Actor Dough Hutchinson (51) married Courtney Alexis Stodden (16). Is he a child rapist?

Is actor Dough Hutchinson a child rapist?

51 year old Dough Hutchinson married a 16 year old child (yes, by law she is a child) . Do you think, that, before marriage, Dough Hutchinson never touched Courtney Alexis Stodden indecently? Because that would be a heinous crime of child rape and grave victimization of poor Alexis. Or if he chatted with her on the internet, he would be in violation of grooming laws.

doug-hutchinson-courtney-alexis-stoddenShe is 16 y, he 51 y (35 years difference)

Age ain’t nothing but a number – just ask 51-year-old actor Doug Hutchison. Hutchison, whose film and TV credits include ‘The Green Mile,’ ‘Lost’ and ’24,’ said ‘I do’ to 16-year-old aspiring country star Courtney Alexis Stodden on May 20 in Las Vegas.
While the couple’s 35-year age difference has already raised many eyebrows, the newlyweds insist they are truly in love.
‘We’re aware that our vast age difference is extremely controversial,’ the couple told E! Online. ‘But we’re very much in love and want to get the message out there that true love can be ageless.’ NY Daily News

The age of consent in California is 18, for sex law purposes she is a child. If Dough Hutchinson ever had sex with Courtney before marriage, this is rape. All rapes are equal. Nowadays, marriage does not remedy such heinous felony.

Courtney Alexis Stodden’s mother claims:

"Courtney was a virgin when she married Doug," said Krista Stoddden. "She is a good Christian girl. NY Daily News

If he just engaged in oral sex or indecent touching, indecent acts with a minor are rape too, at least sexual assault. Even if he never touched her, then he might have sent her seductive emails and thus run afoul of grooming laws. If he crossed state lines with the intent of having as much as oral sex with her in a state where it 16 is the legal age of consent, he would be violating federal law in the USA.

Even if he consumated the sexual acts only in marriage, it still leaves open the significant question:

  • why is Courtney unable to *consent to sex, but she can consent to marriage.
  • And why, after marriage, can she consent to sex?

We need a criminal investigation. This husband needs to be arrested without bail, the minor child needs to be saved. Obviously she has been brainwashed. Furthermore, it is just disgusting how an old guy like that can be with an innocent child of 16. We need new laws to outlaw such behavior, to protect innocent 16 year old children from such a marriage. 

In California, any person, of any age, that has sex with a minor, is a child rapist and felon. Most ( teens have sex before 18 years. 65-70% have sex before they are 18.  That means, the average teen gets raped at least once and one person should go to prison.  So Millions of Californians need to be locked up in prison. The law is the law, and the law has to be obeyed.

Do you think our proposals are stupid, wrong, immoral?  Well, stand up and fight for all these laws to be revoked.

Teenage sexuality: The immense complexity of local laws, state lines and international travel

Every country and state has ever changing sex laws with different ages of consent, and Romeo and Juliet (age gap) exemptions. The consequences of travel across state and international borders are of extreme complexity so a team of local experts and international law experts should be consulted. 

Age of consent by state in USA

Near state lines, adolescents need to carry GPS to make sure they are in the right state. When one partner is between 16 and 18 years old, then the location is of primordial importance. If you are an adolescent and think you can go to a more liberal neighboring state to engage in erotic and sexual activity, think twice: US federal law makes it a felony to cross state lines with the intent to have sex with an under 18 year old adolescent.

But, even if you cross between 2 states with age of consent of 16, with intent to have sex with your 17 year old lover, you still run afoul of federal law!? Certainly, if you travel to Europe to have legal sex with a 15 or 16 year old, as a US resident you are committing a felony by US law. If a non-resident European in the US receives his Green card (residency), his hitherto legal relationship in Europe suddenly becomes a felony in the US. Sex law attorneys have a golden future!

