Child sex is not traumatic when it happens. Only much later (Child Sex Trauma Myth #2)

Susan Clancy was a firm believer in the conventional wisdom: adult child sex is a profoundly traumatic. devastating terrible experience. As a psychology graduate student, Susan Clancy trusted, that scientist’s unwavering certainty in the childhood trauma theory of sexual abuse was based on firm scientific proof.  We used to be equally trusting believers


Disclaimer: We are not pedophiles and do not consume child porn. Rather we are interested in the truth to prevail and to become known. We demand unbiased academic research and laws to be informed by true facts and not to be based on myth and lies.


1) No Trauma: Child sex is mostly NOT traumatic when it happens! 

Susan Clancy

The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children–and Its Aftermath

When Susan Clancy interviewed child abuse victims, most of them had not felt profound trauma during or after their abuse. Rather their feelings at the time of the sexual act ranged from somewhat positive to negative. The feelings were far from the level of profound trauma as violent forcible rape or war. These results were very surprising and totally counter to Susan Clancy’s expectations (The results were, though,  in agreement with the maligned Rind Study.)   [Disclaimer]

1b) The above refers to *consensual sex

 

2) Sigmund Freud’s was in denial about child sex reports

Sigmund Freud had simply ignored and denied the frequent self-reports of child sexual abuse. He heard reports about child sexuality and discarded them as childhood fantasies.  Until as late as the 1960ies, child sexuality was considered shocking, unusual, or criminal.

3) "Child sex trauma myth" was intentionally created to counter Freud’s denial

Susan Clancy suggests: As a counter-reaction to Freud’s denial, in order to protect children from sexual abuse, the theory of child sex trauma was created and dogmatically made unassailable.

4) Clancy backpedals: claims long term damage

Later, when children understand about sex, understand what they did, and understand that society considers this a extremely serious traumatic event, they reframe the event and perceive it as traumatic and damaging.

Clancy does NOT say this, but maybe the trauma theory causes the traumatic reframing. Or as one reader succinctly put it: "Society’s trauma myth is the real child abuse".

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Child sex is not traumatic when it happens. Only much later (Child Sex Trauma Myth #2)” »
Child sex is not traumatic when it happens. Only much later (Child…
» continues here »

Teacher(41) Leaves Wife, Kids, Quits School, to Live With High School Student (18)

Teacher Leaves Wife, Kids for High School Student |Yahoo

James Hooker — the 41-year-old married father who left his wife and kids for his 18-year-old-student — might be the worst teacher ever. Last week, he resigned from his job at Enochs High School in Modesto, California over the scandal that’s shaken up a community and pit one mom on a crusade to save her daughter from a man she calls a "master manipulator."  […]

teacher-moves-in-with-studentWe understand concerns about teacher-student sex. But didn’t he do everything right here?

Jordan met her teacher as a freshman, but both maintain nothing physical happened until she turned 18 this past September. Hooker claims he saw Powers as "just a student" and had no romantic feelings toward her at first, but when her most recent birthday came around, things changed.

Waited until she was 18? Isn’t that what he is supposed to do?

Or is the antifeminist right that the 18 year age of consent limit serves to instill terror in men, to prevent sex with women even older then that limit?

They changed so much, in fact, that Hooker, left his wife and three kids (one of them a 17-year-old Enochs high school student as well) so that he could move in with Jordan.

James Hooker is the target of a vindictive vendeetta. Not by Hooker’s wife, but by the girl’s mother. 

Tammie Powers said her daughter, Jordan, has known Hooker since her freshman year at James Enochs High School.  She said the two exchanged a flood of text messages and phone calls the day after Jordan’s 18th birthday on Sept. 5.

Tammie Powers said she had also obtained evidence that the two were corresponding regularly before Jordan began her senior year and she believes Hooker has committed a crime.

"That’s pursuit, in my opinion, with some type of intent," she said.

Watch Video: Mom blasts Modesto teacher’s affair with her daughter

Again, avoiding sex with under 18 year olds is not enough. One should not even text or phone with her. Mr. Antifeminist you are so right! The law is not just concerned with "protecting" 17 year olds from having sex.

Still, Hooker claims he has no regrets. In an interview with Good Morning America, he shut down Tammie’s accusations as a "pack of lies" and said of his new love, "we really do want to have a future together."

