Nestor/NST reaches new low

[birdbrain]

Nestor and his station reached a new low this morning. I was taking my daughter to school early today and thought I heard them mention Art..first, I said Art Modell? nope.....I thought to myself...they can't be having Art Sinclair on the air....sure enough, Art Sinclair was on the air with Nestor and Drew....to tell "his" story....puhleeze spare me. I can understand someone wanting to tell their side of the story,etc but you need to draw the line on certain things. Perusing the internet and meeting a young girl in a parking lot for oral is sickening. It doesn't surprise me that Nestor would try to paint himself as some type of moral savior and turn this entire story around for something that it wasn't. In a day and age when child predators and molestors are running rampant and destroying lives, he has this bum on with him. On top of that, during the Dr. Phil segment, Nestor felt it in him to revisit Marty Bass, Tom Davis, and Keith Mills' incidents and somehow try to compare them to what Art Sinclair did. To hear them try to massage and explain away the charges originally brought to what was finally on the legal record was laughable. I dont know what to say really. I suppose that nestor is hoping that someday he may need a forum to explain his secret life once he gets nailed. :thumbdown:

[Admin Steve]

Did Art ever get convicted? I know it was more than a year ago. Never heard anything.

So what was his story?

It had to be better than the 20 minute 'Life history of Nestor' they've been airing 4 times a day. I swear I left the office, went to the bank, the Wawa and the Citgo and it was still going on when I got back to the office. :)

[RavensDomination]

Oh God, tell me about it.

"A boy from Dundalk..."

"I'm just a kid from Dundalk..."

"Who would have thought this Dundalk native..."

Jesus Christ, give it a rest. He acts like he is from some inner city ghetto that had no hope and he somehow managed to persevere and rise from the ashes to become this radio mogul (in his own mind of course). If I was from Dundalk I would take it as an insult the way he talks.

[ravenmaniac]

Not having heard the interview, I can't really comment. Was Nestor doing the interview? Was Sinclair denying or explaining his actions? Did Nestor take a side?

[Mista T]

OK, I'll bite. For the unenlightened: who is Art Sinclair? :229031_confused2:

:mrt:

[ravenmaniac]

Case Information
Court System: Circuit Court of Howard County - Criminal System
Case Number 13K05045036
Title: State Of Maryland vs Arthur Joseph Lapenotiere
Case Type: IndictmentFiling Date:06/29/2005
Case Status: Reopened/Active
Case Disposition: Disposition Date:
Defendant Information
(Each Alias, Address, and Attorney for the Defendant is displayed)
Name: Lapenotiere, Arthur Joseph
Race: Caucasian
Sex: MHeight:6'0"Weight:190DOB:01/01/1945
Address: 1014 Uniontown Rd
City: WestminsterState:MDZip Code:21158
Address: Howard County Detention Center
City: JessupState:MDZip Code:20794
Court Scheduling Information
Event Type: Arraignment/Initial AppearanceNotice Date:06/29/2005
Event Date: 08/03/2005Event Time:08:45 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:07/27/2005
Event Type: Scheduling ConferenceNotice Date:07/28/2005
Event Date: 08/09/2005Event Time:08:45 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:08/09/2005
Event Type: Criminal MotionsNotice Date:09/08/2005
Event Date: 10/05/2005Event Time:08:45 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:10/05/2005
Event Type: Plea HearingNotice Date:08/09/2005
Event Date: 11/15/2005Event Time:08:45 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:11/15/2005
Event Type: Violation of Probation HearingNotice Date:02/23/2006
Event Date: 05/03/2006Event Time:08:45 AM
Result: Postponed/ResetResult Date:05/01/2006
Event Type: Criminal MotionsNotice Date:05/01/2006
Event Date: 05/09/2006Event Time:08:45 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:05/09/2006
Charge and Disposition Information
(Each Charge is listed separately. The disposition is listed below the Charge)
Charge No: 1CJIS Code:6 3600Statute Code:CR.3.322
Charge Description: Unnatural Or Perverted Practice
Offense Date From: 11/29/2004To:
Arrest Tracking No: 04-1004-35485-6Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:
Disposition
Plea: GuiltyPlea Date:11/15/2005
Disposition: GuiltyDisposition Date:11/15/2005
Jail
Jail Term: Yrs:10Mos:0Days:0Hours:0
Suspended Term: Yrs:9Mos:9Days:21Hours:0
UnSuspended Term: Yrs:0Mos:2Days:9Hours:
Jail Text: To be Served as 5 Weekends from FRI 7 PM - SUN 7 PM; To Be Served on every other Weekend
Probation
Probation: Yrs:Mos:Days:Hours:
Supervised : Yrs:5Mos:0Days:0Hours:0
UnSupervised : Yrs:0Mos:0Days:0Hours:0
Probation Conditions: Probation conditions are not currently available online.
Fine
Fine Amt: 1000Fine Suspended Amt:1000Fine Due:First Pmt Due:

[birdbrain]

It was not an interview...it was Nestor giving Art a chance to tell his story.....now, it took more than an hour for Art to tell his story because they went over the river and through the woods on how Drew met Art, how Nestor met Art.....a full half hour of Charlie Eckmann stories and finally Art said that he got a computer, started hitting chat rooms...looking at pornography..tried meeting several different people that he contacted online..finally met a girl online....claimed he did not know how old she was...met her in a parking lot and got oral....gave her 20 bucks....then months later, he was charged....now, I missed part of it taking my daughter into school so I am not sure if all charges were dropped or just a few but what steamed me was Drew and Nestor trying to justify things by saying, "you know, if you get oral from your wife in a parking lot, it is against the law in this state".....not the point....my point was this girl was underage and nestor again trying to paint himself as a stand up guy, while bringing up people like mills, marty, and tom davis for no reason....this guy is scum and let me tell you, this was not the first time....just the only time he got caught....

[RavensDomination]

Yea most people that do stuff like that are not first time offenders, just the first time they got caught. I am all for second chances but most research studies say pedophiles cannot be cured. Not saying he is a pedophile but he has obviously demonstrated actions that fall under the category.

[birdbrain]

Thanks Ravenmaniac...

[Admin Steve]

I want that program RavenManiac has :)

[camdenyard]

I listened to it and also found it strange. Nestor and the boys were treating the guy like a 7-year old boy who'd been punched by a bully. Awww...poor boy!

You got the impression that he thought there really wasn't anything wrong with a married guy searching for (much) younger girls and meeting them for oral sex.

[highwater]

while bringing up people like mills, marty, and tom davis for no reason....

What has Tom Davis ever done?

[birdbrain]

dont know but they mentioned something about tom davis and his wife.....Again, why bring other folk up?

[larrylater]

I heard that garbage on the way in to work. At first I didn't realize what was going on & thought that my fiance had screwed with my presets. :laugh: It was thoroughly disgusting and had no business being on the air. Nestor seemed to be giving Art somewhat of a pass, tossing him softball questions & saying uh, we've all been in internet chat rooms, blah blah blah. Yeah, but we all haven't molested a child!! Nestor is the king of self-indulgence and this O's "rally" thing has turned him into a cartoon. Can't take him seriously any more.




What has Tom Davis ever done?Tom was arrested for whining in public. :D

[RavensDomination]

Tom was caught on the other end of the Art Sinclair deal and ended up with Brian Bi.... ahh nevermind...

[Mista T]

Try again: who the fuck is Art Sinclair, what's his connection to the Ravens, and what's his scandal?:confused:

:mrt:

[larrylater]

Mista T, Art worked for WCBM and was the radio voice of the Blast for many years, along with Charlie Eckman. He was charged & I believe convicted of having sex with an underage girl (16). He met the girl on the internet and claims she told him that she was 18 (he was 61), even though he picked her up at her high school. For some inexplicable reason, he racanted the entire story in graphic detail this morning on what used to be an all sports station.

[Admin Steve]

Art Sinclair was the sports guy on WCBM 680 for years. I think he actually won a sportscaster of the year award and he was the 'voice' of the Blast.

[RavinDonnie]

Tom was caught on the other end of the Art Sinclair deal and ended up with Brian Bi.... ahh nevermind...

