General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMarriage tips from a rapist, on ABC
Also, for the first time ever, viewers will meet their two teenage daughters, Audrey and Georgia, who are now older than Vili was when he conceived them.
http://abcnews.go.com/Press_Release/barbara-walters-exclusive-walters-interviews-mary-kay-letourneau/story?id=30140635
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
marym625
(17,997 posts)Just wow.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Fucking garbage.
On edit, oh FUCK no:
This woman cannot be fucking serious.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)
Warpy
(111,277 posts)and not because the system failed to protect him from a horny teacher.
Still, it's hard not to wonder if he might have found another May-December romance down the line that wasn't as completely inappropriate and skipped the depression and alcoholism. If Letourneau had waited 5 years for him to grow up, it might not have been quite as devastating. It wouldn't have been prosecuted, at any rate. Still, it will be interesting to see where he puts blame.
I also have to wish that Walters hadn't dredged all this stuff up again. Their daughters deserve some peace, at least, no matter what their parents did so many years ago.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)on where/who/what to blame.
I think they both are candidates for life long couch sessions.
She ain't right in the head and he never got the chance to be.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)A friend liked younger guys, which in her mid 20s, met 18-19-20. She met a guy on a political campaign and they started dating. Two months down the line, she finally found out why their dates were infrequent and he couldn't stay past 11 PM--he was living with his parents because he was fourteen!.
She dropped him like a hot rock but he came to her going away party when she moved away. I have rarely met such a smooth character, over 6 feet tall and nobody thought to card him.
I've long thought this was a similar case, only Letourneau was at a vulnerable point in her life and got swept along by hormones.
Life is a lot messier than "he was just a little kid" and "she was just a rapist." The fact that the obsession was mutual and they married as soon as she got out of prison is proof.
I hope they can manage to stay out of the media and make sense of their lives. I hope their kids are unscarred by the media circus. I hope light switch mentalities can let this go, they're both grown up now and have been for a long time.
Then again, I've never been one to pick at old scabs to keep an old wound bloody.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Life is pretty clear cut in this case. She was a teacher. MKL was a Married 30 y/o woman who was attracted to an EIGHT y/o boy.
She used her position as a 34y/o teacher/authority figure to intimidate a 12 y/o student into crossing boundaries with his body from which his mind seems to still have not recovered (hence the alcoholism and depression).
She is a pedophile rapist. and you are making apologies for her behavior.
The rationalization/justification does not hold.
period.
I am not the one who picked at this old scab. You have BW and ABC to thank for this crap.
Sorry, Warpy.
not for nothing but, you know what they say about ... I got a friend stories .... therefore I am NOT touching that one.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Pedophiles stop being attracted to a kid when s/he begins to show adult sexual characteristics. MKL finds her husband attractive at all stages of sexual development, including adulthood. She show know signs of wanting to get rid of him to chase after young boys.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Am I really telling you something you Don't know? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Is this the subject matter that you choose to be Devil's Advocate?
Really?
Done. here.
This thread has jumped the shark with your logic.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The motivation is something other than sexual attraction.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Are you fucking kidding me? There was no doubt about this kid's age. Why the fuck you would even bring that up is mind boggling.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)instead of what you wanted to read.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)In all of it's absurdity. Rape apology is really disgusting.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)and at some point, you need to move on.
This is that point unless you want to nurse a grudge against a woman you don't even know for the rest of your life.
Good luck with that.
And shame on you for that accusation. Really. Shame on you.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Trying to muddy the waters on that is disgusting.
So really, shame on you.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)But they don't seem to think about that. They are making it easier for the Mary Kay Letourneaus of the world to keep on raping.
So kudos to them for that, I guess 
vankuria
(904 posts)however I have a feeling the parents will do anything for money...given their history, job prospects may not be all that great.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
3catwoman3
(24,007 posts)That pervert should not be getting any sort of a public forum. This is revolting.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)This 34-year old raped a 13-year old. (I know your quote is from the story, I'm complaining about ABC's wording).
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)And still are.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)The fact that they are married cannot be taken, ipso facto, as evidence that this is a romantic story of true love instead of a story of rape, abuse, and horror.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)I am in complete total agreement. 
No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)justify the actions taken.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)smilie down below? Or should I have put the tag?
Sorry, it was just a bad attempt at a little levity...
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the devil approves and is eating popcorn and enjoying watching the destruction and disharmony. Evil.
That is what it looks like to me. Mea culpa.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)sarcastic comment!
Glad we cleared that up.
Guess I'll avoid that guy in future!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I doubt you would ever get this guy to think he was raped.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)According to the dictionary not so much.
I think rape is much more about the consent of the victim than the technical aspects of age. Nothing this now young man has ever done has indicated he was anything other than completely willing and eager to be in this relationship.
I personally find the relationship strange but I don't know either of them personally and can't really judge the relationship on anything other than it's appearance. The fact that they have been married over ten years now though leads me to the conclusion that they really just love each other. The heart is a strange thing and I am not one to call a relationship that appears to be working rape just because I see it as strange. Had he quickly moved on I might see it differently.
No.
Not doing this.
Enough bullshit on DU tonight to have to also deal with someone excusing a 34 year old teacher preying on and raping a 13 year old student.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)There was no consent. That you think it simply a matter of personal "judgement" is not only factually false according to the law, it is reprehensible. The relevant law is the one she was convicted under. She violated the laws of the state of Washington, and her actions were illegal in every state of the union.
I have noticed a few seem to think raping children somehow less serious than raping adults. The law does not treat it that way, nor should it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)13 year olds consent to sex every day across the globe with other 13 year olds and no one claims they are raping each other except when they are.
While I think it is way too young myself now that I am older at that age I would have jumped at the chance as would a large portion of american males.
The last line of yours ridiculous. Who ever suggested such ridiculousness?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Just not in this one.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)And whether you agree or not is irrelevant. The law says children cannot consent, whether they are 1, 3 or 12.
Studies show that boys are every bit as traumatized by such assaults as girls. That social attitudes such as those you demonstrate condone the rape of children is shameful.