Case study: Vermont

Vermont: Age of Consent: 16 Age gap Provision: Yes*

Lewd or Lascivious Conduct with a Child:
No person shall willfully or lewdly commit and lewd or lascivious act upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child under the age of 16 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passion, or sexual desires, of such person. This section shall not apply if the actor is less than 19 years of age, the child is at least 15 years of age, and the contact is consensual.
Adolescent Sexual Behavior and the Law

Legal today, but felony after next birthday

Analyzing Vermont law, one can see

  • If she is 14, he is 18. They have to wait. Not even a lewd act with the body. No touching!
  • On her 15th birthday, they can have sex.
  • Careful! on his 19th birthday, at midnight, what they legally did before, becomes a felony again.
  • After she turns16, they can go back to having sex.

Easy, is it not? just put this into grade school curriculum. It is a good training for reading comprehension of legal codes.

While in Florida

If you are 23 and have a 16 year old girlfriend, beware of your 24th birthday. You will become a criminal!

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Teenage sexuality: The immense complexity of local laws, state lines and international travel” »
Teenage sexuality: The immense complexity of local laws, state lin…
» continues here »

Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says She’s Not a ‘Predator’


Double standard: men punished more harshly then women

  • If a man did the same, would it be called "underage sex"? No, it would be called rape. So there certainly is a double standard.
  • Would a man get away with 5 years? A man probably would get 15 to 25 years in jail.
  • In a TV interview, would a man not be treated much worse?

Sex has more serious consequences for boys then for girls: The double standard should be inverted!

In this modern age boys need more protection then girls (due to slower maturation, existing laws and scientific progress)

  • adolescent girls mature faster then boys, physically, intellectually and psychologically. Legal age for marriage was, and still is much lower for girls then for boys in most countries in the world (Marriagable Age | Wikipedia, Elisabethan marriage customs, Historical Age of Marriage). This has also to do with gender roles with the more mature man the provider and protector.
  • pregnancy, the real sex-induced "damage" to girls can be avoided by birth control. Girls have total freedom to decide if they carry a pregnancy to term or use their reproductive freedom for an early term abortion.
  • Things have changed since the EEA, where evolution has shaped our inborn moral feelings, and since biblical times, when our religious code was written down. Fairly recently, we devised birth control, abortion, DNA tests, government welfare and legal child support obligation for men.
  • In biblical times and the EEA, a girl had no option to avoid pregnancy through birth control, no option to terminate pregnancy through (early term) abortion, no courts nor police state  pursuing the father for support (except shotgun weddings due to pressure by the girl’s kin), no government welfare, no child care and job opportunities for single mothers. And her marriage prospects would have gotten really dim after having an out of wedlock baby.
  • Thus, girls and women can have risk-free sex with no long term consequences.
  • Boys, on the other hand are totally powerless once a woman got pregnant. Boys/men  have absolutely no chance to avoid the serious trauma of
    • decades of enforced ruinous child support  and alimony duty
    • with no automatic visitation rights to even see the child or influencing how the money is spent.
    • No rights but payment duties enforced by police and prison, not much different from slavery.

Thanks to the AntiFeminist for calling our attention to some of the above issues.

Now that we clarified that adolescent boys are in more need of protection then girls, Human-Stupidity dares to question if any adolescent needs government protection against his/her own decisions.

Are draconian punishments needed to protect adolescents from their own actions and decisions?

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says She’s Not a ‘Predator’” »
Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says …
» continues here »

Judge John Reilly forced to apologize for differentiating nerd’s groping from sexual assault

OTTAWA – John Reilly, a retired judge and Liberal candidate for the Alberta riding of Wild Rose, was forced to apologize Thursday for suggesting in a radio interview that not all sexual offenders should be incarcerated.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff called an Alberta candidate’s comments on sexual offenders "disgraceful,” but said he has accepted Reilly’s apology and he’ll continue to serve as the party’s candidate for the riding.
Alberta Liberal candidate John Reilly apologizes for remarks on sexual assault 

John Reilly, former Judge and Liberal Party Candidate in Alberta, CanadaThe "sexual assault":

she goes, gets into bed naked, he goes up, he’s thinking he’s going to be able to, that she’ll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles her privates, and she wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away. They report it, he’s charged with sexual offence, he has digitally penetrated her,  
Judge John Reilly interview

Most likely the defendant did not stick the entire finger in there but just passed the limit with one phalanx.  Also he was ill advised and probably admitted the penetration before getting a lawyer’s advice. Of course, the women would always be believed anyway

Now this does not look like a habitual predator, the judge is totally right.