Human-Stupidity believes that teenage sexuality laws create lots of suffering and prevent true love from  happening. Read our 60 posts on the issue of teenage sexuality and its legal problems.

I hope Mr. Hooker is also fully aware that he is totally in the hands of his young lover. If, during the next 4 years (statute of limitations) she claims she was coerced to lie and in reality they had sex while she was under 18 and/or his student, his life is over. There is no due process in such accusations, so there is almost no defense in case she accuses him. It does not matter if the accusation is true or a malicious lie.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Teacher(41) Leaves Wife, Kids, Quits School, to Live With High School Student (18)” »
Teacher(41) Leaves Wife, Kids, Quits School, to Live With High Sch…
» continues here »

Teacher Sex with 14 Year Old: 40 year Prison in USA, Acquittal in Germany

Germany: High court acquitted teacher for 22 sex acts with 14 year old student.
It voided a 2 year suspended sentence proffered by two lower courts

A a German appeal court voided of a lower court’s  suspended 2 year sentence for a 32 year old male teacher. He had sex with a 14 year old student on 22 occasions. The court decision is final. The court justified the decision:

  1. Sex with a 14 year olds is not a crime. Article 176 of the German penal code only covers sexual abuse of children under 14 years , unless it is paid (Art. 182) [6].
  2. According to the Penal Code Art 174 [6],  sexual abuse of wards occurs only when a minor under 18y has been entrusted to the offender "for the education, training or supervision". The student was not entrusted to the accused, because he only covered for the teacher’s absence and only gave very occasional classes to her. If he were her regular teacher, he would have been convicted [6].

USA: 40 years for the same crime: for female teacher’s sex with 14 year old boy

shannon-alicia-schmieder-teacher-sexFemale teacher Shannon Alicia Schmieder (39) in Coweta, Georgia received a 40 year jail sentence for sex with a 14 year old boy [2][3]. This fills some men’s rights proponents with glee: finally a woman gets a taste of the bitter "age of consent"  medicine concocted by feminists and religious zealots:  the same high jail terms men routinely get sentenced to.  Making love carries the same prison term as as murder or manslaughter [4]

The randomness of adolescent sex laws

Teenage sexuality is plagued by arbitrary laws which vary a lot over time and over places [1]. So much that children need a lawyer before playing doctor [8].

Human-Stupidity never made it a secret that we don’t think that the might of the state needs to interfere in such consensual adolescent affairs. We think that it is the parents’ have the duty to supervise and educate their children and that parents have a right set limits for them [5].  German law is inspired by sensible sex positive realists.

Teacher still faces disciplinary action and protests

The teacher still faces disciplinary action from the school. "Der Spiegel" calls the verdict "controversial". Sensationalist yellow press Bild calls it a "scandalous verdict" [6]. Parent organizations, press organs and the German Child Protection Association vehemently protests [6].

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Teacher Sex with 14 Year Old: 40 year Prison in USA, Acquittal in Germany” »
Teacher Sex with 14 Year Old: 40 year Prison in USA, Acquittal in …
» continues here »

Pornography is replacing inadequate sex education lessons

Sex education is boring, based on the "don’t do model".  In the US it is even worse: “There is abstinence-only sex education, and there’s abstinence-based sex ed,” said Leslie Kantor, vice president of education for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “There’s almost nothing else left in public schools.” . So students as young as 11, find the ubiquitous and easily available porn as their source of sex ed.  child-computer

Across the country, the approach ranges from abstinence until marriage is the only acceptable choice, contraceptives don’t work and premarital sex is physically and emotionally harmful, to abstinence is usually best, but if you must have sex, here are some ways to protect yourself from pregnancy and disease. The latter has been called “disaster prevention” education by sex educators who wish they could teach more; a dramatic example of the former comes in a video called “No Second Chances,” which has been used in abstinence-only courses. In it, a student asks a school nurse, “What if I want to have sex before I get married?” To which the nurse replies, “Well, I guess you’ll just have to be prepared to die.”   […] Teaching Good Sex

Children and adolescents think that porn sex, with gagging, anal sex, coming in the face is the norm.

There is a lack of sex education that teaches kids to critically consume porn and understand that real sex is not exactly like in genitally focused hard core porn.

These very important issues will be described in detail in the following press reports and scientific papers.