Who suggested that people see the rape as children as less serious? You. That is the content of your posts. Despite the fact she pleaded guilty to two charges of second degree rape of a minor and served several years in prison, you think your "beliefs' that such behavior is acceptable trumps the law. It does not. The boy was a child. She raped him. That is child rape. Those are the facts as laid out by the court. That you think predatory behavior acceptable is your problem, and a serious one.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The law says lots of things that are questionable at best. Saying the law says something means nothing. The law used to say owning slaves was legal that didn't make it right.
And once again despite your ridiculous claims, Normally I would agree with the idea that a relationship between an adult and a child was wrong and in most cases more than likely rape but not in this case and strictly because of the specifics of this one relationship. They have done everything they could to be together from the start and while that may indicate a mental imbalance on her part and possibly emotional issues on his at the time it started, this relationship continues almost 20 years later despite a 6 year forced separation. He is now an adult and has been for some years now and is still with her. He has never deviated from his desire to be with her.
That isn't rape
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)to be in a relationship with her and when she raped him when he was 12. You seem to think the fact he married her makes the rape go away. Do you realize laws were written precisely that way in the past? That if a man married a girl, he could get out of legal charges for rape? Seemingly, you would prefer those laws to modern-day efforts to stop child rape.
Since you find laws prohibiting sexual assault of minors to be akin to slavery, at what age do you think children should be fair game? Evidently you have no problem with 12. Should it be legal for an adult to have sex with a 10 year old? 8 or 4? Is any age too young?
People who were abused as children behave in all kinds of fucked up ways. That they do doesn't mitigate the abuse they faced as children.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #43)
Post removed
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)because he later married her. Then you insisted the law that held her guilty of rape was illegitimate and gave the example of slavery. I then asked you if you thought there should be any age prohibition on sex with minors.
It is not my "accusations" that are ridiculous but the position you have laid out in this thread. I wrote nothing that didn't stem directly from the points you yourself made.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Baines is not the one looking silly in this thread.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)hands of the law and upon the grown woman.
Seriously, it's just sex, which isn't much different than golf. Nothing horrible, painful, evil and violent happened here with these two. There was no suffering, no torture, no blood, scars, or trauma, except at the hands of the law.
Absolutely these two were highly inappropriate, but this boy, now man, makes the same choices now as an adult as he did when he was 12. So clearly, there is something special for these 2, a genuine bond of love that's resulted in a family, a life together and a wholesome relationship.
If you take away all the negative connotations of SEX and just reduce it down to two people's genitals bumping into each other, it's not a big deal. It's just sex. People have been doing it since time began. And if they're doing it willingly and enjoying it, then yee hah, let em carry on, it's none of anyone else's business.
In fact, let me take that a step further.... yeah, so some teens have sex and make a baby. What's the big deal? Yet another thing that's been going on since the dawn of time. I never understood what the big deal is.
When sex becomes a weapon, a force, is used in violence and horror, in aggression, against one's will, and all the atrocities that some terrible men DO use it for, yes, then it's absolutely a horrible terrible bad thing. But when it comes down to consenting people, it's really not such a big deal. It's just sex.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and there is nothing consensual about assault on children. The "hands of the law" are there to protect children from sexual predators who believe children exist for their own sexual satisfaction. Child rape is a very big deal. It destroys lives, and minimizing only contributes to its perpetuation. You are claiming a violent crime is no big deal, despite the fact the boy did not consent because children cannot consent to sex. When people find children sexually alluring, they have serious psychological problems and when they act on it they become criminals. Children do not exist for disturbed adults to violate at will. That you can't tell the difference between sex and rape is disturbing.
Rape is a violent crime, and defending it is condoning violence and abuse of children. It is such attitudes that allow rapists to act with virtual impunity. Naturally you see that as no problem because it's just "sex" and the fact there was no consent is entirely irrelevant to the adult's sexual gratification, which is clearly all that matters to some.
There is considerable evidence that rape leaves traumatizes children, boys every bit as much as girls.
That trauma clearly is irrelevant to you, since you think rape no different from golf. I see some really ugly justification for violent, predatory behavior on the most vulnerable segments of the population. Pedophilia is not only illegal, it is violent, destructive, and about the worst kind of acts human beings are capable of. I have no patience for these efforts to normalize adults preying on children. Everything about it is reprehensible. Such attitudes are unfortunately all to prevalent, as evidence in the judge's ruling waiving mandatory sentencing for the rapist of a three year old, whom, the judge insisted "didn't intend to harm the child." It's just "sex," after all.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)really ?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Thu Apr 9, 2015, 02:08 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Not to push any buttons, but it's just sex. There was no pain or violence inflicted except at the
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6478205
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Rape is like golf. Wow. Two words: rape apologist.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 9, 2015, 02:56 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Rape apologists should be banned not just hidden.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: an odd and eccentric opinion to say the least ... but I see no reason to rush in with the emotive word "rape" to describe something that might be inappropriate perhaps illegal - but words have meaning. Rape has historically meant the violent or threat of violence forced act of penetration of an unwilling victim. To use the word otherwise is lacking in intellectual honesty.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Serious "rape apologist".. WTF.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Rape apology is not ok on DU. Someone under the age of consent cannot consent to sex - it doesn't matter whether they stand naked in the middle of a mall shouting "have sex with me, please, please, please." It wouldn't be sex, and it would be rape. That the victim is male seems to bring out too many male rape apologists - they think feminists are horrible to men, but they themselves are the greatest misandrists for refusing to acknowledge that men can be raped by women. This one has added abuse apologist as well - Stockholm syndrome is a recognized response to trauma. KitS
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)And I was also going to add that underahedgerow and juror #3 are part of the reason why it is so difficult to get rapists convicted. They are part of the problem, as rape apologists, excusing rapes that aren't "legitimate" rapes. They actively contribute to rapists having an easier time raping by contributing excuses for them.
I don't care if this gets hidden - I only have one hide so far in my 13+-year DU membership, but calling out people who make it easier for rapists to rape is a good enough cause to get one should the DU community think that it is worse to call out rape apologists than to be a rape apologist.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)and doesn't leap out at anyone.
Maybe he's a friend of that judge that reduced the sentence of the rapist
that sodomized the three year old, because she came on to him, man.