But, this is an example how powerful the feminist language distortion is. Call some behavior "rape" or "sexual assault", and the perpetrator is to be crucified. If you told it by the real name, "fondling the privates of a naked girl while sleeping at a party", that would not cause the feeding punishing frenzy in the interviewer and the populace. You can notice this in the strong reactions of the interviewer in the written and his aggravated tone in the audio transcript.

Former judge John Reilly’s interview with The Rutherford Show Transcript

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Judge John Reilly forced to apologize for differentiating nerd’s groping from sexual assault” »
Judge John Reilly forced to apologize for differentiating nerd&#82…
» continues here »

Leading sex research experts against child porn laws: "Adolescents and young adults are no children"

Experts in Sexology (academic sex research) have always opposed the child porn witch hunt. Especially the part that criminalizes normal adolescent sexuality by hiding it behind manipulative language calling adolescents "children".  Now the leading academic sex experts in Germany put their weight against senseless police state anti child porn legislation. It is late to stem the tide.

Adolescents and young adults are no children

Declaration by German speaking sexological associations on the pending EU-Childpornography-Directive

Adolescents & Young Adults are no Children
Declaration by German speaking sexological associations on the
pending EU-Childpornography-Directive

Proposed 2001 by the EU Commission, the European Council in 2004 passed the „Framework Decision on Combating Child Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of children (2004/68/JI). Based on the Lisbon EU Treaty, in force since 1st January 2010, the EU Commission proposed to replace it by a directive with the same title, but toughened in several aspects (COM 2010-94). The 27 justice ministers have already approved. Only the EU parliament can – and should! – object.
The new EU-directive not only provides for the blocking of internet-sites but also obliges all 27 member-states to criminalise erotic depictions of adults. Not only pornography is banned but any kind of sexually connotated pictures, making no exception for arts or science. Movies like “The Tin Drum” or common coming-of-age movies, even the new Harry-Potter movie, could be criminalised. Even mere private possession of such films will be sanctioned and everybody will be obliged to report such “crimes”.

Adolescents and young adults are no children  (Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene sind keine Kinder)

Constitutional rights are violated

We are arriving at the point of overcriminalization where everyone can be jailed, if authorities start searching his computer and his video collection for "child pornography".

the Directive will violate fundamental legislative and criminal law principles including the supreme
constitutional principles of commensurateness and proportionality.

Law makers ignore science

Human-Stupidity has repeatedly assailed the disproportrional penalties penalties for sex related crimes. See judge Weinstein and

Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years. Man possesses photos: priceless (40 years)

2. False Assumptions
It appears symptomatic that in drafting the Directive the EU-Commission explicitly waived
expert knowledge
. Their empirical assumptions are accordingly vague and partially wrong.

The sex obsessed legal persecution is fueled by zealots like religious fundamentalists and dogmatic feminists and is not shared by academic scientist in the field. Even experts are attacked when their findings contradict the pervailing anti-sexual opinion (see Rind Study)

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Leading sex research experts against child porn laws: "Adolescents and young adults are no children"” »
Leading sex research experts against child porn laws: "Adoles…
» continues here »

Sexting children Margarite, Isaiah in Lacey, Washington avoid jail

A district attorney ignored child porn laws and punished sexting children sensibly for gross misdemeanor of telephone harassment instead of following the law and seeking felony convictions for child porn with life long sex offender registration.  It would be better if sexting laws were changed for good, as suggested by legal scholars.

LACEY, Wash. — One day last winter Margarite posed naked before her bathroom mirror, held up her cellphone and took a picture. Then she sent the full-length frontal photo to Isaiah, her new boyfriend.
A Girl’s Nude Photo, and Altered Lives | New York Times

She produced and distributed child pornography. This is what the law says.

They broke up soon after. A few weeks later, Isaiah forwarded the photo to another eighth-grade girl, once a friend of Margarite’s. Around 11 o’clock at night, that girl slapped a text message on it.

