Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SlickyBoy" data-source="post: 1285118" data-attributes="member: 8508">The reason you don't see FBI stings against women and underage boys isn't because it never happens. One look at the teacher/student caught having sex thread reveals this phenomenon to be the growing epidemic that it is. The difference is women don't go online to chat rooms or accept random messages from young boys, generally, in order to meet their victims. It always involves some kind of a relationship where the woman can finesse the situation into what she wants while providing - she thinks - the plausible deniability of &quot;it just happened.&quot; Usually the courts don't agree with that last bit, although they do soften the punishment blow when compared to male perpetrators similarly situated. As for the age, teenagers are not the same as children and in many cases it becomes a matter of where the act occurred, not some universally accepted agreement of what a child is. EMJ talked about the legal fiction (his term) with regard to age of the victims in the Catholic priest &quot;child abuse&quot; scandal. There, the vast majority of the victims were not children but teenagers, mostly over 14 years old. When the secrets came out, the gay church leaders gleefully piled on with &quot;Yeah, that's right - get rid of those god awful child molesters!&quot; when in fact it was not a child molestation problem they faced (and STILL face), it is a homosexual problem. The recent debacle of the highest ranking American Catholic leader, Cardinal McCarrick, demonstrated exactly this, as his victims were seminarians in mostly (<a href="https://wtop.com/dc/2019/10/ex-cardinal-mccarrick-accused-of-abusing-at-least-7-more-boys/" target="_blank">though not exclusively</a>) their late teens.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SlickyBoy, post: 1285118, member: 8508"] The reason you don't see FBI stings against women and underage boys isn't because it never happens. One look at the teacher/student caught having sex thread reveals this phenomenon to be the growing epidemic that it is. The difference is women don't go online to chat rooms or accept random messages from young boys, generally, in order to meet their victims. It always involves some kind of a relationship where the woman can finesse the situation into what she wants while providing - she thinks - the plausible deniability of "it just happened." Usually the courts don't agree with that last bit, although they do soften the punishment blow when compared to male perpetrators similarly situated. As for the age, teenagers are not the same as children and in many cases it becomes a matter of where the act occurred, not some universally accepted agreement of what a child is. EMJ talked about the legal fiction (his term) with regard to age of the victims in the Catholic priest "child abuse" scandal. There, the vast majority of the victims were not children but teenagers, mostly over 14 years old. When the secrets came out, the gay church leaders gleefully piled on with "Yeah, that's right - get rid of those god awful child molesters!" when in fact it was not a child molestation problem they faced (and STILL face), it is a homosexual problem. The recent debacle of the highest ranking American Catholic leader, Cardinal McCarrick, demonstrated exactly this, as his victims were seminarians in mostly ([url=https://wtop.com/dc/2019/10/ex-cardinal-mccarrick-accused-of-abusing-at-least-7-more-boys/]though not exclusively[/url]) their late teens. [/QUOTE]

Verification