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/08/judge_reduces_child_rapists_sentence_because_he_didnt_intend_to_harm_3_year_old_he_sodomized/
It's just sex, man...whether the kid is 3 or 12!
No harm, no foul...
Like golf!
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I thought "real rape" was their territory.
Pro-tip: rape doesn't mean "violent," it means lack of consent.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Heidi
(58,237 posts)How progressive.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)No, I didn't.
There's no fucking way I just read this here.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'm sorry, I meant to say, "ramble."
Total mistake on my part.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's not "just sex" with anyone from 1-14 years, and women were forced to marry their rapists back in the day. Today they often have to share custody with them. Doesn't make it not rape.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
vankuria
(904 posts)MJL was a 34 yr. old woman preying on a 12 yr. old boy and she was his teacher for heavens sake. She was in a trusted position of power. You say it's just sex, well that sex destroyed MJL's first marriage and her family. Ever bother to think what this illicit relationship did to her older children? Villi became a father at an age when he wasn't even old enough to have a job, the woman he loves went to prison for it and no one knows what the 2 daughters they produced together have gone through with this. MJL is a registered sex offender, not a good title to hold and the article mentioned Villi having problems with alcohol and depression, I would bet his past has a lot to do with those problems.
treestar
(82,383 posts)OMG.
ismnotwasm
(41,991 posts)She is a rapist and a pedophile rapist at that.
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)An adult, authority figure raped a child.
There is no legal or moral grey area here.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm sure you would have 'jumped at the chance." i know I probably would have. This does not make it consent, however, because the child - let's be straight here, he's a child - is being exploited by someone far older than him, in a position of power over him.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)it does not make it consent I agree but does it make it rape? I think that diminishes rape.
As a former 13 year old boy had I been in his shoes and had sex with a teacher I found attractive would I look back on it now as horrifying or rape? Would I look back on it fondly? Would I be ashamed? I am just not sure how I would feel about it but I am pretty sure I wouldn't feel like I had been raped. I am also pretty sure I would not have wanted that teacher to be called a rapist.
Now had I been forced somehow by threats of failure or parent phone calls or whatever to have sex with a teacher I would feel much differently about it and would take the first opportunity to get away from that person. I would certainly look at that as rape now later in life. I would want that person to be labeled a rapist.
This doesn't seem to be the case here. In this one particular instance. He had 6 years while she was in prison with no contact allowed, plenty of time to get away from any influence she had over him and went straight back to her when she was released.
Because of what has transpired up to this point I think calling this woman a rapist diminishes the word and concept of a rapist.
I completely understand people disagreeing with that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You're making an "it's not rape-rape!" argument. This is not a good argument to make.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Instead of raping you.
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #54)
Post removed
Heidi
(58,237 posts)That, and the fact that there are adults in the world who would exploit that uninformed consent, is why the law says children cannot consent to sex with adults. Kids cannot give informed consent to sex because, by and large, they have little or no grasp of the consequences, and there are adults who would and do take advantage of that fact.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Control over their own fortunes, for example? I mean, if a 12-year old were to sell his inherited Fortune500 company to 34-year old Letorneau for $50 and a pack of gum because they were so good friends, would he also claim the 12-year old were within his full rights?
I think the laws are entirely appropriate.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Heidi 
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)and every other instance like it, make consent impossible.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)And not to mention that kids'/adolescents' brain development is nowhere near on par with the brain development of adults 25 and older.
mythology
(9,527 posts)So no, he didn't consent.
Also there is the relative power difference at the time when she raped him, that as his teacher, she was in a position of authority over him.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The first thing he did as a then adult when she was released was have the restrictions on their proximity removed. 6 years later and now many years after being together and still he wants to be with her. So he is wrong now and wrong then?
Again the fact that nearly 20 years later they are still doing everything they can to be together after a forced seperation of 6 years shows pretty clearly it was never about her power over him. He had plenty of opportunity in those 6 years to get over any hold she had on him.
Sorry this was never rape. Inappropriate by our societies standards to be sure, and we made sure we punished her for breaking our taboos but this was never rape.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)according to two Wikipedia entries I just read.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Your posts illustrate the problem with saying "There was no consent" or "Children can't consent." You've got a human being there, who's saying, "Yeah! Let's do this!" It sure looks like consent in the ordinary English sense of the word.
In fact, it would be consent in other contexts. If that same 14-year-old boy said, "Yeah! Let's do this!" about playing a pickup football game, and was injured when one of the other players tackled him, it wouldn't be an assault and battery, the way it would be if the other player had just come up to him in the schoolyard and suddenly tackled him. The difference is that he consented.
That's why the clearer way to say it is that, before she went ahead with what she wanted to do, he gave consent, but his consent was not legally effective, because sex was involved.
You also commented on the issue of severity. If one adult had sex with a child who gave an enthusiastic "Yeah!", and another adult had sex with a child who went along with it only because the adult was holding a knife and said, "Do this or I'll cut your throat," then both adults have committed rape, but most judges would give the second defendant a stiffer sentence. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that the first perpetrator would get off scot-free. It was still rape, even if it wasn't as bad as the second.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)My issue here is in calling her a rapist and my feeling that it ignores the human part of the story. I certainly agree that under the law what she did is considered rape and should be. In this particular case there is clearly something more going on.
I don't see how the law could have or should have handled it any differently but in this particular case I think calling her a rapist at this point diminishes rape. After 6 years of no contact as an adult the first thing this young man did was work to make it possible for them to be together again. Then proceeded to get married and stay married for ten years now. Rape to me is not something that ends this way and if we are going to label any sex we don't agree with rape I think you take a lot of the appropriate revulsion to rape away.
Sort of like saying smoking pot will make you into a druggy it makes all the people who have tried pot stop taking you seriously.
This is a one in a million situation and certainly not one I would like to see repeated but calling her a rapist at this point I think misses the mark.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)This is why we have the phrase "statutory rape" -- it describes a particular subset of rape, where one person said "Yes" but was too young to give legally effective consent.
You write: "Rape to me is not something that ends this way {their marriage} and if we are going to label any sex we don't agree with rape I think you take a lot of the appropriate revulsion to rape away." This is certainly not a case of using "rape" to describe any sex we don't agree with. I don't agree with Woody Allen having sex with his son's sister but it wasn't rape. OTOH, if it meets the legal definition, then it is rape even if they later get married.
