Comments on: Heterosexual Menace: Two Utah Teachers Seduce Same Young Boy

By: Jessica

Jessica — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 23:08:57 +0000

Really Emily? Maybe do your homework before making assumptions or allowing HBO to be your educational resource VIA Big Love. “Mormon Utah”, as you so eloquently put it, does not practice the marrying of child brides. There is a massive misconception, although sadly poor distinction for “outsiders” regarding the Mormon (LDS) religion and the incestuous polygamists who branched off from the LDS religion when polygamy was banned. The Polygamists are NOT Mormons, nor are they of the LDS religion, they call themselves the FLDS, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who do in fact practice polygamy which does believe in “the child brides”.

By: Zeke

Zeke — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:21:53 +0000

Why is it that when women molest young boys the headline ALWAYS reads “Woman SEDUCES Under-age Boy” instead of “Woman MOLESTS Under-age Boy” the way they rightfully do when a man molests a girl?

By saying they “seduced” the boy it essentially says that the woman “encouraged” the boy to have sex but didn’t molest him. This diminishes the woman’s role and places the responsibility for the action on the boy.

I find this to be outrageous and I’m disappointed that BTB chose to use this verbage in their headline.

By: Leonard Drake

Leonard Drake — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:08:10 +0000

Joel, I *believe* Lawrence v. Texas also applies to Puerto Rico and other U.S. Territories. The ONLY arena in which sodomy is still punishable is under the Military Code (which, as we all know, is only used to prosecute and harass heterosexual couples, *wink*, *wink*, *nudge*, *nudge*).

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:34:06 +0000

I wonder leonard…
Does the ruling of the lawrence vs texas also affect US territories like Puerto Rico?

Im believe i read they do but i’ve been fairly starkely opposed that it doesnt actually apply to them. Just wanted to make sure.

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:36:31 +0000

Age of consent is 13 in Spain, which strikes me as a bit weird.

TRiG.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:20:09 +0000

Yeah well in Mormon Utah, child brides were (are?) a traditional among the faithful.

By: Leonard Drake

Leonard Drake — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:30:14 +0000

Last note, in reference to Lawrence v. Texas: Just because the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the remaining sodomy laws does not mean they no longer remain “on the books.” They just are not ENFORCEABLE. (Although Virginia already tried.)

The legislators and governors in many of the states where these laws remain don’t have the courage or the couilles to actually remove THOSE laws, now, do they?

By: Leonard Drake

Leonard Drake — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:27:02 +0000

Joel, while charges of sodomy were declared unconstitutional for CONSENTING INDIVIDUALS, the age of consent in Utah is 14, and then only if both parties are consenting. Sexual conduct with a teacher would not constitute consent, under any circumstance, as one party (the teacher) would be in a position of “power or influence” (as it is, I believe, called in Arizona code). Nevertheless, this child is 13 years of age, which is why the teachers were charged with sodomy with a minor (i.e. “anything other than vaginal-penile sexual conduct”).

Fourteen years of age is, as age-of-consent laws, pretty low.

By: Joel

Joel — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:57:58 +0000

“(1) A person commits sodomy when the actor engages in any sexual act with a person who is 14 years of age or older involving the genitals of one person and mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant”

Wait.. i thought this law was banned or insignificant with the Lawrence and Texas case?

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:35:27 +0000

EEEEEWWWWW, teenagers! Talk about a knobbly and strange tribe of mutants? What kind of adult would want to have sex with such a creature?! I mean they are interesting after a fashion, but mostly infuriating and it’s us adults that are SUPPOSED to move them in the direction of noble adulthood.

Besides, they only have 18 precious years to grow, learn and gain hopefully supportive interests. I wouldn’t take away ANY of those years whatsoever. Kids need them so badly.
I love kids, and to think these adult monsters would do that to them makes me want to put them away forever.

I have a theory. You all remember the play and movie “Tea and Sympathy”?
It was about a ‘sensitive, artistic’ high school boy whose peers probably thought him to be gay.

Well, considering how much straight people want to sexually initiate gay people to ‘turn’ them into heterosexual, it would surprise me if that isn’t part of these women’s motives.

And, twisted as it might seem, I bet the parents wouldn’t want to prosecute if that was the case.

But boys are horny little devils to begin with and it’s not hard to seduce them. But confusing them about adult behavior and putting them at such serious risk for all manner of adult problems is why one absolutely cannot indulge CHILDREN in such behaviors.

I just hope these women get put UNDER the jail. There is a definite double standard when it comes to same sex issues like this as opposed to opposite sex ones. As you all well know.

But gay pedo/epheba -philes get more jail time and longer probation periods than their hetero counterparts.
And sometimes the one defining factor in any time at all is a pregnancy. If there is one, the parents are even LESS likely to demand prosecution.

When it comes to TEEN pregnancy, especially in the inner city, this is most evident.

I wish the MSM would deal with this in an effective way.
Whenever I hit my crime databases at work, and hear all the lame excuses people have for excluding gay people from ANY kind of work of their choice or marriage, the anti gay factions are laughable in their hypocrisy.