“Ho Alert!” she typed. “If you think this girl is a whore, then text this to all your friends.” Then she clicked open the long list of contacts on her phone and pressed “send.”

Rude, inconsiderate, bad character, worthy of punishment. But grounding a few days for rude and inconsiderate behavior. What is the punishment for adults for re-distributing nude photos without a model release?  Not jailing a few years for distributing child pornography! But, remember, it’s the law!

In a world without child porn laws, by regular laws about adult photos, these guys should get a serious slap on the wrist, and Margarite should go unpunished. But, according to our laws, she is a felon. Compare: In the brave new world of ‘sexting,’ females are ‘victims’ of the very crime they commit

But when that sexually explicit image includes a participant — subject, photographer, distributor or recipient — who is under 18, child pornography laws may apply.

“I didn’t know it was against the law,” Isaiah said.

That is because culturally, such a fine distinction eludes most teenagers. Their world is steeped in highly sexualized messages. Extreme pornography is easily available on the Internet. Hit songs and music videos promote stripping and sexting. A Girl’s Nude Photo, and Altered Lives | New York Times

Human-Stupidity keeps pointing out: the consequences of such dumb laws are that we adults have the obligation to teach children the law.

After all, the poor children get punished for infractions they don’t even know about!? And they can not know, they are not normal natural infractions like lying, stealing, hurting people. That means that we have to tell 8 year olds that they go to jail or face other serious legal consequences if they do sexual touching when they are 10 or 12. And we need to explain exactly what type of photos are illegal. And we have to face the children’s questions: "why do I go to jail for photographing myself?" "Oh, I go to jail so I don’t abuse myself? I go to jail for my own protection?" Of course, it does not make sense. (Jailed for possession of video of himself masturbating when he was 12.)

Of course, this way we inoculate sexual thoughts into the 99% of the children who would never have thought any sexual thoughts.

Note that adult sexting is legal! Holding our children up to higher standards then ourselves. Ridiculous!

The most troubling behavior in this story is that by the non-parental authority figures. Charging 12- and 13-year-olds with dissemination of child pornography? Authorizing principals to search cellphones at will to root out sexts? Someone please explain to me how society was served and justice done by hauling at eighth grader to jail in this instance? What a great way to teach young people to become citizens – show them that the 4th Amendment doesn’t count if the Principal says so.reader’s comment

Very true. This happens all the time. Violating profound constitutional principles to prosecute alleged sex crimes. No due process in rape prosecutions, criminalizing thought crimes in child pornography prosecutions. Draconian punishment under the guise of protecting victims. In this case there was a real victim, but she was partially to blame for her innocent stupid trust.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Sexting children Margarite, Isaiah in Lacey, Washington avoid jail” »
Sexting children Margarite, Isaiah in Lacey, Washington avoid jail
» continues here »

Julie Carr performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years. Too harsh compared to 4 years for baby killer?


Is our sex obsessed society punishing sexual child abuse too severely,
compared to serious bodily harm to children?

Julie Carr Performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years.
Compare: killing baby: 4 years; causing permanent brain damage: 2 years.

We will be attacked now with untrue accusations of "promoting child abuse". Which, of course, we are not doing. We don’t say Julie Carr should go unpunished.

Warning: not safe for children. Do not continue reading if you are easily offended.

We try to avoid explicit language, but even CNN uses some semi-explicit language


We are wondering what is less damaging to the infant:

  1. a mother licking baby in the wrong places. (17 years in jail) plus 10 years supervision plus life long sex offender registration
  2. physical abuse: violent shaking of an infant causing permanent life long brain damage (2 years jail). Or killing infant (4-5 years in jail). No registration in murderous-nanny-registry to prevent future work as nanny.

No, we are not condoning either behavior. We don’t think it is normal, healthy behavior. Sorry for questioning conventional wisdom and asking taboo questions.

If we suggested killing Julie Carr vigilante style, to mete out a death sentence, or 4 life sentences without parole, that would be acceptable.

But suggesting to even think about lower sentencing for certain kinds of child sexual abuse, is a no-no. We have been warned that this would be dangerous. We hope we will not attract vigilante threats.

