Sheepville

This recent news story on MSN caught my eye, Woman has sex parties for teen boys. A Colorado mom wanted to be cool. My first thought of course was, "my mom didn't throw sex parties for me". Then I realized reading it that she didn't bring over the high school cheerleading team, good old mom was the one boinking her son's friends. I'm sorry, in eighth grade I wouldn't have minded doing my algebra teacher who was mid 20's, but one of my friend's mom who was 40? Gads, when you're a teenager a 40 year old "mum" is closer to mummy than sex object. Of course there's the usual double standard here for a woman doing something like this compared to a man. Had the sex roles been reversed, "cool" and "party" would have been replaced with "rape" and "pedophile". I also think the charges would have been much more than a couple of misdemeanors and some contributing to the deliquency of a minor. It notes she has the potential to do quite a bit of time for this, but she won't.

Nebraska man charged with sex with wife, 13. She's 14 now, and 7 months pregnant. It seems that all parties involved decided under the circumstances they should get married. It didn't say a shotgun was brought to the decision making process, but where I come from there usually was. They went just over the state line to be married in Kansas, where the minimum age with parental consent for boys is 14 and girls 12. “It seems to me like they, as much as they could, made a responsible decision to try to cope with the problem,” Yoesel said. “The families are all united in this effort,” Yoesel said. “I don’t know who is complaining. ... What benefit is there to anybody in the prosecution of this young man?” Granted, the guy should have been shot for having sex with a 13 year old to begin with. The fact that he did this means he should definitely have an eye kept on him as a possible future child sex offender. But under the current circumstances they are right, there isn't a benefit to prosecuting him now. It's odd to think that in some parts of the world today, and even here a couple of hundred years ago, this was considered normal marrying ages.

Lastly there were a couple of MSN videos on the recent attempt by democrats to pass a bill that would tax internet pornography at a rate of 25%. Quoting, "Porn sites are taking in 12 billion dollars a year, more than CBS, NBC, and ABC combined. Their fastest growing consumer groups is the 12 to 17 year olds. This is an outrage, and we must start taxing them 25% so we can protect our children!" Eh? Why are democrats at their dumbest especially when they are trying to explain a new way to tax you? Even the interviewer had to ask exactly how collecting a tax would protect the children, which she refused to answer the first time. When he asked again, she only said they spend 500 million a year on child pornography investigations. First, child pornography and regular pornography are not the same thing, one of them happens to be illegal. Second, she never said where the 3 billion in taxes would be spent on, and if she didn't say I can guarantee you it won't be for all of the police throughout the country to help fight against child pornography.