What? He got with a guy?

[RavenTD]

It had to be better than the 20 minute 'Life history of Nestor' they've been airing 4 times a day. I swear I left the office, went to the bank, the Wawa and the Citgo and it was still going on when I got back to the office. :)

I was unlucky to turn on the WNST internet feed as that was just kicking off.
Any tips how to get slime/grease out of PC external speakers?:ralph:

[ravenmaniac]

I heard that garbage on the way in to work. At first I didn't realize what was going on & thought that my fiance had screwed with my presets. :laugh: It was thoroughly disgusting and had no business being on the air. Nestor seemed to be giving Art somewhat of a pass, tossing him softball questions & saying uh, we've all been in internet chat rooms, blah blah blah. Yeah, but we all haven't molested a child!! Nestor is the king of self-indulgence and this O's "rally" thing has turned him into a cartoon. Can't take him seriously any more.



Tom was arrested for whining in public. :D

Yet, you tuned in and listened to the whole thing.

[larrylater]

Yet, you tuned in and listened to the whole thing.
Yep, I did, thanks for asking. I was waiting for Nestor & Art to button their pieholes so that Drew could get to the Ravens report. Carry on. :)

[ravenmaniac]

Yep, I did, thanks for asking. I was waiting for Nestor & Art to button their pieholes so that Drew could get to the Ravens report. Carry on. :)


Reminds me of Stern's fans. 2/3rds of them "can't stand him" so they tune in everyday. The old morning team of the Swami and a cpl of other horrible hosts used to make me crazy so I checked in everyday.

[df1570]

Hi guys (and gals) -- that "other site" devoted to Ravens coverage taught me the valuable lesson of NOT posting, so in my new role as "reader only", I'm much less involved. Nonetheless, I like what Tony has done with 24x7 and this site so I'm an occasional reader here.

Having read everyone's thoughts and opinions on the Art Sinclair "issue", I think it's important to point out something that is in direct contrast to something that LarryLater posted. I don't do this to defend Art. What he did was wrong. He knows it was wrong. He was punished. He's paying his debt as the court deemed appropriate. But Art isn't here to defend himself against the lies, so I will.

In one asinine sentence, LarryLater proved why message boards such as these can be VERY dangerous open forums. Hopefully Tony and his staff will take note of dumb behavior like this and figure out some way to more carefully review some of the nonsense (also called "lies") that people post.

In Larry's rant, he threw a line in there about "molesting a child", connecting Art Sinclair with such an act.

If you listened today. Really, truly listened, you would have heard the whole story. Art did NOT molest a child. Nothing of the sort happened. Art made contact with a young lady that he believed to be 18 (that's what she told him). Yes, she was 16. But - you sittin' down for this, all you parents of 16 year olds? - in our great state of Maryland, 16 is the LEGAL age for sexual consent. Great state we live in, eh?

The young lady was NOT a minor (by law) and she was NOT a child.

Art's home computer was confiscated and the obvious search was made to connect him in some way with "child pornography". No such content was found on his computer and no charges relating to "child pornography" were ever filed.

Art plead guilty to, essentially, having sex with someone in public. That's it.
I'm not downplaying it. But the truth is, that was the ONLY charge that ever made it to court. The four charges initially against him were, surprise, surprise, dropped when the District Attorney didn't have enough evidence to proceed with the case.

He is not a registered sex offender in the state of Maryland. He is not a child molester. He is, though, a guy who had a sexual encounter with a 16-year old female while he was married and that is absolutely W-R-O-N-G. He knows it, you know it, we all know it. He plead guilty to having sex in a public place (unnatural act, the state calls it). Guess what? If you and your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend etc. go out to dinner tonight and have a drink or two too many and decide you can't wait until you get home to "do your thing", if you decide to hop in the back seat of your car in the parking lot of the restaurant, you are committing a crime in this state, even if you're married and even if it's consensual.

I've probably violated that law about 15 times in my life...just never with a 16-year old girl I met on-line. Any of you ever violate that law in your life? Show of hands, please. Thought so.

So before you read LarryLater's drivel and assume he's speaking the gospel, please understand he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Child molester? Nope. Guy who exercised extremely poor judgement and got caught and RIGHTFULLY paid the price for that transgression? Yes.

OK, flame away. I'll put my reading glasses back on and return to my previous position as "reader only".

[Greg]

I won't flame away.

And I don't think he is a child molester.

But he picked up a girl from her HS, 16, 18, legal, whatever. That screams "SHE HAS NO BUSINESS GETTING SEXUALLY INVOLVED WITH MEN MORE THAN THREE TIMES HER AGE!" Even if she were 18.

And didn't he pay her for the act? If so, I think there is another charge you are missing, and that is one I have not committed. And the only time I fooled around with teenaged girls was when I was a teenager.

Okay, he is not a child molester. He's still a dirty old man.

And are we to assume this was the first time he engaged in this kind of thing?

P.S. If Nestor hires him that wil be the last time I turn WNST on.

[df1570]

Greg - according to Art's story and the charges that were dropped, he gave her $20 AFTER the act occurred and did not "promise" her any money prior to the meeting. Evidently, that's why the charges (on that count) were not pursued. Had they agreed on money/compensation BEFORE the act occurred he would have been charged - along with her.

Again, I'm not in any way, shape or form condoning what he did. He got what he got from the court in Howard County and it's up to THEM to decide if the crime met the punishment.

A 61-year old and a 16 (or 18) year old is wrong. We all know that. He knows that.

But there's a big difference between "wrong" and "illegal". Art was "wrong" on probably a dozen counts in that incident. He was "illegal" on just one count.

[Losac]

Okay, he is not a child molester. He's still a dirty old man.

:iagree:

[larrylater]

Hey Drew, I'm a standup guy, when you're right, you're right. According to the law, Art did not molest a child and I retract the inference. I was disgusted by the whole thing and made a sarcastic statement.

You know what would have been cool though? You using that same anger and words like "asinine" and "dangerous" towards Art this morning, instead of practically coddling him. I realize that you guys have a long relationship but wow! A 61 year old man in the public eye going after a 16 year old girl?!? It's kind of infuriating, maybe you'd feel the same if she was your daughter. Anyways, my wording was 100% wrong and I apologize to Art. All I'm asking for is the same 'coddling' deal. Thanks man. :thumbup:

[df1570]

Larry, you're right, you evidently are a stand-up guy. Thanks.

I didn't have to beat up Art today. He did that to himself, I thought.

He called himself "dangerous" and "irresponsible" and "reckless" and "sick".

Had I thought at any time he was seeking to downplay what happened, I might have very well stepped in. But that didn't happen. If you thought I coddled him, so be it. I just thought it was more appropriate for Art to chastise himself since he seemed relegated to doing so.

If you recall, the day the story broke and I was talking about it on the air, I was quite vocal in my displeasure for Art, friend of mine since 1981 or not.

But today, like YOU just did, Art was a stand-up guy and took the blame for what he did and was extremely open about how it happened, why it happened and what steps he's taking to ensure it won't happen again.

[larrylater]

Drew, fair enough, thanks. I was a huge Blast fan in the mid 80's and met Art & Charlie quite a few times at the games. They treated us great even though we were, uh, sort of rowdy teenagers at the time. :laugh: The whole thing just shocked me I guess & it was the last thing I expected to hear this morning.

Anyways, let's move on & wish all concerned the best. :thumbup:

[purplepoe]

More evidence of the horrendous sports radio in this town.

And then the co-host of the show comes on and repeatedly says how his buddy "thought" she was 18 even though he went to her school and picked her up?

Oh, and way to explain away the 20 bucks. He didn't promise it to her before? Good for him. What a guy. He just gave it to her out of the kindness of his heart.

How pathetic.

Drew, we've disagreed on the other board before about sports stuff and but at least we kept it to sports.

You were best served to remain just a reader and not gotten involved in this thread.

Or at least just typed one line about him not technically being a child molestor. That's a real feather in his cap.

Unreal.

