The Maverick Conservative

Nope.   This entry is NOT about whether the boyfriend of Jamie Lynn Spears (father of her child) will be, or even whether he should be, arrested for statutory rape.

This entry is about the TRIVIALIZING, and campaign AGAINST, the CRIME of statutory rape.

I surfed Fox News for about 15 SECONDS (during a football game this weekend), and saw the point of view presented (really ADVOCATYED) that sex between two teenagers is not a big deal, and should not be a serious crime (in the context of discussing the situation of the father of Jamie Lynn Spears' child).  This illustrates why I am surfing Fox News less and less, and why Fox News is part fo the problem (of mainstream media), and NOT part of the solution.

It is really a case of this blog being rproven RIGHT again.  Look back at my entries on Genarlow Wilson (the Georgia black teen sentenced to ten years in prsion for what amounted to statutory rape).   Aside frm this tendency to make black heroes out of pretty sleazy people who happen to be treated too harshly, my main problem witht he Wilson case was that too many people seemed to be DISMISSING the crime of statutory rape.  Am I good or what?  The reaction to Jamie Lynn Spears--the reaction I saw on Fox News--shows that I was RIGHT (as usual) to worry.  There is this school of "thought" out there that there is nothing wrong with teenage sex (questionable in itself--as there really are people out there ENCOURAGING teenage, non-marital sex, instead of labeling it as the unhealthy thing that it is), AND that consensual sex between teenagers is "just sex" (shades of Bill Clinton)--not something that should be a crime.

Hogwash.  This is EVIL stuff.   I have said that people that hold the view that teenage, non-marital sex is fine have blood and ruined lives on their hands.  I am right.  But, then, what can I say about the absolute cretins who are out there trying to diminish the idea of statutory rape?   Heck, I WILL say it:  They are ENCOURAGING SEXUAL PREDATORS.

You say that there is no such thing as a teenage sexual predator?   You might as well stop reading this blog if you believe that.  There is no hope for you.

What is the POINT of statutory rape?  Is the idea to condemn sex between teenagers, or to make older teens think twice before they have sex with ANYONE?  Of course not.  The idea is that girls (and boys) of a certain age ARE CHILDREN, and not CAPABLE of consenting.  Since CHILDREN can be "coerced" or "pressured" or "influenced" into sex, where it is truly difficult to prove rape (it is, of course, not always easy for adults), tatutory rape is a way fo prevent sexual predators from leading CHILDREN into sex WITHOUT HAVING TO SHOW LACK OF CONSENT, BECAUSE THE CHILD IS INCAPABLE OF CONSENT.

You are nuts (too enamored of the idea taht sex is okay) if you think the above is not true.

Example:  Is a 13 old girl a "chilc".  Of course she is.   Well, should a 14 year old boy be convicted of statutory rape?  Obviously not, even though it is terrible for children to be sexually active at that age.  But what about a NINETEEN YEAR OLD BOY, or an EIGHTEEN YEAR OLD BOY, or a SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD BOY.   I think it is conclusive that boys of that age ARE committing a serious CRIME--at least it should be a serous crime--to engage in sex with a 13 year old girl (consenting or not; the "aggressor" or not). 

Well, what about a 14 year old girl?  My opinion remainst the same.  That is a CHILD.  What if the girl has just turned 14?   What if the girl has just turned 15?  What if the boy is about to turn 18? 

Yes, reasonable people can disagree about the AGES here, and the age difference (to me, 15 and under, with a full three year age difference, should be a serious crime, but the exact ages are debatable).  What I don't think is debatable is that CHILDREN are not capable of consent to MUCH OLDER children, and it is insane to assume they are.  You say that there is so much sex out there that non-criminal boys get led into it?  I say THEY SHOULD NOT--with CHILDREN (teens or not), if they are significantly older.  For example, I think a 13 year old boy is guilty of a CRIME (exactly what crime you have to define) by engaging in sex with an 8 year old girl--what about an 11 year old girl, or a 15 year old with a 12 year old girl?).

We talk about registing sex offenders, and then we talk about giving sexual predators--just because they are still older teenagers--license to run wild.   Nope.  Tnis is TERRIBLE policy, and the people advocating it are on the side of sexual predation.

Look at Planned Parenthood.   That despicable organization (on many grounds) has refused/failed to report probabl statutory rape because of its agenda (and an idea that sex is not as bad as perhaps discouraging a girl from coming in for an abortion, even though it is usually sex with an OLDER man--not even a teenager). 

Finally, I want to go back more than a decade, to a show called "Picket Fences".   David Kelley (a leftist TV writer/creator) was behind the show.  I liked the first few episodes, until AGENDA took over.  I still remember the show that caused me to stop watching forever, in MID-EPISODE.

The family of a young, teenage girl left the house, and then decided to go back for some reason.  The teenage girl had been left at home.  It was the Christmas season.  The family bursts in on the girl singing "jingle Bells" (I could never make this stuff up).  The teenage girl was having sex with an OLDER teenage boy (19 or 20).  The father (sheriff) immediately arrested the boy for statutory rape.   The show RIDICULED him for it.  I threw something at the TV halfway through the episode (it could never be salvaged, even if somehow the show tried to come down against statutory rape in the end).  Here one TV show TRIVIALIZED both statutory rape AND teenage sex, by turning it into almost a joke (with an "uptight" parent not "getting" the joke).  I'm sorry.  That was BAD.  But it shows how LONG this campaign against statutory rape has been out there. 

There is no excuse for it.  It represents a leftist strain in our culture that sex is GOOD, and that anything--no matter how evil--which tends to restrict sex is BAD.   Not so.

Statutory rape SHOULD be a serious crime.  The ONLY issue is the exact ages to use. It would probably be good for society if Jamie Lynn Spears' boyfriend was charged with statutory rape.  It would show both that we are serious about the charge, and even handed in justice (not just picking on the poor and the downtrodden). 

The message many are trying to send now is that we are NOT serious about statutory rape. 

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this