Human-Stupidity Side notes: 

The legal morass of idiotic adolescent sex laws and CP laws

Human-Stupidity can not resist to mention taboo issues forgotten in the newspaper reports:  there are serious legal pitfalls to adolescent and childhood sexuality, due to child porn witch hunt and teenage sexuality taboos. For children to avoid these, they would have to be actively taught that groping a girl’s ass is sexual assault, consensual doctor play is a felony, consensual adolescent sex is a heinous crime (depending on complex age of consent laws with even more comples age of consent exceptions.)

Furthermore Human-Stupidity has the tenacity to dare mention that children must never see anything sexual or erotic related to their own age but are obliged to watch only big tit and big dicks in over 18 year old porn.  Worse, children or adolescents photographing themselves is a heinous crime that somehow victimizes themselves according to the voodoo theory of child porn.

Any child or adolescent that would creatively dare to re-enact some porn scenes in the privacy of their home, with their friend and some home camera, will find out that this is one of the most heinous crimes in existence. Even if the behavior is harmless fully dressed dancing (see Knox vs. USA) or stripping, even if it is filming adolescent sex that is perfectly legal according to age of consent laws, it is heinous crime.  Filming harmless acts people do all the time is a worse crime then beating up people and comparable to clubbing someone to death.

I wonder why nobody ever mentions that children see child porn all the time. Children just need to look into the bath room mirror while they shower, or look at their partner in doctor play. How to explain child pornography laws to children seems an impossible task. Even more impossible because to a rational person from another planet these laws make no sense whatsoever.

I really wish that the sex educators could explain such aspects of adult idiocy to critically thinking children.

But I digress, I am sorry. Let us return to the issue of this post: Children and adolescents use porn to learn about sexuality, because sex education in school sucks.


Detailed press reports about sex education and children’s porn use


child-sex

The X-rated alternative to inadequate sex education

New research suggests pupils look to pornography for answers

It involves anal sex as a matter of course. It can include images of women being choked or gagged. It is not uncommon for it to feature an ambiguous version of consent, in which "no" can mean "that sounds like fun".

And yet pornography is increasingly serving as a substitute for adequate sex education, new research has found.

Researchers Maree Crabbe and David Corlett conducted 140 interviews internationally, with pupils, teachers and professionals from the porn industry, and presented their findings in London last week. On average, they said, most pupils will watch porn for the first time at the age of 11. […]

The researchers argue that the failure of sex education to address the positive aspects of sex drives pupils to seek further explanation in porn.

"Discussion of sex and intimacy is too often avoided in schools," the Australian researchers said, presenting their findings at a conference at London University’s Institute of Education this week. "Porn has become a cultural mediator in how young people are understanding and experiencing sex. Porn is our most prominent sex educator."

And the sex education community admits there is truth in these findings. Mary Clegg (pictured, right), chair of the British Association of Sexual Educators, confirms this. "A lot of our sex education is based on a don’t-do model," she said. "But young people are hungry for more explicit information. They’re curious and they’re hormone-driven." […]

Pupils similarly assume that practices such as anal sex and ejaculation in women’s faces are a normal part of any sexual encounter. "The first time I had sex, I decided to go anal," one boy said. "She didn’t like that."

The researchers reported that 88 per cent of scenes in porn films show physical aggression, such as choking, gagging or spanking. This aggression is overwhelmingly directed at female performers. Nonetheless, the women always appear to enjoy the experience.

"Some guys have this perception that, if they just do it anyway, it’ll be amazing," one teenage girl said. "They just try and slip it in the other hole. It’s not really about asking any more – it’s all about doing and hoping for the best."

"You want to grab her hair and pull it back," a male interviewee added. "I mean, it’s a turn-on."

Acknowledging the difficulty of preventing access to porn, the researchers suggested that sex education lessons should therefore equip teenagers with the skills necessary to evaluate what they see.

"To be unable to critique imagery is equivalent to being illiterate in the modern world," they said. "We need to help young people to resist peer-group pressure to consume porn or to respond to partners’ requests for sex they’ve seen in porn."

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Pornography is replacing inadequate sex education lessons” »
Pornography is replacing inadequate sex education lessons
» continues here »

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’

s

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 »

6-year-old charged with sexual assault for consensual doctor play

Grant County authorities have accused a 6-year-old boy of first-degree sexual assault of a child for allegedly playing “doctor” with a 5-year-old girl in September.