PP

[df1570]

Purple, you are no doubt always going to win these "debates" because, as most people will attest who have seen your work, you're never wrong.

The $20 bucks thing was brought up to merely point out why he wasn't charged with a crime. It doesn't change the overall nature of what Art did and it certainly doesn't make him any less reckless. No one said that. What the issue DOES relate to is "CRIMINAL ACTIVITY"...breaking the law, etc. And because he didn't promise her any money BEFORE they met or during any of their on-line conversations, he was not found to have committed a crime.

Giving her $20 after the fact because he felt guilty or felt it somehow made it more "acceptable" (in his distorted mind -- his words today, not mine) is WRONG, but it's not a criminal act in our great state and in the court of Howard County.

I'm far more "best served" to talk about and write about this than you, PP.

You have an agenda, as usual. And when someone's ideas or comments don't mesh with yours, you attack. It's what you do best, actually.

In reality, YOU are probably best served to sit this one out, not me.

Art doesn't have any feathers in his cap. He nearly ruined his life. He spent time in jail. He doesn't have a job. He probably won't get one anytime soon. And he did that to himself and very few people feel sorry for him. Not many feathers in that cap he's wearing.

But, just like The Sun saw fit to give 28 column inches to Keith Mills last week to "tell his story", WNST saw fit to give Art Sinclair time today to "tell his story". There's no difference, really. Except The Sun costs you 50 cents.

And, if somewhere out there today, someone listening heard Art's story and it sounded painfully like something they're going through in their life right now, then some good WAS done out of Art being there today if that person decides to change their lifestyle before another 16-year old girl gets hurt.

Once the football writings start again, PP, feel free to contribute.

[Losac]

And then the co-host of the show comes on and repeatedly says how his buddy "thought" she was 18 even though he went to her school and picked her up?
Lots of 18 year olds are still in high school. Most are 18 when they graduate. It's not unreasonable to think a girl you meet who says she is 18 is still a senior in HS.

[B-more Ravor]

The young lady was NOT a minor (by law) and she was NOT a child.

Sorry, but you are confusing what a "minor" is and what the "age of consent" is. The girl (not young lady) was a minor - she is under 18, the age of majority in Maryland. She is also a "child" - by any definition.

She is however, over the "age of consent" under the laws in this State.

[df1570]

Fairly noted, B-More.

I think our great state needs to revisit all the laws pertaining to "age of consent", IMHO. I'm not sure how on earth that one got passed, but a 16-year old should NOT be allowed to consent to having sex.

Maybe our next new Governor will take that one on.

[BaltimoreRon]

Hi guys (and gals) -- that "other site" devoted to Ravens coverage taught me the valuable lesson of NOT posting, so in my new role as "reader only", I'm much less involved. Nonetheless, I like what Tony has done with 24x7 and this site so I'm an occasional reader here.

Having read everyone's thoughts and opinions on the Art Sinclair "issue", I think it's important to point out something that is in direct contrast to something that LarryLater posted. I don't do this to defend Art. What he did was wrong. He knows it was wrong. He was punished. He's paying his debt as the court deemed appropriate. But Art isn't here to defend himself against the lies, so I will.

In one asinine sentence, LarryLater proved why message boards such as these can be VERY dangerous open forums. Hopefully Tony and his staff will take note of dumb behavior like this and figure out some way to more carefully review some of the nonsense (also called "lies") that people post.

In Larry's rant, he threw a line in there about "molesting a child", connecting Art Sinclair with such an act.

If you listened today. Really, truly listened, you would have heard the whole story. Art did NOT molest a child. Nothing of the sort happened. Art made contact with a young lady that he believed to be 18 (that's what she told him). Yes, she was 16. But - you sittin' down for this, all you parents of 16 year olds? - in our great state of Maryland, 16 is the LEGAL age for sexual consent. Great state we live in, eh?

The young lady was NOT a minor (by law) and she was NOT a child.

Art's home computer was confiscated and the obvious search was made to connect him in some way with "child pornography". No such content was found on his computer and no charges relating to "child pornography" were ever filed.

Art plead guilty to, essentially, having sex with someone in public. That's it.
I'm not downplaying it. But the truth is, that was the ONLY charge that ever made it to court. The four charges initially against him were, surprise, surprise, dropped when the District Attorney didn't have enough evidence to proceed with the case.

He is not a registered sex offender in the state of Maryland. He is not a child molester. He is, though, a guy who had a sexual encounter with a 16-year old female while he was married and that is absolutely W-R-O-N-G. He knows it, you know it, we all know it. He plead guilty to having sex in a public place (unnatural act, the state calls it). Guess what? If you and your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend etc. go out to dinner tonight and have a drink or two too many and decide you can't wait until you get home to "do your thing", if you decide to hop in the back seat of your car in the parking lot of the restaurant, you are committing a crime in this state, even if you're married and even if it's consensual.

I've probably violated that law about 15 times in my life...just never with a 16-year old girl I met on-line. Any of you ever violate that law in your life? Show of hands, please. Thought so.

So before you read LarryLater's drivel and assume he's speaking the gospel, please understand he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Child molester? Nope. Guy who exercised extremely poor judgement and got caught and RIGHTFULLY paid the price for that transgression? Yes.

OK, flame away. I'll put my reading glasses back on and return to my previous position as "reader only".

Drew,

I only caught a few minutes of the show today. Thanks for filling in the blanks.

Your post should be the end of the story, but I have a feeling it won't be.

I would hope that Art would be given every chance to redeem himself, much as Keith Mills has done/is doing.

When can we expect the Schmuck article. ;)

[df1570]

Art IS trying to redeem himself.

He tried to do that today in some small way by advising anyone listening who might be involved in similar behavior to IMMEDIATELY seek counseling or contact him for information on how to reach a counselor who deals with sexual addiction.

I hadn't seen or spoken to Art since "the incident" so today was my first time even talking with him directly about what happened. I didn't realize until today how sick he really was back then.

I hope he turns his life around and does some good with it.

[purplepoe]

1 I'm far more "best served" to talk about and write about this than you, PP.

2 You have an agenda, as usual. And when someone's ideas or comments don't mesh with yours, you attack. It's what you do best, actually.

3 In reality, YOU are probably best served to sit this one out, not me.

4 But, just like The Sun saw fit to give 28 column inches to Keith Mills last week to "tell his story", WNST saw fit to give Art Sinclair time today to "tell his story". There's no difference, really. Except The Sun costs you 50 cents.

5 Once the football writings start again, PP, feel free to contribute.

1. Ahh, I got it Drew. He's your buddy so you're gonna defend him. What if that was your younger sister Drew? Would you go to such lengths to find the silver linings in this shameful act?

2. I don't have an agenda. I think the sports radio in this town is 2nd rate. I give examples to back my thoughts up. This is just another one. YOU inserted your thoughts on this matter and Im responding to them. Are you really that naive to think that nobody would take issue with you having him on the air? If you're gonna go to bat for your friend, you better be ready to take on some heat. I don't attack people Drew. I call them out when I think it's warranted. I've met many on this and the other board in person that I've disagreed with. We realize it's football. I wonder why it is I got a bunch of invites from the other board to come over here? Seems a bit odd considering the main point of this board was to get away from the mindles bickering and personal attacks that go on at YBR.

3. I think I'll sit in on this one, thanks.

4. And I think Mills is a chump for what he did and he's getting all sorts of perks the everyday Joe wouldn't get. I also realize Mills was taking pills, not getting oral sex from a 16 year old in a parking lot. Call me crazy but the latter sickens me a bit more.

5. Thanks for letting me know where and when I can contribute Drew.




Maybe our next new Governor will take that one on.

Yea, because he's done such a bang up job on crime in the city.


PP

[df1570]

Insult removed by Admin.

I'm NOT defending Art for what he did. Read this. Put your glasses on and READ THIS:

What Art Sinclair did was WRONG. See that? W-R-O-N-G. If that were my sister, I'd be pissed off to no end.

But, in our state, by the rules that some jack-asses made, the ONLY criminal misconduct was having sex in a public place.