When it comes to the revulsion factor, I don't agree with the "rape is rape" meme if it's interpreted to mean ignoring all distinctions among rapes. One adult sleeps with a willing 14-year-old, another holds a knife to a 14-year-old's throat -- I don't have a problem with saying that revulsion is appropriate in both cases but that my revulsion is greater in the latter case.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)He was 12, not 13, not 14 but TWELVE.
Did this three year old also consent? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026477530
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)He was under the age of consent. Nothing in my post would be different if the victim were 12, 13, or 14.
Your concluding question is just silly. From the post you link: "Rojano then sexually assaulted her, at one point covering her mouth to hide the child’s cries from her mother, who was looking for her." So, even to the very limited extent that a 3-year-old can give consent in the ordinary English sense of the word, no, she didn't consent.
Of course, that's also immaterial. If he had said, "Let's play a game," and she had said "OK," her consent would still be legally ineffective, just as Fualaau's was.
Your question, in this context, conveys an insinuation that something in my post suggested a defense of adults who sexually assault toddlers. That insinuation is false and is personally offensive to me. If you meant something else by bringing up Rojano's case as you did, I'd be grateful for an explanation.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)though the consent was not legally valid. In point of fact a child cannot consent, which is why an adult's having sexual relations with them is by definition an assault. You mistake the absence of active resistance with consent. They are not the same.
The difference between 12 and 14 is a crucial one under the law in most states, and it alters the degree of the felony the adult is charged with. 13 is typically the cut off between what we commonly call statutory rape and rape of a child. Letourneau is a child rapist.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)My personal opinion is that it's harmful to the cause of rape prevention (and to the goal of seeing that rapists are punished when it does occur) to say, without qualification, "a child cannot consent...." The problem is that it goes against many people's understanding of the common English meaning of "consent". It's also too broad a statement, as my example of the football game illustrated.
My post had absolutely nothing to do with "the failure to actively resist." I know that some rape apologists make such arguments at times, but your imputation of such a position to me is totally without justification.
Suppose a 12-year-old said, "Yeah, let's do this" (which was my actual example, rather than a failure to actively resist). If the prosecution has to prove that s/he didn't consent, then some jurors are going to be hard to convince. It sure looks like consent. If it were a playground tackle, it would be consent in both the ordinary English meaning and in the legal meaning. That's why, as a tactical matter as well as for complete precision, I think it's better to say that a child can't give legally effective consent to sexual contact. If the judge explains it that way to the jury, they're more likely to convict, especially if one of the jurors has the reactions that some posters in this thread have exhibited.
You might take note that I got into this for the purpose of disagreeing with Egnever's argument in #14, reiterated in other posts, that there was consent so Letourneau wasn't a rapist.
(Incidentally, this isn't the only instance where a legal definition departs somewhat from many people's understanding of a term. A public figure who sues for defamation must prove that the defendant acted with malice. The problem is that, in this legal standard, the word "malice" has a different meaning from its ordinary usage. It can be satisfied if the defendant was utterly indifferent to the plaintiff, had no desire whatsoever to harm him or her, but published an interesting story in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.)
I consider Letourneau a rapist. The age of the victim would indeed affect the degree of rape under the law in most states, and would certainly be one factor that a judge would consider in sentencing, but I wasn't addressing those issues so I wasn't completely scrupulous about getting the victim's age right. If I had been writing a brief instead of a forum post I would have cited to the record and would have caught my mistake.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)but the law assumes a child can't consent to sex (not anything, like eating an ice cream cone), but sex. Hence any sexual contact with someone under age is assault. I think that is the proper understanding of the term consent in the context of sexual relations, just as I agree with the law in many states that a grown adult passed out or so drunk as to be severely impaired cannot consent.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)that is how US laws frame the concept of rape. Other nations define it much differently, such as in the case of Julian Assange. Apparently he had unprotected sexual relations with a woman which constituted an aspect of their legal definition of rape.
While their intimate relationship was illegal in the eyes of the law, their relationship has stood the test of time. He is in no way suppressed, oppressed or coerced, he isn't a prisoner, has never been. He has been in a consensual, familial relationship for many years now, with this woman, his wife.
Was she wrong? Yes. Should she have been so viciously prosecuted? Yes and No. This was a consensual relationship from the beginning but in the eyes of the law, it was illegal, and why should an exception have been made? Should she have restrained herself? Absolutely! But, love is funny like that and people are weak. However, that being said, had she not been prosecuted it could have set a very unpleasant precedent with far ranging legal repercussions.
The lawmakers couldn't just say 'oh, they're in love, we don't need to prosecute her'. We cannot make exceptions in the law, especially regarding a minor.
It's complex, it's a strange relationship and very unique. But at the end of the day, they sound like a fairly normal and relatively healthy family unit even if there is a vast age difference.
I believe she should be cleared of the worst of the charges. I see no reason why she can't be a teacher and regain her career. She's not a predator or some sort of violent animal, she just did what she had to do for love. I hope she'll be ok.
sub.theory
(652 posts)She was not in love with him when she raped him. That is one of the common ways in which this sort of sexual abuse is minimized. She was using someone highly vulnerable, someone she was in a dominant position over in order to fulfill her sexual gratification (and likely darker psychological urges). That is not love. If she loved him, she wouldn't have raped him at 13 years old. She would have been concerned about his welfare and his emotional health. She would have patiently waited for him to be able to make these sorts of decisions as an adult as to who he wants to share his body with. I'm sorry but this is not at all love and there is just no excusing her for what she did.
get the red out
(13,467 posts)When two 13 year olds have consensual sex (not that I think that is the best decision), there isn't the power disparity, with one as an authority figure and the other in a vulnerable state due to that power difference. Psychological effects can easily get lost in the shuffle. His hormones were raging in adolescence. It is easy to get locked into a relationship that may well not be healthy for a person even as an adult, I did that as a young woman in college, I didn't even realize that a boyfriend had really done a number on my self-esteem until the relationship ended, and it was he who ended it. I also imagine with the media free-for-all, it became them against the world, that would form a bond.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"She's not a predator or some sort of violent animal, she just did what she had to do for love..."