The case, which is plowing new legal ground in Wisconsin, calls into question when a child’s act can be considered criminal — particularly when it involves behavior some experts say is normal for children that age —

Normal behavior is criminalized (Overcriminalization)

Of course, normal behavior is criminalized at all ages. Playing doctor for kids, adolescent sexuality later, sexting and photographing legal sex acts (child pornography). Or attraction of grown men to adolescent women. All is illegal.

According to the petition for protection or services filed Nov. 12, the girl’s mother found her daughter in the boy’s yard “with her skirt and underpants around her ankles” and the boy sitting underneath her, penetrating her with his finger. The petition alleges the boy “did have sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 12.”

State law defines sexual intercourse, in part, as “intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body.”

Toddlers need legal counsel and classes in stupid adult sex laws

The boy failed to read Human-Stupidity.com’s advice about playing doctor

Typical problems:

  • Only one witness, the mother. If she has a grudge with the boy, his family, or if she is mentally instable suffering from phantasies, her accusation is accepted.
    • The daughter, after being exposed to mother’s hysteria, is not a reliable witness.
    • The boy’s confession to the mother is hearsay. He needs to be read his Miranda rights and be advised to plead the 5th (not to say anything because he could incriminate himself).
    • Furthermore the boy is not fit to stand trial
    • I know, this is ridiculous.
  • language abuse: slightest penetration with the finger is called "sexual intercourse". Why does modern feminist inspired law have to pervert our language?
  • Discrimination against males: why can’t the girl be guilty for statutory rape?
  • No Romeo and Juliet clause for being of similar age

The girl told her mother they were playing “butt doctor” and told authorities the boy only touched her on the outside of her body, court documents state. A third child, a 5-year-old boy, also was with them, but he did not touch her inappropriately, the girl said.

All hinges on mother’s statement. Maybe she is hysterical?

Judge Leineweber refused to dismiss the petitions, saying the relevant part of the sexual assault allegation is the mother’s observations.  Case asks: Can a 6-year-old commit sexual assault?

Next problem:

  • confounding consensual* acts with sexual assault. Did he hold down the girl against her will? Yes, I know, the girl is unable to consent. So is the boy.

The boy needed only to have penetrated the girl and known she was under a certain age, he wrote, adding, “Even the most immature 6-year-old could appreciate these two concepts.”

Why should a 6-year-old know that playing doctor is a felony? Did we teach him?

Why should a boy understand that playing doctor is a heinous crime?  That is about as asinine as criminalizing taking one’s own photos.

has he been taught that in school? Is teaching stupid adult laws a mandatory kindergarten subject? Is Human-Stupidity’s playing doctor advice. Our blog must be mandatory reading in kindergarten.

Why should 6-year-old boys know that consensual doctor play constitutes sexual assault?

He  probably does not know what sex is. But he knows what consent is and the girl certainly consented.

The most immature 6-year-old understands the concept of consent. Adults and judges don’t understand the difference between consensual*  activities and sexual assault/rape.

Playing doctor is normal for 6-year-olds

The boy’s lawyer, Stephen Eisenberg of Madison, called the allegations “crazy” and said he has never heard of a 6-year-old being accused of first-degree sexual assault. The boy is now 7.

Right. A sensible comment.

Sexual exploration normal in young

Dr. Lucy Berliner, director of Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress in Seattle, Wash., said it is “completely outside” accepted medical practice to characterize a 6-year-old’s actions as sexual assault.

Another sensible comment

Read the entire case: Case asks: Can a 6-year-old commit sexual assault?

Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

Brooke Shields 15 years, re-victimized millions of times whenever someone looks at the photo. The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail?  So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)  You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).

The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.

Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too.

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, “he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million.”

Capricious cruel senseless punishment

Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank.  And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?

Is this not senseless, capricious, cruel, unnecessary punishment for photographing perfectly legal acts that harm nobody? Big government infringing on individual freedom without any need whatsoever? Is this not a human rights violation?

But, this is the essence of victimless crime. Punishing people for private use of fairly harmless drugs, or for consensual polygamy among Mormon adults is similar.

Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

Brooke Shields 15 years, re-victimized millions of times whenever someone looks at the photo. The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail?  So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)  You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).

The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.

Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too. 

 

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, "he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million."

Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank.  And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?

Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

Brooke Shields 15 years, re-victimized millions of times whenever someone looks at the photo. The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail?  So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)  You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).

The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.

Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too. 

 

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, "he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million."

Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank.  And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them” »
Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can H…
» continues here »