Silver linings? You ARE a lunatic. I didn't - and can't - find any silver lining in this except for THIS one thing. If someone today who heard the show changes their dangerous/reckless lifestyle because they heard Art Sinclair talk about how he wrecked his life, then something good came out of that show today.

There's a difference between WRONG and BREAKING THE LAW (in our state).

That's all I'm saying.

I have no problem if you or anyone "takes issue" with my stance on this matter because my stance is this: "ART SINCLAIR WAS WRONG".

And my stance is also this: "Our state legislators who passed the law stating that 16-year olds can consent to having sex were pieces-of-shit."

Take issue with those two stances all you want.

If you think Keith Mills is/was a chump because he had an addiction to pain killers, that's YOUR stance.

[Admin Steve]

I think it's time to move this.

[purplepoe]

Lots of 18 year olds are still in high school. Most are 18 when they graduate. It's not unreasonable to think a girl you meet who says she is 18 is still a senior in HS.

True.

Alot are 18 when they graduate.

PP

[PurpleRulz]

I have to admit that I lost a lot of respect for WNST for having a guy that was caught with an underaged girl via the internet. Knowing the dangers/victims of child sex predators via the internet, to have a guy come on the station to attempt to sugarcoat and even justify his actions is repulsive.

Think that it could have been your daughter being lured by this guy. Sickening.

To add, Art categorizes his actions as stemming from addictive behavior and loneliness. He also says that he is not attracted to underaged girls, yet he arranges to meet one. Sounds as if he has not learned anything from his counseling, and could very well repeat this offense. You don't seek the attention of an underaged person if you are not a child sex offender. Just because he wasn't convicted, does not mean he is not a child sex offender.

[B-more Ravor]

Maybe our next new Governor will take that one on.

Well, Drew, since it's the General Assemby that passes such Laws, I don't think it has anything to do with who the Governor is.

[PurpleRulz]

To add, I find it a little disturbing that some of you guys are attempting to justify Art's actions. Whether this girl was 16 or 18, what Art did was wrong. Again I ask, what if it were your daughter or your niece? I don't think you would be as trivial.

[Greg]

Lots of 18 year olds are still in high school. Most are 18 when they graduate. It's not unreasonable to think a girl you meet who says she is 18 is still a senior in HS.
When I noted he picked her up from school, I realized she could have been 18 and still in school. My point was, HE IS A 61 YEAR OLD MAN PICKING UP A DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEX FROM SCHOOL! Where I come from, we call that a red flag.

The age of consent doesn't need to be moved. If a 16 year old and 18 year old are dating and have sex (I don't recommend it but ...) I do not think that 18 year old has committed a crime. Nor is that 18 year old's behavior odd or sick or twisted. But if the 18 year old is 61?

[MediaGuy]

It is bad enough that 1. we know Nestor had a vasectomy 2. that he interviewed the doctor on air and became a sponsor...........tmi.....

Now this with Art Sinclair.............truly scraping the bottom of the barrel...for an all sports station...............

[RavensDomination]

Well, Drew, since it's the General Assemby that passes such Laws, I don't think it has anything to do with who the Governor is.

So I guess the Gov. has no influence on laws in the state? Come on now...

About Art, I didn't realize the girl was 16. Then yes he broke no other law than sex in public. He shouldn't have been doing that but its not like he molested somebody.

[RavensDomination]

When I noted he picked her up from school, I realized she could have been 18 and still in school. My point was, HE IS A 61 YEAR OLD MAN PICKING UP A DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEX FROM SCHOOL! Where I come from, we call that a red flag.

The age of consent doesn't need to be moved. If a 16 year old and 18 year old are dating and have sex (I don't recommend it but ...) I do not think that 18 year old has committed a crime. Nor is that 18 year old's behavior odd or sick or twisted. But if the 18 year old is 61?

Well in the state of Maryland 16 is the age of consent, and that is that. Now, under 16 they take your approach. If the ages are within 5 years, its OK. If the ages are further apart you can get the older person for a sex crime and have them arrested/tried/convicted and registered as a sex offender.

[B-more Ravor]

So I guess the Gov. has no influence on laws in the state? Come on now...


Umm, look, I was only commenting on Drew's gratitious swipe at our current Governor - Drew said "Maybe our next new Governor will take that one on". I was just pointing out that he didn't pass the friggin' Law. That's not his role. On the other hand, the GENERAL ASSEMBLY did. That is their role. Understand?

If the GENERAL ASSEMBLY didn't liked what the Gov. - any Gov. - was influencing, they wouldn't pass the Law. If you've been paying any attention to anything at all recently, that would be pretty evident to you.

And, BTW, the age of consent law has been on the books since BEFORE Ehrlich took office, so Drew's original statement had absolutely NO merit whatsoever. My prior post was made when this thread was still on the main board, so I wasn't going to bring politics into it - although that is what Drew did - so I just made it a generic statement about Governors not being the ones passing the Laws.

[df1570]

Did Erlich vote for the Medi-Care increase a few years back?

Was he in support of the increase from $94 a year to $790?

I forget.

Or was that the General Assembly that did that?

[B-more Ravor]

Did Erlich vote for the Medi-Care increase a few years back?

Was he in support of the increase from $94 a year to $790?

I forget.

Or was that the General Assembly that did that?

Drew, nice dodge, I guess you missed this part of my post:

And, BTW, the age of consent law has been on the books since BEFORE Ehrlich took office, so Drew's original statement had absolutely NO merit whatsoever. My prior post was made when this thread was still on the main board, so I wasn't going to bring politics into it - although that is what Drew did - so I just made it a generic statement about Governors not being the ones passing the Laws.

:eyes:

[brewer69]

Maybe the 16 year old girls father could give Art ( the Saint) his $20 backfor 1 hour with him in an alley:thumbdown: Nester is a piece of crap , you can justiy this any way you want its still child molesting( he paid her after the act , what a guy). Cut his nuts off and give them to Nester and Drew since they seem to enjoy them.

[ravenmaniac]

Greg - according to Art's story and the charges that were dropped, he gave her $20 AFTER the act occurred and did not "promise" her any money prior to the meeting. Evidently, that's why the charges (on that count) were not pursued. Had they agreed on money/compensation BEFORE the act occurred he would have been charged - along with her.

Again, I'm not in any way, shape or form condoning what he did. He got what he got from the court in Howard County and it's up to THEM to decide if the crime met the punishment.

A 61-year old and a 16 (or 18) year old is wrong. We all know that. He knows that.

But there's a big difference between "wrong" and "illegal". Art was "wrong" on probably a dozen counts in that incident. He was "illegal" on just one count.

What the state can PROVE versus what they believe he did can be two separate things as well. Why did he think she was 18? Was that his word against hers? If I were he, I would have asked for ID before I pulled my dick out. Then again, I wouldn't have been in a car at 61, or even 41 with a 16/18 yr old girl. So they got him on what they could prove but obviously there was a LOT more going on then a 61 yr old messing with an 18 yr old. What was the name of the chat room? Why was he talking to teenagers? Why did he give her $20? The girl is obviously having some issues if she is with an old man.

[Losac]

To add, I find it a little disturbing that some of you guys are attempting to justify Art's actions. Whether this girl was 16 or 18, what Art did was wrong. Again I ask, what if it were your daughter or your niece? I don't think you would be as trivial.
How the hell is it wrong if the girl is 18? She would then be an adult. And the fact is, PurpleRulz, you keep saying the girl was underage. She was not underage according to the laws of Maryland. I would have a hard time stopping my 18 year old daughter or niece from having sex with anyone. Ever go to a college campus lately? The freshman will spread their legs for just aboout anyone.

At 61 you wouldn't want to have sex with an 18 year old? Plllleeeeeeaaaseeeeeee. :rolling:

[ravenmaniac]

How the hell is it wrong if the girl is 18? She would then be an adult. And the fact is, PurpleRulz, you keep saying the girl was underage. She was not underage according to the laws of Maryland. I would have a hard time stopping my 18 year old daughter or niece from having sex with anyone. Ever go to a college campus lately? The freshman will spread their legs for just aboout anyone.