No doubt many rapists rationalize it precisely the same way...
boston bean
(36,222 posts)I can't believe that it was left... as if a 12 year old can consent... blech.... puke....
Here are the results:
On Thu Apr 9, 2015, 12:09 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
According to the law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6477710
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Poster says it is not rape because they are together today. Would it also not be rape if the victim were a 12-year-old girl who became infatuated with her (legally defined) much older adult rapist and was still with her today? This is a rape apologist. If they "love each other" after 20 years then it was not rape??!! It was rape, the court found so, and this fellow is saying it was not rape. That is the definition of rape apologist.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 9, 2015, 12:27 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just because you disagree with someone opinions does not justify an alert.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I find the alerter's language convoluted. Leave it alone.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The alerter convinced me.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Disagree that the poster is a rape apologist. They clarified their position in post 52.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dude. Why are you sending your rebuttal to a jury? Why don't you try posting it and see where that goes? I'm not going to censor somebody because you disagree.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You don't get to define this. You are not the arbiter of truth. Read it...disagree with it....discuss it....quit crying to mama if someone says something you disagree with ffs...discuss
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Looks like DU has finally embraced members of the "Legitimate Rape" club as evidenced by each "leave it alone" choice.
treestar
(82,383 posts)OMG they think this is open to debate.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I think rape is much more about the consent of the victim than the technical aspects of age..."
What then do you believe the precise and relevant age of consent should be, and on what objective measure is that number based off of (unless of course, you believe any person, regardless of age should be able to allow consent as long as they are "completely willing and eager"
?
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
Emelina
(188 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)She clearly is a rapist. It is not I who diminish it.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Whether this child "felt" he was raped or not, he was 13 and under the age of consent. Meaning, he was raped.
I suspect this has contributed alot to the depression and alcohol abuse he also talks about.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)He couldn't have had issues with depression and alcohol because the person he cared about was put in jail for loving him? It had to be because he was raped? Despite the fact that they have gone back to each other at every opportunity?
I get the ick factor. I really do and it makes me uncomfortable thinking about their relationship at the time but that is my own personal and of course most of societies belief systems and they have no bearing whatsoever on this kids state of mind about his relationship.
And again had he at any point walked away I would probably feel much differently about it but he hasn't 6 years of her in prison and all he did was wait for the moment she was released to be with her again. I just can't wrap my head around calling that rape despite our normal restrictions on such behavior.
I don't think the is anything wrong with society shunning this sort of relationship as 99.9% of the time I think they will end up badly. This one however seems to have been a case of two people who found something in each other and have stuck with it despite society as a whole scorning them for it.
Technically under the law it was rape to be sure but in reality it doesn't look like it was anything close to it.
JI7
(89,252 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am not trying to say what she did was right by any means. I find it hard to wrap my head around such behavior. Their desire to be together seems pretty clear at this point though.
It certainly doesn't make it seem normal or right but it does seem to be undeniable.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Does to me and a hell of a lot of other people. And she wasn't put in jail for loving him. She was put in jail for RAPING him.
sub.theory
(652 posts)I agree with the other posters calling you out on this. It is indeed rape. It's statutory rape, and it may not have been violent, but it was indeed rape. What she did was unquestionably wrong. Unfortunately, rape tends to be minimized in our society, and it is probably most common when boys are raped by women. If the roles are reversed and the teacher is a man and the student a girl, somehow that tends to change everything and THEN it's wrong.
It's truly disgusting that ABC is trying to paint this as some sort of love story. It's just gross beyond words. It's amazing how minimized rape is.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I get it. I really do.
Except..
Almost 20 years later and they are still together. This was more than sexual intercourse from the beginning no matter how disgusting we find it. Sorry I find it very difficult to equate this to someone being sexually assaulted against their will.
sub.theory
(652 posts)I don't see how the fact that they are in some deeply disordered marriage changes that she raped him when he was thirteen years old. Especially given his struggles with addiction, it certainly seems likely there is some serious mental illness occurring in Mr. Fualaau. Mary Kay Letourneau Fualaau clearly took advantage of this additional vulnerability in addition to his vulnerability due to his age. I don't think that gives his teacher license to rape him.
Women sometimes marry their abusers. Does that give them license to abuse them? Of course not. Why should this be different?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)This guy was never unwilling and still isn't.
We can certainly make broad judgements about when is an appropriate age to consent to sexual relationships but that does not really mean that some aren't ready before we deem it acceptable.
Here we have age restrictions on drinking other countries don't most evidence says the countries without age restrictions have less alcohol abuse. Does that mean our age restrictions are right?
I find her actions at the time wholly inappropriate and I certainly think the laws preventing such behavior are appropriate. However in this one instance I think the law got it wrong. I don't see how it could have rendered any other judgement but clearly nothing good came of it as they are together today and all that seemed to have been accomplished is hardship for two people who wanted to be together.
I don't know all the details but considering his young age at the time she was sent to jail I would be willing to bet the depression and drug abuse started after the law got involved not before.
sub.theory
(652 posts)After all, she consented to marrying him, right? She could have just left. She could have not married him. I guess she must be ok with the abuse. She can't be unwilling since she's married to him. Just as in abusive relationships, on some level there probably is some degree of "love", but that doesn't excuse the abuse in any way. This isn't a perfectly analogous situation, but it's not that far off.
Mary Kay Letourneau Fualaau is a predator. She preyed upon someone very vulnerable. We have no idea what happened in Mr. Fualaau's past or his mental health. I suspect that there is some serious vulnerability, however, due to existing mental illness and or trauma. And that's what predators do. They carefully choose their targets and then they begin to groom them. It's is a very systematic and very disturbing process. She began grooming him at 8 (!!!), I think another poster mentioned. From the few details available here, it certainly seems to me that this is the case with Mary Kay Letourneau Fualaau.
I think this predatory aspect is much easier for people to see when it is an older man preying upon a young girl. For some reason it gets all twisted up when it's a woman preying upon a boy.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)However one is physical abuse and the other is a question of age difference and societies tolerance of that age difference. Not really the same at all.
