Re: Matt Deatherage (was Very Sad, but...)

[schaf@meadow.muc.de (Soenke Behrens)]

Ah, finally, another flame fest ... ;-)

> In article <tolsenCo2I66.DqC@netcom.com> Terry R. Olsen,
> tolsen@netcom.com writes:
> >   Oh jeez!!!!!  Cmon people, the guy MOLESTED a kid!  You want to
> protect
> > his privacy??? I don't care WHO he is and how much he "gave" to the
> GS,
> > the fact of the matter is that he is a CHILD MOLESTER and should be
> treated
> > as such.  [...]
> I have known Matt for five years.  He's a good person.

That may be so. OTOH, he also seems to be an extremely silly person
at times ... if not to say downright stupid. See below.

> There is a difference between being guilty of having sex with a minor,
> and being a child molester.  Matt's position is that what happened was
> not against the minor's will at all; that it was all arranged; and
> that the minor knew a word to stop the activities at any time, and did

Well, duh. The problem with sex with kids is that the partner is
so much stronger (mentally as well as physically, usually), so
how do you tell if the kid was consenting or not?
So, to protect kids, you set a delimiter age. I think 16 is a good
choice. There might be the off-chance kid that can decide for him/herself
below that age, and the one that can't above, but on a whole, 16 seems
a reasonable choice.

So, _if_ the kid was consenting (and I'm not saying he was, I have NOT
known MattD for 5 years, and I know that existance of a safeword and
lying to ones superiors doesn't necessarily mean that the kid was
consenting ... that depends very much on the state of mind of the kid),
Matt's still a horse's ass for having sex with a minor. It's an extremely
stupid thing to do. If the kid was not consenting ... well, I'll spare
you the flames.

Soenke
--
Decompression sucksssss
## CrossPoint v3.0 ##