At 61 you wouldn't want to have sex with an 18 year old? Plllleeeeeeaaaseeeeeee. :rolling:


The girl was 16. The debate is whether he knew it or not. Did he do anything to make sure she was 18? She is a minor. She was above the age of consent. If I found that a 61 yr old perv manipluated my 16 yr old daughter into meeting him and giving him oral and he then proceeded to give her $20. The courts would be the last thing he had to worry about. The same goes if she were 18.

[Greg]

At 61 I might want to have sex with an 18 year old, or maybe even a 16 year old, if she was attractive. But I have this ability to restrain my urges and make positive choices. I try and not act on the first urge that hits my crotch and disregard the consequences for me, the young lady, my family and who knows how many other people. It's called being a man.

I have a feeling the same people that think this is okay probably had took little issue with the President doing something similar in the Oval Office. You can say the blowjob is no big deal in either case, and maybe so. What is a big deal is the complete disregard for the consequences of the action and the fact that these supposedly mature men decided to get their rocks off and chance those consequences. Basically, they said "Fuck whoever this hurts, I want a blowjob!"

People who exhibit this kind of judgement should be derided.

I will say this, at least Sinclair, in this interview, showed remorse.

[RavensInBrazil]

She is also a "child" - by any definition

Er...the dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/child)'s definition says otherwise:

child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.


I'm not sure how on earth that one got passed, but a 16-year old should NOT be allowed to consent to having sex.

Because...they're stupid? They're humans, aren't they? Why is a person magically able to consent the minute after they turn 18? Does some sort of hidden brain function turn on? Come on, it's one thing to argue that a preteen can't consent to sex, but a 16-year-old? It's not like it's the family fortune on the line or anything

What Sinclair did was obviously tactless, but it involved two human beings making decisions that affect themselves only. Of course, except for the doing what they did in public part. I wouldn't say Sinclair was right in doing what he did, but he hardly committed an awful crime

[Greg]

What Sinclair did was obviously tactless, but it involved two human beings making decisions that affect themselves only.
So Sinclair's wife and any kids he might have weren't affected? This girl's parents aren't affected? This girl obviously has some kind of psychological issues or she wouldn't be blowing some old guy (and it isn't like he is a good looking 61). She is 16, even at 18 she is immature. She is an immature young lady with obvious problems and this guy took advantage of that to get a blow job.

[RavenMad2099]

Be careful not to twist Brazil's words. He's not saying it's OK for 60 year-old men to have sex with 15 and 16 year-old girls. He's not defending pedophilia, either.

After all, we have a new tone around here, and I wouldn't want anyone to make the same mistakes others frequently made when reading his views on this particular subject at the old place.

Just to be perfectly clear: it's only OK for 60 year-old men to boink adolescent girls when they can talk them into it.

[ravenmaniac]

Er...the dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/child)'s definition says otherwise:

child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.



Because...they're stupid? They're humans, aren't they? Why is a person magically able to consent the minute after they turn 18? Does some sort of hidden brain function turn on? Come on, it's one thing to argue that a preteen can't consent to sex, but a 16-year-old? It's not like it's the family fortune on the line or anything

What Sinclair did was obviously tactless, but it involved two human beings making decisions that affect themselves only. Of course, except for the doing what they did in public part. I wouldn't say Sinclair was right in doing what he did, but he hardly committed an awful crime

When you get older you'll realize that you really didn't know everything when you were a teenager. In the state of FLA, he'd be serving ten yrs right now for this.

Recent studies indicate that at least half of all babies born to minor women are fathered by adult men.1 In addition, there is a widespread perception that these young mothers account for the large increase in welfare caseloads over the last 25 years. As a result, a growing number of policymakers are embracing the notion that adolescent pregnancy rates can be lowered and welfare costs reduced if states more rigorously enforce statutory rape laws prohibiting sex ual intercourse between adults and minors.

In the last year, several states have taken steps to punish men who violate these laws. Meanwhile, the new federal welfare law urges that "states and local jurisdictions...aggressively enforce statutory rape laws" and requires state welfare plans to outline an education and training program for law enforcement officials, counselors and educators that focuses on "the problem of statutory rape." It also directs the attorney general to implement a program to study the connection between statutory rape and adolescent pregnancy, with particular attention to "predatory older men."

[RavensInBrazil]

So Sinclair's wife and any kids he might have weren't affected? This girl's parents aren't affected? This girl obviously has some kind of psychological issues or she wouldn't be blowing some old guy (and it isn't like he is a good looking 61). She is 16, even at 18 she is immature. She is an immature young lady with obvious problems and this guy took advantage of that to get a blow job.

Hmm, I did miss out on the family part. The idea remains the same though, what he did was pretty stupid, but not criminal

About the girl though, great job judging her. Do you know her? Are you her shrink? You can have any opinion you want regarding her mental health, but don't just go assuming she's mad just because she gave a blowjob. Is it possible that she has problems? Of course. However, none of us know exactly what happened, under what circumstances. We all think the guy's a swine, but it's a longer shot to call him manipulative. For all we know, the girl manipulated him


Just to be perfectly clear: it's only OK for 60 year-old men to boink adolescent girls when they can talk them into it.

...


When you get older you'll realize that you really didn't know everything when you were a teenager

As opposed to knowing everything when I turn 40 or 60? No one knows everything, but everyone has a point of view, and it would be nice of y'all not to dismiss someone's opinion just because they're younger. If Einstein had come up with his relativity theory when he was 13, it wouldn't have been any less valid (and no, I'm by no means comparing myself to Einstein or any genious)


a growing number of policymakers are embracing the notion that adolescent pregnancy rates can be lowered and welfare costs reduced if states more rigorously enforce statutory rape laws prohibiting sex ual intercourse between adults and minors.

That would be attacking the consequences, not the cause. Making it illegal for teenagers to have sex isn't going to magically remove their natural urges, not is it going to make men start finding older women more attractive than young ones. This is a cultural and educational problem, not a judicial or political one. I'm sure there's a number of parents here who can attest to the fact that prohibiting their child to do something isn't gonna make them stop wanting to do it, or maybe even stop them from doing it at all


It also directs the attorney general to implement a program to study the connection between statutory rape and adolescent pregnancy, with particular attention to "predatory older men."

And where are the studies about the connection between sex ed and teenage pregnancy, with particular attention to abstinence programs? When looking at causes for a problem, all the possibilites should be examined, not just the ones we like or don't like. By focusing this issue on the "predatory old men", they're taking their eyes away from the other aspects of the problem

[ravenmaniac]

I'm sure there's a number of parents here who can attest to the fact that prohibiting their child to do something isn't gonna make them stop wanting to do it, or maybe even stop them from doing it at all

They aren't prohibiting the kids, they are enforcing laws against the ADULTS who are fucking the kids. Obviously, you want to make the argument that its okay for young people to fuck adults because you'd like to get laid. If you can't figure out that a girl at 16 SHOULDN'T be interested in a dirty old man, then there is no arguing with you. If you want to make the argument about a 16 yr old blowing a 22 yr old, then there'd be more of an argument.

[RavensDomination]

Umm, look, I was only commenting on Drew's gratitious swipe at our current Governor - Drew said "Maybe our next new Governor will take that one on". I was just pointing out that he didn't pass the friggin' Law. That's not his role. On the other hand, the GENERAL ASSEMBLY did. That is their role. Understand?

If the GENERAL ASSEMBLY didn't liked what the Gov. - any Gov. - was influencing, they wouldn't pass the Law. If you've been paying any attention to anything at all recently, that would be pretty evident to you.

And, BTW, the age of consent law has been on the books since BEFORE Ehrlich took office, so Drew's original statement had absolutely NO merit whatsoever. My prior post was made when this thread was still on the main board, so I wasn't going to bring politics into it - although that is what Drew did - so I just made it a generic statement about Governors not being the ones passing the Laws.

Drew also made a generic statement about the law and the Gov. and you came back with your smart ass comment.

If you have been paying attention to anything at all recently you would realize the governor of a state is a highly influential person in determining what laws get passed or don't get passed.