This kid had 6 years of forced separation with no contact, plenty of time to get away from any influence she had over him and he went back to her the second he was able. Maybe because of a mental disorder he has i have no way of knowing but maybe because they have some strange deep connection.
I do get what you are saying though the wife beater is still a wife beater despite his wife wanting to be with him.
But if we apply that to this situation at this point should we still then as a society be trying to separate these two? I guess we don't really try to separate the wife from her abuser...
It is an odd story and I am not really sure how I feel about it at this point. I do think calling this particular woman a rapist at this point in time considering they are now married ten years diminishes the word rape.
sub.theory
(652 posts)I know you don't support domestic violence, and I'm not trying to suggest that you do. I know you wouldn't and I am using that to try and show you that this situation is quite similar. Just because he married her doesn't change the fact that she raped him. Just as a woman marrying an abusive man her doesn't change the fact that he beats her. It is wrong and there is no possible justification for it.
I don't think that anyone is trying to separate these two people and no one even stopped them from marrying. What everyone here, including myself, are reacting to is the denial that this is rape. It is rape. It may not seem like it's a big deal, but it is. If you have trouble seeing that, you are certainly not alone, because it is not uncommon in our society. This is why we have to keep speaking up about it, because people need to know that this is wrong. It's a good thing that you are feeling unsure now, because it means that you are seriously considering what we are saying.
Rape is a horrific crime that causes lifelong scars. It is one of the most depraved, most vile crimes possible. This is an issue that deeply impacts me and it has tremendous personal significance, because there is a woman very close to me that has been raped and was sexually abused as a child. I have seen with my own eyes the damage that has been done and how it affects her to this day. She still sometimes wakes up screaming at nights having nightmares. It is just impossible to overstate how damaging rape is, and I think it is something that many people don't understand unless they closely know someone who has been raped. I probably wouldn't fully understand either how it forever changes lives if I hadn't seen it firsthand. I am most certainly not trying to minimize rape - far, far from it. I am trying to treat it with the deadly seriousness that it deserves, and that is why I am being so insistent that this is rape.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Completely agree with that.
Which is why in this instance I think you diminish the horror of rape by calling this woman a rapist. Just this woman and only because of how the relationship has endured despite what is clearly tremendous pressure from society for it to end. Also because I was a 12- 13 year old boy and I doubt I would have any lifelong scars from this. The media coverage and circus of it probably would have left a mark but the relationship itself I am pretty sure I would have been fine with. Most likely happy about.
Now had I been manipulated or forced by some pressure to have sex with a teacher I would feel completely differently. I would certainly have issues and I would certainly consider it rape. I also would not go out of my way to have contact with that person.
The battered wife however would. So I suppose that would still leave the question ....
6 years of no contact is a long time. I am not sure even a battered wife would hold on that long, maybe they would.
I am not sure. All I can do is look at my own feelings and relate them to myself and from what I can see this young man seems to love this relationship he has taken the actions I would in my mind have taken had this been a relationship that far from leaving lifelong scars left my happy and fulfilled.
Maybe he is the battered wife I have no way of knowing, I dont think so though and because of that I think calling this particular woman a rapist diminishes a word that absolutely should be taken very seriously.
I understand if you don't feel that way.
Texasgal
(17,045 posts)If one party is not able to consent it's RAPE. Rape is sexual ASSAULT Jeeze! This is not that difficult to comprehend!
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Or perhaps they simply do not want to comprehend it, for various reasons. What is certain is that these same posters enable rape by providing excuses for rapists. They are rape enablers. And if that isn't a disgusting thing, I don't know what is, short of being rapists themselves.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)She took advantage of a boy in his early teens. If the genders were reversed, would you feel the same way?
I was a teacher, and I can tell you that teenagers often develop unhealthy attractions toward teachers, their authority figures and mentors.
boston bean
(36,222 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)A lot of victims care for their abusers and think that they're consenting to whatever's going on, or that it's not that bad.
I'm right around the age that Mary Kay was and I live down the street from a middle school. These are little boys we're talking about.
These aren't "young adults" in any way, and if I were to try to seduce one of these boys, it would be PEDOPHILIA. Even if I "loved" the boy, it's still PEDOPHILIA.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)What you are saying is still pretty ugly were it about a 16-17 year old teen, but a 12-13 year old kid is so beyond what any adult should find in the same universe as sexually/romantically desire-able and has no way of participating in an emotionally mature relationship. In other words, anything an adult should need to be able to call something romantic love is not there. And thats before we get into the inability of a child, yes a 'child' that young to consent to an adult's advances.
I'm really stunned that you would say these things.
1939
(1,683 posts)While both acts are deserving of punishment in criminal courts, I think we should have one word "rape" which means forcible rape or rape of an unconscious or intoxicated person and a second word "xxxx" which means sexual relations without force between an adult and one who is underage.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Claire Conner wrote about knowing her when they were kids--their fathers were both huge Birchers. (Just some interesting background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Schmitz)
I really hope she never gets access to students in a classroom again. She should have spent more time in jail.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)
alp227
(32,034 posts)would she? (And rightfully so since most people would be disgusted, so ABC would see no ratings opportunity.) Now that the Internet and cable channels have taken off all the thinking viewers, ABC gets away with this pandering sheep food.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)These women are every bit as disturbed and violent as the men who commit the same crimes, and they should be treated no differently.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)alp227
(32,034 posts)I think a male teacher who raped a female student then later married her would be seen as ultimately, unforgivably evil by media unlike Mary Kay.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)one in montana? i think public out cry got that one.
and two in alabama.
just off hand
male teachers are fuggin our young girls too, and many slide. there was one recently. veyr young girl, older teacher, and a tv show. i dunno.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Got a link?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i keep thinking more and more as i step out of this thread.
ya. media coddle rape, pedophiles
how about the dude/coach??? that worked at penn. on the one hand, kinda torn him down, but was really the people. but an underlining of a lot of sympathy and empathy.....