But, our sense of justice, our sense of scientific curiosity compels us to ask these questions: Are some licks in inappropriate places really warrant much longer jail terms then violent brain and spinal cord trauma? What kind and how much damage is being caused in the infant by mom licking in inappropriate places? No, we don’t promote or condone such behavior.

And how many other so called "child rapists’ did not do more then Julie Carr? (Did we mention that we don’t condone this behavior, but are opposed to misleadingly call fondling and licking "rape").

Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

[Julie] Carr used a webcam to deliver four live videos of herself performing oral sex on her youngest daughter, according to the documents. The videos were sent to Nicholas Wilde, then 19, in West Midlands, England, whom Carr had met on an internet dating site, the documents said.
Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

We were surprised that the crime was labeled correctly:
"oral sex on an infant"  and and not the usual "rape of infant".

In case you don’t know, any sexual activity, like kissing or fondling with a minor is defined as "rape". Probably it would sound too weird and incredible to write "Mother raped infant daughter". If it were perpetrated by a man, certainly the headline would read "Man raped his infant daughter".   And everyone would imagine the guy having committed more atrocious acts then licking a baby’s privates.  (No, we don’t approve of this!)

Compare this headline:  Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. Whereupon Human-Stupidity provokingly asked "What kind of rape"?  (No, we don’t condone Woolverton’s behavior).

We did not want to be sexually explicit, so we refrained from the graphic terminology CNN used in this case here. But we suspect Woolverton probably engaged in similar activities as mother Julie Carr, like oral sex and manual indecent touching.  In Woolverton’s case, we can not know, due to modern misleading language definitions of rape.

We will be crucified for this. People will falsely accuse us of condoning sexual abuse of children. We do not condone Woolverton’s or Julie Carr’s behavior..

Rather our message is 2 fold

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Julie Carr performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years. Too harsh compared to 4 years for baby killer?” »
Julie Carr performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; f…
» continues here »

Sex laws traumatize 14 year old school boy who was happy to have affair with 26 year old woman

A mother-of-two caught naked in bed with a 14-year-old schoolboy who bragged about the affair on Facebook has been jailed.  Susanne Divers, 26, befriended the boy after meeting him at a party and later began an affair that lasted more than a month. He was so smitten he boasted on the website: ‘I’ve got the best girl in the world.’— Read more: Mother of two, 26, is jailed after being caught naked in bed with 14-year-old schoolboy lover (Daily Mail)

It is pretty clear how this 14 year old boy was damaged by the woman predator. So much that he bragged all over, and wanted to commit suicide when she tried to break up. The repressive teenage sex laws were to blame for the breakup attempts. So the laws actually are detrimental to teenagers.

Over 200 comments to the above article agree mainly that the law is wrong. Most commenters would not have the courage to say that the law is also wrong if the “victim” were female happily agreeing and consenting to a relationship with an older guy.

If society were not so totally convinced by the dogma of gender equality, then it would even be worth analyzing if there should be different measures for both sexes. Some fathers might actually be proud if their 14 year old son had an affair with a 26 year old woman, but most parents would be much more concerned if their 14 year old daughter had an affair with a 26 year old man. Maybe human instinct is a better guide then equality laws.

Food for thought.  Form your own opinion.

Disclaimer (Female privileges or equality)

My comment in the left column did not intend to alienate men’s rights activists. But I got flak by some highley esteemed activists who thought I was betraying them because am favoring privileges for women.

This quick comment was a suggestion to open-mindedly consider different alternative thoughts, not a dogmatic statement or final solution. Human-Stupidity is about awareness and anti-dogmatic attitude, not about definite dogmatic solutions.

See also the comments below for alternative ideas and interpretations.

I am not in defending the the actual system:

  • whenever it behooves women, they have equal rights
  • whenever it is advantageous, they have unequal privileges

Rather, in order to have old fashioned female privileges in one place, they would have to accept old fashioned male privileges elsewhere. Actually

  • I am against the dogma of the sexes being totally equal (they are not)
  • I am against excessive, unnecessary and draconic interference by law makers and courts into private matters, sexuality

See yesterday’s post about the father who castrated his teenage daughter’s lover.