[Greg]

About the girl though, great job judging her. Do you know her? Are you her shrink? You can have any opinion you want regarding her mental health, but don't just go assuming she's mad just because she gave a blowjob. Is it possible that she has problems? Of course. However, none of us know exactly what happened, under what circumstances. We all think the guy's a swine, but it's a longer shot to call him manipulative. For all we know, the girl manipulated him
I would bet that any 16 or 18 year old girl giving an old guy a blow job, one she has just met, has some serious issues to resolve. Please, how many girls this age that are normal psychologically are going to be blowing some old guy, for any reason?


If you have been paying attention to anything at all recently you would realize the governor of a state is a highly influential person in determining what laws get passed or don't get passed.
WHAT? If you have been paying attention to anything at all you would see the governor can't get anything he wants, LIKE SLOTS, passed and he can't stop the legislature from what they want even if he hates it (WalMart bill, early voting in only some locations, one other). Thankfully they were all struck down because they weren't Constitutional. The current governor can't get anything through those partisan asswipes now running our legislature, even if it is something like slots most of them have supported in the past.

[RavensInBrazil]

How are a 60-year-old man and a 22-year-old man different? I mean, perhaps the older one has some plumbing issues, but other than that it's pretty much the same. A young man can have any of the qualities and any of the vices of any old man

People in the world SHOULD love to eat cabbage and broccoli, but, wait a second, it's a taste! No one can control what they like themselves, let alone what others like

Odds are that a relationship between an old man and a young woman wouldn't be really healthy (unless the young woman is manipulating the old man, in that case it's perfectly acceptable, right?), but that doesn't give anyone the right to judge any relationship based solely on age. Either way, this is hardly a relationship we're talking about, it's a one-night stand, not even. Did anyone bother to ask the girl whether SHE wanted to give the old man a blowjob? Oh, no, she's not 18 yet, she's too stupid to make her own decisions, right?


Obviously, you want to make the argument that its okay for young people to fuck adults because you'd like to get laid

Obviously, you want to make the argument that it's NOT okay for teenagers to screw with adults because you're in denial about finding Lindsay Lohan attractive

Oh, wait, neither of us are shrinks!


I would bet that any 16 or 18 year old girl giving an old guy a blow job, one she has just met, has some serious issues to resolve. Please, how many girls this age that are normal psychologically are going to be blowing some old guy, for any reason?

How many have you asked? How many answered honestly? Were you a 16-year-old girl once? Do you know what reason she had for blowing him?

Perhaps she has some issues to solve, indeed. Maybe she needs to get over finding older men hot, or maybe she needed to find another way to make a quick 20 bucks. Hard issues to deal with!

[B-more Ravor]

Drew also made a generic statement about the law and the Gov. and you came back with your smart ass comment.

If you have been paying attention to anything at all recently you would realize the governor of a state is a highly influential person in determining what laws get passed or don't get passed.

Oh please give it a rest - how is pointing out that the legislative branch is responsible for enacting laws being a smart ass? I was simply pointing out that the age of consent law has nothing to do with who the present Gov is.

Drew's comments were not generic - his target was clear - and he was also off base (since the age of consent law has been on the books for years).

As far as whether the Gov has influence or not, sure he does, but it's not his job to PASS the laws - that is the role of the legislative branch under the seperation of powers doctrine. Of course, the Gov has more influence when he and legislature are of the same party. As Greg already said, if you really think that Ehrlich has much of any influence over the present legislature, then you really haven't been paying much attention.

[df1570]

I finally thought of something that Erlich DOES influence in our state. And he most certainly doesn't need the general assembly for this task.

Erlich is completely free to pick the moving company of his choice to move all of his stuff out of the state house in late December.

I just looked it up. It's true.

[LBoogy]

I finally thought of something that Erlich DOES influence in our state. And he most certainly doesn't need the general assembly for this task.

Erlich is completely free to pick the moving company of his choice to move all of his stuff out of the state house in late December.

I just looked it up. It's true.

Out of ideas?

[B-more Ravor]

I finally thought of something that Erlich DOES influence in our state. And he most certainly doesn't need the general assembly for this task.

Erlich is completely free to pick the moving company of his choice to move all of his stuff out of the state house in late December.

I just looked it up. It's true.

Good one, Drew. :thumbup:

Too bad you couldn't come up with anything better to support your silly assertion. :thumbdown:

Now, RD, do you still think Drew's original statement was "generic". :eek: ;)

[Greg]

Why in hell would anybody support O'Malley. The guy has been a horrible mayor. Ehrlich balanced a budget left a mess from the last yahoo the dead people of Baltimore voted in.


How are a 60-year-old man and a 22-year-old man different? I mean, perhaps the older one has some plumbing issues, but other than that it's pretty much the same. A young man can have any of the qualities and any of the vices of any old man
Dude, there is a maturity that should come with age. The interests of people so disparete in age also can't be compatible. If this old guy is into the same music and culture the 16 year old is, something is wrong with one of them. That is just natural.

Generally people date to find mates to spend their life with, to raise a family with, there is a reason why this is not natural.

And finally, if they had known each other and over time developed an affection for one another that would be one thing, this was just some old coot getting a blowjob from a girl who is young enough to be his grand daughter. It isn't natural and a mature man shouldn't be involved in such things.

[RavensInBrazil]

Greg, why are you telling me something I pretty much already agreed to? Obviously, people with that big an age difference are highly unlikely to be able to have a good relationship...it's not impossible, but not probable

Like I said, this is pretty much a one-time thing. What's the big deal? Everyone likes or used to like one-night stands, it's just two people having fun. If both parties get something out of it, so what? If the girl is already willing to give the guy a blowjob, actually doing it won't make much of a difference in the end

This thing about "natural" though bugs me. It's fine if you disagree with certain behaviour, but when it's none of your business, so what? It wouldn't be "natural" if went on an elevator and stood with my back to the door, but that isn't really cause for commotion, is it? What is "natural" anyway? What's found in nature (thus excluding pretty much everything we do)? Aren't WE a part of nature? Or perhaps it's just not what's commonly sociably acceptable, but in that case, I'm sure there's a better word to be used

Look, we all agree that the guy probably didn't make the best decision in his life, nor the girl, but in the end it's none of our bee's wax. The only difference here is that this is related to a sexual conduct, but sex is just a part of our lives, as anything else. I thought the United States were founded on the principle of freedom, not of taboos

[ravenmaniac]

I thought the United States were founded on the principle of freedom, not of taboos

In half of our states, he'd be in jail for getting a bj from a 16 yr old. This isn't just about the law in the state of MD. Its about what is morally right. A married man manipulating someone who clearly isn't an adult into sucking his dick is morally reprehensible but of course you see nothing wrong with that because you want to be treated as an adult.

[RavensInBrazil]

Because I'm NOT an adult? Give me a break. Have you ever thought that I might believe certain things because I have actually thought about them? Or maybe just because I don't agree with you I'm acting like a child. You're telling me I want to be treated like an adult...in this case, yes, I do, I want to have a discussion based on opinions and arguments, not on accusations. But hey, perhaps you're never actually wrong, right?

And how the hell do you know how that girl's mind works? You're doing an incredible amount of mind-reading here, huh? What if SHE manipulated the old man because she was desperate for a quick 20? What if she *gasp* didn't have a problem with what she did after think about it? You say that it's morally reprehensible to manipulate a young person, well guess what, it's also morally reprehensible to judge people like that

[RavenMad2099]

What if SHE manipulated the old man because she was desperate for a quick 20?
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never needed to be "manipulated" into accepting a blowjob from an *adult* female.

You're saying he accepted oral sex from this high school student out of the goodness of his heart because she needed a quick $20? :grbac: That's prostitution, BTW...in which case he is guilty of committing a crime whether the girl was 16, 18, 21, or 35.


You say that it's morally reprehensible to manipulate a young person, well guess what, it's also morally reprehensible to judge people like that
She isn't even a legal adult. That's because legislators decided that people under the age of 18 don't have the life experience to make responsible choices...that's why their parents are still legally responsible for them...and that's also why it's not "morally reprehensible" to make these judgements.

