyX.

I doubt she was committed against her will since drug programs rely entirely on the desire to change.

Now you can post your opinion about the legal rights of parents but forcing their 16 year old not to date someone isn't among them. They can try all matter of things like grounding but when you start claiming legal precedents you may find you are over estimating their rights to do so.

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

Really, it seems to me that it goes well beyond morality, and into the realm of common sense. A 42 year old should not be starting relationships with kids that she has to sneak out past curfew in order to have sex.

I think it's your morality that should be put to the check. Why are you so gung ho at trying to preserve or defend an inadequacy in our legal system that would allow her to jump on a plane and go back to Texas, when she should be in jail posting bail.

My morality includes not forcing my beliefs on others which is what you think should be done.

every law no matter how small or hideaus the crime is, is a "forcing of beliefs" on others. so don't BS me Derby, because I know that even you don't feel that your above statement is an absolute extreme........yet, you argue that everyone else's beliefs are an absolute extreme.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

ASLplease ASLplease:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Brenda Brenda:

Just for the record, I thought I was legally obligated to make sure my kids are fed and sheltered till they are at least 18. That includes childsupport in case of a divorce. Am I wrong here?

You are right. Parents are required by law to provide support but they aren't allowed by law to force their children or otherwise control their lives with regards to certain things.

In fact the law can make parents pay said child support but even deny them access to their children.

I know someone in Calgary who was committed to a drug program against her will when she was 17. Parents with legal gardianship have rights, DerbyX.

Actually, you can have a person committed to drug re-hab OR even a mental institution if there are 4 people that know that person to sign papers before a judge, regardless of that person's age. I believe at least one of the signatories must be related however.

[DerbyX]

Brenda Brenda:

Oh absolutely, you're right.

I always am!

Brenda Brenda:

And no, I am not saying that, I am hoping that people are smarter than this woman is. Personally, I think what she is doing is very creepy, to use your words. I don't think there is anything more the parents could have done, but that doesn't make her a better person.

I wonder what she thinks she is gaining out of this, except for a dirty divorce, and probably (if she has them) losing her kids?

I have no idea what she is thinking. That teacher in the states gave up everything including her freedom and her family for the boy she eventually had several children with. She really loved him although I think in an extremely unhealthy and obsessive way.

Arguing that its their right to decide isn't in any way thinking its perfectly OK.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Every law no matter how small or hideous the crime is, is a "forcing of beliefs" on others. so don't BS me Derby, because I know that even you don't feel that your above statement is an absolute extreme........yet, you argue that everyone else's beliefs are an absolute extreme.

You can cut out the hysterics now. You are the person demanding that these people follow your morality. You find it wrong so therefore it should not be allowed regardless of the fact that neither him or her thinks its wrong.

[Brenda]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Brenda Brenda:

Oh absolutely, you're right.

I always am!

Crap.. You're a woman in disguise...

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

Every law no matter how small or hideous the crime is, is a "forcing of beliefs" on others. so don't BS me Derby, because I know that even you don't feel that your above statement is an absolute extreme........yet, you argue that everyone else's beliefs are an absolute extreme.

You can cut out the hysterics now. You are the person demanding that these people follow your morality. You find it wrong so therefore it should not be allowed regardless of the fact that neither him or her thinks its wrong.

Well, it looks like you are not interested in discussing this any further, because 42 year olds exploiting 16 year olds are merely my "morality"

I am glad we understand each other.

[DerbyX]

Mary Kay Letourneau was who I was thinking of.

Hell hers was even more creepy and was illegal. Still she ended up marrying him and at present they are still married.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Well, it looks like you are not interested in discussing this any further, because 42 year olds exploiting 16 year olds are merely my "morality"

I am glad we understand each other.

IT IS your morality. In fact you call it exploiting. It never entered your mind that she simply fell in love with him and that he loves her right?

In your mind its wrong, period.

You don't get to decide that for them.