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)children from teh abuse of the power of adult in their life, even when it is a 12 yr old boy. i am not so much arguing this with women. almost exclusively men jumping on toes, saying how it is a fantasy, good for the boy, and every other stupid argument. they boast.... if i was 12 i would.... !! by gosh. that is crap. as a mother of two boys, i know it would fuck them up in so many directions.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)JI7
(89,252 posts)the downplaying of it was probably even worse when news of it first came out.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,740 posts)Think I'll make a point of missing this.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)It's all about ratings. I won't be watching. Of course, I never have in the past either.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
she has lost her fucking mind.
she needs to retire as gracefully as possible if she can't produce anything better than this piece of shit.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)having an 'affair' with a student, serving time, and eventually marrying the victim?
Walters has an influence about what interviews she does that get on the air, but the producers come up with a list of possible intetview subjects and they go from there. I would like to knowxwho was next on the list (not that I would watch anyway).
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)deteriorate into depression and alcoholism.
perhaps, you need to rethink it.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I have posted my disgust over ABC having them on their network. The post to which you responded was an explanation from the network's point of view. I expect better from you.
eridani
(51,907 posts)---the start. However, given that Letourneau was the adult, she should have had the self-discipline to wait until he was of age. The five years would have been one year shy of the jail sentence.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)It is some type of unhealthy attachment disorder on display here.
He has suffered/is suffering from depression and alcoholism.
What is ridiculous is giving this woman credit for making healthy decisions regarding her own life.
She is a pedophile plain and fucking simple. She was attracted to this boy since he was eight.
Were it man I would be saying the same thing. (derp!!!)
Mary Kay ain't right in the head and Vili Fualaau never had the chance to be.
Barbara Walters is senile and ABC is a fucking disgusting sociopathic corporation.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)
Putting years behind the crime doesn't change what happened to him. And it wasn't normal, and it isn't normal now, just because he's older. It sickens me.
demmiblue
(36,865 posts)Simple, yet profound.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)some kind reverse double standard on display here with the ones giving her a pass.
I would hold a man accountable and, I expect nothing less from a woman.
The woman had/has issues and she inflicted herself on an innocent child while the public trusted her to educate our young.
She betrayed that trust in a horrible fashion.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)but in at least one I've seen the member argue the same thing when the girl was underage.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)here given our patriarchal history. wasn't too long ago in history that society actually promoted young girls to men already established therefore able to provide ... blah blah blah ... you know the rest.
I think the role reversal is what gives this bit ... notoriety ...
trust BW to titillate an audience.
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)As the mother of young sons your point sums it up for me.
She is a paedophile and a rapist and he is her victim.
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)your statement of... "Vili Fualaau never had the chance to be." is most profound and is the best point in all of this argument.
We and Vili do not know what we do not know.
Beat a person with a stick and the person learns to love the stick. Does that make that right or legitimate.
Her love was a black hole that engulfed him and his person. Guaranteeing he would not fully form into possibly something else.
That is not love.
ABC
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)THIS THIS THIS
eridani
(51,907 posts)--developed adult secondary sexual characteristics. This is clearly not the case. If she was a pedophile, she would not be attracted to him at all now.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)you make me laugh. and not in a good way. Done with this thread.
eridani
(51,907 posts)They may marry for purposes other than sexual attraction, for the same reason that gay people often marry opposite sex partners. If she isn't attracted to kids in general, and not seeking them out now, she isn't a pedophile.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I've read that pedophiles generally do not have exclusive ages they are attracted to, that they can vary quite a bit. Anyone who finds an 8 yr old boy alluring is by definition a pedophile.
eridani
(51,907 posts)If she's a pedophile, why isn't she trolling for kids right now?
Falling in love with someone who is blonde in no way means that you are attracted to blondes in general.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It's also clear that they've been in love with each other from the start..."
The start when she noticed him at only eight years old? Or are you referring to a different, more ethically convenient start?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)and John Birch Society leader and 1972 American Independent Party candidate for President?
Amazing connection, isn't it.
His political career ended when it was revealed he had an affair, and scandal later rocked his family again. One of his daughters, elementary school teacher Mary Kay LeTourneau of Seattle, went to prison for having sex with a former pupil.
Fifteen years later, he was in the news again when his daughter made tabloid fodder for her relationship with a 13-year-old boy who was a former student. She eventually gave birth to the boy's child and is now serving a seven-year prison sentence.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/John-G-Schmitz-Former-Congressman-From-Orange-2965698.php
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)John P - Counsel to VP Bush and the President Bush.
Joseph - in hip deep with Blackwater.
underpants
(182,832 posts)If memory serves.
The Dad was sexually abusive to one of the boys and very fond of the Germans. In your link it says that it was revealed that he had a mistress. I remember that the mistress was a blonde German woman woman and the old man wanted to make a perfect like blonde haired Aryan type with her.
still_one
(92,231 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)is a word that applies to a number of parties here, and I feel sorry that his life was, essentially, destroyed by her, though I am glad he was able to have a family. It seems he's been able to move on, in his own way.
demmiblue
(36,865 posts)This is just disgusting.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)And you know what - Walters - she needs to stop/go. Done.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Gosh, I can't stand her. Never have been able to.
Red State Rebel
(2,903 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)What a horrid thing to do to someone when she's down.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)What kind of tips could she probably have, except what playgrounds to troll looking for a husband. Ick!
boston bean
(36,222 posts)Maybe that is what she can teach others.... This whole thing makes me want to hurl.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)sorry i am following you along. but i finally posted, only to see you and others, down at the bottom of the thread. hurl is right.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)boston bean
(36,222 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you really are not paying attention, nor informed. that law is to protect our children, just as we have labor laws. there are meanie adults out there, got it? kinda a duh, right? and they break the laws that are implemented to protect those with lesser power.
kinda what we are as dems, correct? cause i get kinda confused with a lot i read on du.
there has to be a line we do not cross. there has to be boundaries. or we do shit like..... allow a RAPE of a THREE YR OLD girl because the dude just got a boner, inexplicably.... and wasnt predator, just had to take care of that boner. really, ..... he meant NO harm. really did not even hurt her. these meanie adults abuse, torture, rape, kill our children. put our children in their porn, to get off on.
we have LINES.....
to protect our children from adult.
boston bean
(36,222 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that we dems actually work toward protecting the weak, powerless, oppressed.... with laws. isnt that a duh, BB....
the predator adult eyeing our children.
the abuse, in so many ways. and WHY we create these laws. lines. boundaries.
this is something.
boston bean
(36,222 posts)I served on a jury and was quite dismayed with the results.... it's posted upthread.