You've said in the past that some 15 and 16 year-olds are mature for their age and perfectly capable of making the "mature" decision to blow a 60 year-old in a car. Leaving aside the sheerly ludicrious nature of your argument, who gets to make that determination? The teen herself? She will say she's mature enough every time. The courts? Isn't that kind of decision a little too subjective for a judge to make? The parents? What's to stop Dad from putting his little girl on the streets to earn a buck?

Like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere. A vast majority of Americans believe that adults having sex with adolescents is morally reprehensible...especially since an adolescent is not intellectually, emotionally, or economically equipped to successfully provide for themselves or anyone else in today's economy. That being the case (and since this is a democracy), legislators pass statuatory rape laws.

Frankly, you don't live here anyway...so I don't see why you give a damn. If people in Brazil think it's OK to use children for sexual gratification, it's your damn country and you have to live in it.

[ravenmaniac]

Frankly, you don't live here anyway...so I don't see why you give a damn. If people in Brazil think it's OK to use children for sexual gratification, it's your damn country and you have to live in it.

People in Brazil DO think its okay.

Further details.

It’s also noteworthy that the “age of consent” here applies not only to sexual intercourse (penis in the vagina), but also to all forms of “libidinous acts” (which includes oral and anal sex, manipulation and/or mouth contact with the breasts and the vagina, and the masturbation of the other). One can be prosecuted by the parents of a minor in case of doing any of these libidinous acts with the minor (and not only in case of sexual intercourse).

Dating and kissing are allowed at all ages and are not subject to law enforcement (sex is not presumed from dating).

To sum up everything :

- Age of consent in Brazil is NORMALLY 14

(WITH parents’ approval – or at least their tolerance);

- However if there’s PREGNANCY with SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE (or vice-versa), then :

A) Age of consent becomes 14 in any case (WITH or WITHOUT parents’ approval, because the partner can't be prosecuted anymore once the marriage is now valid);

OR

B) If below 14, age of consent becomes age of puberty/fertility (WITH parents’ approval).

In other words, while everyone consents (including the parents) and the girl is pregnant (or was pregnant, being now a mother), the age of consent in this very particular case (marriage with pregnancy) is reduced to the age of puberty (or if you prefer to the age of pregnancy or the age of fertility).

[RavensInBrazil]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never needed to be "manipulated" into accepting a blowjob from an *adult* female.

You're saying he accepted oral sex from this high school student out of the goodness of his heart because she needed a quick $20? That's prostitution, BTW...in which case he is guilty of committing a crime whether the girl was 16, 18, 21, or 35.

My point was that we don't know exactly what happened, so we might be reaching premature conclusions


She isn't even a legal adult. That's because legislators decided that people under the age of 18 don't have the life experience to make responsible choices...that's why their parents are still legally responsible for them...and that's also why it's not "morally reprehensible" to make these judgements.

How can they have life experience if we don't allow them to have it? American society, and perhaps Western society as a whole, denies young people the possibility of learning about sex and other things of life, and expects them to magically be able to learn them at age 18. It would be the same thing is adults constantly denied teenagers access to information about cars and expected them to be able to handle them perfectly well at 18


You've said in the past that some 15 and 16 year-olds are mature for their age and perfectly capable of making the "mature" decision to blow a 60 year-old in a car. Leaving aside the sheerly ludicrious nature of your argument, who gets to make that determination? The teen herself? She will say she's mature enough every time. The courts? Isn't that kind of decision a little too subjective for a judge to make? The parents? What's to stop Dad from putting his little girl on the streets to earn a buck?

How can you expect someone to be mature about a situation they've never experienced? So a 16-year-old isn't mature to handle sex (which is given a wrong value in society, IMO), but then when she becomes 18 she will?

Obviously you can't change age of consent laws overnight and expect everything to be fine, I don't. However, given the appropriate education, anyone should be able to make the correct decisions, regardless of their age. People are taught to count and make calculations by a math teacher, someone who has experience in that given area. Why doesn't the same happen with sex? If parents and educators actually bothered to teach children and teenagers about sex and tell them their experiences with sex, don't you think they would be better able to make decisions in that regard? This isn't an age issue, it's an issue of education. I for one would trust a 15-year-old whose parents tought them about sex and talked about their experiences over a 20-year-old whose parents denied access to any information regarding sex


Like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere. A vast majority of Americans believe that adults having sex with adolescents is morally reprehensible...especially since an adolescent is not intellectually, emotionally, or economically equipped to successfully provide for themselves or anyone else in today's economy. That being the case (and since this is a democracy), legislators pass statuatory rape laws.

And since when are adolescents expected to provide for themselves or others? Just because a couple is having sex they have to life together now?

No one will be equipped to do anything unless they are TAUGHT how to do it. I would have never known what a spoon is for unless my mother had taught me how and when to use it

I've read a lot of papers and have taken courses on Psychology of Education and similar subjects, but I guess I can't know as much as you because you're simply older than me, right?

This is NOT a question of age, it's a question of EDUCATION


People in Brazil DO think its okay.

Oh, so because our age of consent is lower than yours that means we think it's okay to use children for sexual gratification? In the US, people are allowed to drive from the age of 16, but I don't conclude from that that it's okay to turn your kids into your personal chauffeurs

Also, consider that teen pregnancy rates in the US were at 84 pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19 (after falling significantly from 1990), while in Holland, one of the most sexually liberal countries in the world, the teen pregnancy rates were at FOUR pregnancies per 1,000 females (15-19). How do you interpret that?


Frankly, you don't live here anyway...so I don't see why you give a damn. If people in Brazil think it's OK to use children for sexual gratification, it's your damn country and you have to live in it.

How is that relevant? Just because I don't live in Spain, I can't give my opinion about Real Madrid? Either way, you'll find that I'm most certainly not representative of the brazilian population

Why do I give a damn? Because I like to make people think about issues that aren't commonly given a lot of thought to. You don't believe people got where they are right now by unquestioningly accepting what was told to them, right? Whether I am right or not is mostly irrelevant, my goal is to make people think about things, to make them see the two sides of any given subject. This is how the human race has advanced, afterall. The conclusions anyone reaches is none of my business, but I like to hear the arguments they have in favour of one or another side, and I like to present arguments from the other side. Is having a discussion about something really that bad? For that matter, if you consider the fact that I'm not American relevant to the discussion, why are you talking to me?

Besides, it's really fun to play the devil's advocate (:

[RavenMad2099]

My point was that we don't know exactly what happened, so we might be reaching premature conclusions We know he was getting a blowjob from a high school student.
That is unacceptable, and no amount of ridiculous conjecture on your part to justify it will make it any less so.


How can they have life experience if we don't allow them to have it? American society, and perhaps Western society as a whole, denies young people the possibility of learning about sex and other things of life, and expects them to magically be able to learn them at age 18. It would be the same thing is adults constantly denied teenagers access to information about cars and expected them to be able to handle them perfectly well at 18 Give me a break...a 16 year-old is only a few years removed from playing with Barbie dolls, and you think the only reason she isn't ready for adult decisions is because people won't let her have any responsibility? You can't be serious. She may not magically transform at the age of 18, but at least she'll have a full education and more real life experience.


And since when are adolescents expected to provide for themselves or others? Just because a couple is having sex they have to life together now? No, but sex carries responsibility...among them is the possible result of getting pregnant. In your world, I suppose Mommy and Daddy should pay for the delivery and upbringing of the child resulting from the 60 year-old perv bonking their daughter without their permission.


I've read a lot of papers and have taken courses on Psychology of Education and similar subjects, but I guess I can't know as much as you because you're simply older than me, right? Wow...you've read a lot of papers and taken a few courses!!!
Excuse me while I genuflect in awe!!!

You're not the only one with a university education...and since you mention it, I do have more life experience than you...thanks for pointing it out.


Also, consider that teen pregnancy rates in the US were at 84 pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19 (after falling significantly from 1990), while in Holland, one of the most sexually liberal countries in the world, the teen pregnancy rates were at FOUR pregnancies per 1,000 females (15-19). How do you interpret that? Are you trying to make the case that allowing adults to practice pedophilia and commit statuatory rape reduces teen pregnancy? If not, I fail to see what any of that has to do with what you and I are talking about.