I also alerted the admins to the thread asking if this is something they really want on their website.... ie arguments supporting pedophilia.
I do hope they give it some thought and take some action.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)yr old for her rape, or something.
arguing if it was wrong a 15 yr old boy got no time for a gang rape of 16 yr old girl. cause. he fuggin' pulled out when she was chanting no. no no no no no no no. you know, we have some argue, no really does mean yes.
and there was another sick one about an 11 yr old getting the old man turned on, what was he suppose to do.
i did not even go in and read that one.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)So that is two jurors alerting. I alerted not only on underahedgerow, but also on juror #3. We don't need "legitimate" rape spewers here either, and both should get a tombstone.
boston bean
(36,222 posts)is that the same as the one you alerted on??
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)underahedgerow actually said "Not to push any buttons, but it's just sex. There was no pain or violence inflicted except at the hands of the law and upon the grown woman." about the rape of a 12-year old boy, and juror #3 said "but I see no reason to rush in with the emotive word "rape" to describe something that might be inappropriate perhaps illegal - but words have meaning. Rape has historically meant the violent or threat of violence forced act of penetration of an unwilling victim. To use the word otherwise is lacking in intellectual honesty. "
Both deserve the banhammer, or DU yet again shows itself as a place where rape apologists can roam freely. And they aren't the only rape apologists in this thread - so disgusting.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346
Here's what I wrote....
I think this is a low point for your news network---heck, this is lower than 60 Minutes and Lara Logan's Benghazi story.
I won't be watching, but I will be boycotting your advertisers. I am also giving this link to democraticunderground.com.
Response to msanthrope (Reply #122)
seabeyond This message was self-deleted by its author.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with this adult doing the same with a 12 yr old boy, stating no harm, no foul. i am going to take it off. but your letter is beyond excellent.
thank you for sharing, what we can do. i think that is why i posted that. people actually speaking out works. and yours is right on.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and for providing the link.
This was mine:
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)suggested BW needs to retire with whatever shred of dignity she has left.
suggested ABC needs to seriously reconsider the angle with which they approached this piece.
mentioned the fact that MKL is a pedophile.
only allowed 500 characters but, I think I got the maximum impact given the allotment.
thanks for the link.
sub.theory
(652 posts)Thanks for this link. I just sent in a complaint about this travesty. Completely agree with everything you wrote and my comments were similar to your. I encourage everyone else to make it known to ABC that this is not acceptable and we will not ignore it.
B2G
(9,766 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)If you would see these 2 on the street, you wouldn't bat an eye. It just surprises me how close in age they look, that's all.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL
B2G
(9,766 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Since that was when she was first attracted to/noticed him.
sleezy. creepy. disgusting.
I mean if we are really going to be honest about all this.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i really do not give a fug if they look... closer to age. whatever. but... when the abuse began? ya. that matters.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)scenario are reversed?
Fact remains she had the mind/brain of a thirty y/o married woman with children and was attracted to an eight y/o boy.
Parents trusted her, as a teacher, to educate their children. She used her position of power and authority over this child to intimidate him into crossing boundaries with his body from which he still has not (and probably never will) recover.
I know I am singing to the choir with you, sea.
but, I feel like I need to post this again ... seems some people on here ... still ... do NOT get it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)yes.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Realism and honesty often get in the way of an agenda. One may wonder at the dramatic lack of any relevant pictures of the lovely couple from 1996 (though, as that too may interfere with a bias, we may not have to wonder all that much)...
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)seriously.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and he is making $s and all kinds of stuff, right?
Emelina
(188 posts)Kinda makes you wonder about watching it for news content.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I grew up in Seattle during the Letourneau scandal. That family was somewhat prominent. Her dad was heavy into the Republican party of California, and her brothers were Bush administration officials.
I always thought Vili's family turned a blind eye because she came from (what they thought was) blue-ish blood and some money.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)when she married Fualaau.
Her overall history might suggest she's had serious psychological problems.
She'd married in 1985 after becoming pregnant by classmate Steve Letourneau. She'd been married for eleven years, with four children, when she started having sex with Fualaau; and when arrested in 1997, she was pregnant by him. She was diagnosed then with a mental disorder, and in 1997 she accepted a plea bargain that gave her a six month sentence (three months suspended) and included her agreement not to contact Fualaau. Within two weeks of release, she violated parole, being found with Fualaau in flagrante delicto in a parked auto, after which she was sentenced to seven years. Steve Letourneau obtained a divorce, and she gave birth to Fualaau's second child.
When she was finally released in 2004, Fualaau successfully requested that the court lift the no-contact order, and they married in 2005, making some money by selling press access. By 2009 they were hosting "Hot for Teacher" events at a local nightclub.
In early 2013, she stopped while driving a vehicle with expired tags, and the officer then found her license had been suspended for failure to pay parking tickets. In lieu of charges, she agreed to attend a re-licensing program but did not attend, with the result she was arrested in early 2014 on charges of driving with a suspended license.
So, over the years, she seems to have repeatedly overlooked birth control, marriage vows, educational ethics, and statutory rape laws; she also seems to have overlooked honoring court orders, paying parking tickets, renewing vehicle tags, the need for a valid drivers license, and the importance of attending classes when offered as an alternative to prosecution
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)I'm as shocked as the rest of those here for the "it's not rape, it's just sex" comments. If my son ended up in this situation at age 12, I'd want the woman in jail and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. "Just sex," my round rosy behind. Why is it that we always see that one trotted out when the victim is male and the perp is female and somewhat attractive, hmm? Gross.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)"But he married her!" I'd suggest you look up Stockholm Syndrome.
I'll agree to the point that the system failed him - It failed him by not properly treating him for this condition.
What is interesting to note, what he says about suffering from alcoholism and depression? These are common conditions in rape survivors. It wouldn't surprise me that he reveals further information in the interview, about what feelings drove him to substance abuse and lead to his depression, which matches with a case of PTSD - Another condition common in rape survivors.
shrike
(3,817 posts)They got paid for the exclusive rights to photograph their wedding; I'm sure they're getting a buck or two for this interview.