How is that relevant? Just because I don't live in Spain, I can't give my opinion about Real Madrid? Either way, you'll find that I'm most certainly not representative of the brazilian population
Well, you're criticizing American values...and you don't even live here.
Why are you so concerned about the right of an adult to fuck an adolescent without retribution from the law or anyone else?


my goal is to make people think about things, to make them see the two sides of any given subject. That's certainly arrogant.
Who annointed you to make us think? What makes you think you're qualified? Everyone in this thread has obviously thought about this before, otherwise they wouldn't have posted. Oh, I know...every person in the world thinks they're uniquely qualified to criticize American values, but based on what RM posted about Brazilian law, I'd say you're wrong.

[RavensInBrazil]

Give me a break...a 16 year-old is only a few years removed from playing with Barbie dolls, and you think the only reason she isn't ready for adult decisions is because people won't let her have any responsibility? You can't be serious. She may not magically transform at the age of 18, but at least she'll have a full education and more real life experience.

A full education? Are you kidding? Teaching her about math and geography will translate to more responsibility? And how in the world will she have more life experience in what relates to the things she is FORBIDDEN to do? In a perfect world of "American values", a recently-turned 18-year-old and an 8 year-old will have the exact same amount of sexual experience. Either I'm not getting my point across well or you're not understanding, so I guess continuing here is pointless

Perhaps you could read my post without automatic bias and dismissal of arguments? I'm here trying to say why I believe what I believe, but you just come and say I'm obviously wrong


No, but sex carries responsibility...among them is the possible result of getting pregnant. In your world, I suppose Mommy and Daddy should pay for the delivery and upbringing of the child resulting from the 60 year-old perv bonking their daughter without their permission.

Perhaps you've heard of a little something called contraception? And as far as I know pregnancy can only occur with vaginal penetration, which is not the only form of sex, as I'm certain our sportscaster can attest. Which would you rather have, a kid who's been told what sex is and what it involves and what they should do to be as safe as possible, or a kid who's completely ignorant about sex but undeniably horny?


You're not the only one with a university education...and since you mention it, I do have more life experience than you...thanks for pointing it out.

Given that I seem to be treated as a complete ignorant usually, I thought it might help. I was obviously naïve there. Having more life experience does not make you automatically right, btw


Are you trying to make the case that allowing adults to practice pedophilia and commit statuatory rape reduces teen pregnancy? If not, I fail to see what any of that has to do with what you and I are talking about.

Your reasoning there baffles me. What I was saying is that Holland is more sexually liberal, ergo, young people have more access to information and more freedom to do as they want, and that translates into far less teenage pregnancies than in America, and your line of thinking leads me to believe you think that teens having sex and pregnancy are correlated. Perhaps, for the sake of argument, you should stop assuming that anything I say will be in defence of pedophilia/rape/whatever


Well, you're criticizing American values...and you don't even live here.
Why are you so concerned about the right of an adult to fuck an adolescent without retribution from the law or anyone else?

I'm not criticizing American values, I'm arguing against some, because last I read, Americans are still human beings. I'm not about the right for x to fuck y without retribution from whoever, I'm for freedom and for information. This seems to be particularly hard, however, because anything that doesn't agree with American values is apparently automatically dismissed


That's certainly arrogant.
Who annointed you to make us think? What makes you think you're qualified? Everyone in this thread has obviously thought about this before, otherwise they wouldn't have posted. Oh, I know...every person in the world thinks they're uniquely qualified to criticize American values, but based on what RM posted about Brazilian law, I'd say you're wrong.

I honestly don't get the violent reaction towards me. Why the hell are you people so defensive? Can't you have a polite discussion without thinking the whole world is against you? Did I ever say my opinion about American values was better than yours? Did I say that American values suck and should be trashed tomorrow? I may not have the same American experience as you, but that does not automatically disqualify from discussing said values

I don't think I'm doing you a favour, I'm just trying to have a civilized conversation. That seems to be impossible, however, given that anything I say is taken a personal attack on Americans or American values

[RavenMad2099]

A full education? Are you kidding? Teaching her about math and geography will translate to more responsibility? And how in the world will she have more life experience in what relates to the things she is FORBIDDEN to do? Conveniently, you leave out the second part of my statement - more life experience. Perhaps you can explain to me how someone who is still in the process of going through puberty (passing from child to woman) has enough knowledge and experience to make responsible decisions for themselves? Don't give me any of your "some teens are mature" shit, either...anyone who knows anything about teenagers knows that doesn't apply to 90% of them. That's why their parents are still responsible for them by law.


Perhaps you could read my post without automatic bias and dismissal of arguments? I'm here trying to say why I believe what I believe, but you just come and say I'm obviously wrong State what you believe, by all means...don't expect everyone to agree with it. Automatic bias and dismissal? Please...don't pretend this is the first time we've had this argument just because the venue has changed.


Perhaps you've heard of a little something called contraception? Oh, yes...I've heard of it.
Maybe you should look up how many pregnancies are unplanned. We have an organization here in the US called Planned Parenthood...it's name is actually misleading. It primarily helps people with unplanned pregnancies.

Either way, anyone who puts themselves in a postition to get pregnant, planned or not, has a moral obligatigation to have the means to deal with a possible pregnancy. Teens don't, and most of them aren't even "mature" enough to consider that fact before spreading their legs or putting their dicks into someone.


Which would you rather have, a kid who's been told what sex is and what it involves and what they should do to be as safe as possible, or a kid who's completely ignorant about sex but undeniably horny? Don't try to make out that I'm some kind of Puritan, unwilling to tell kids about sex because it's some sort of sin. I'm against letting 60 year-olds have sex with kids, something you've been defending. Teaching kids about sex is a long way from letting your daughter give a blowjob to an old pervert who picks her up in front of the high school like a common street tramp.


Your reasoning there baffles me. What I was saying is that Holland is more sexually liberal, ergo, young people have more access to information and more freedom to do as they want, and that translates into far less teenage pregnancies than in America, and your line of thinking leads me to believe you think that teens having sex and pregnancy are correlated. We were talking about adults having sex with kids, and now you're trying to turn this into some kind of debate about sex education...which tells me you know your previous position was untenable. Believe it or not, teenagers in America have sex with each every day other with no legal charges involved. What we are talking about is a 60 year-old perv getting a blowjob from a high school kid.


Perhaps, for the sake of argument, you should stop assuming that anything I say will be in defence of pedophilia/rape/whatever Perhaps you should stop rationalizing pedophilia and statuatory rape if you don't like being accused of defending it.


I'm not criticizing American values, I'm arguing against some, because last I read, Americans are still human beings. I'm not about the right for x to fuck y without retribution from whoever, I'm for freedom and for information. This seems to be particularly hard, however, because anything that doesn't agree with American values is apparently automatically dismissed How would you like it if we started posting on a Brazilian message board about how backward your moral standards are? Nice touch about human beings...maybe that's why we defend our kids from sexual predators. Maybe Brazils should do the same.



I don't think I'm doing you a favour, I'm just trying to have a civilized conversation. That seems to be impossible, however, given that anything I say is taken a personal attack on Americans or American values Ah, you're very good at playing victim...after you just stated that you're here to make us *think* by playing Devil's Advocate. Forgive me if I don't take kindly to being condescended to by a Third World college kid.

[RavensDomination]

WHAT? If you have been paying attention to anything at all you would see the governor can't get anything he wants, LIKE SLOTS, passed and he can't stop the legislature from what they want even if he hates it (WalMart bill, early voting in only some locations, one other). Thankfully they were all struck down because they weren't Constitutional. The current governor can't get anything through those partisan asswipes now running our legislature, even if it is something like slots most of them have supported in the past.

I said influential. Think about it - he is influencing slots, just in the wrong way. Either way its still an influence. Yes the Governor is influential in passing laws and if he champions a certain cause it will surely have a greater impact that if you or I were to do the same thing.