Just another faux moral panic created by old people who can't stand these crazy kids and their darned cell phones and technology. If they did it as a kid it's ok, otherwise its a danger to society. It happens all the time, always has and probably always will.
Last edited by Jerry; 06-07-10 at 08:50 AM.
And frankly, even where it is a bad thing, I'd rather my child sext than drink or drive without a license or do drugs or actually have sex or any number of things that it's often considered normal young adult behavior.
I have a rental and have had a fairly good relationship with the couple who are moving out on July 1st. We communicated very well, mainly by texting. We had a misunderstanding recently and I told her that we could not work this out by text, and I insisted the wife call me, and we were able to have a conversation and work out our issue.
The 23 year old was wrong with regards to the law. I have little moral qualms with a 23 year old with a 17 year old. I think that's pushing the age thing quite a bit, but without any other factors its hard to make a judge. For example I might think differently about:
a 17 year old girl that managed to go to a local college party and meathead frat guy acted the Big Awesome College guy and essentially pressured her into the notion and they've flirted since as she feels its a status thing and he's just happy to have a young floozy
than I would about:
a 17 year old that was a year ahead of most of those her age and a 23 year old who had been held back one year in elementary school, and thus had met as a freshmen / senior in High School and reconnected a few years later on facebook and something sparked.
And it goes on.
I knew a number of 17 year olds, boys and girls, that were freshmen with me in college because they had either been skipped ahead or had a birthday in such a way that they were generally a year younger than everyone in their class based on its date in conjunction with how the school happens. Maybe that's why in general I view 17 a bit different than 16 and below in regards to "case by case basis" type situation.
So while I don't know if I'd say wha the guy did was morally wrong, it was definitely legally wrong. Like it or not, the law is the law, and you gotta respect that OR if you don't you gotta own up to the punishment. The dad should've called the cops and go from there.
Now, similarly, what the dad did was wrong with regards to the law. You can't essentially kidnap or incarcerate someone (which forcing him to get tied up is just that) and then assult them. Its just not legal. Again, in regards to the morality of it, I'm kind of iffy as I understand the notion of wanting to defend ones daughters or seek revenge for it, but at the same time I buy the "innocence manipulated" type of notion when its a 17 year old instead of a 13 year old. If it was the latter you'd have no question in my mind whether I had an issue morally with what the dad did or not. However, he broke the law, and the law is the law, and he's going to have to own up for it as well.
If I was a jury, if these were the facts and the only facts presented, I'd convict without hestitation. If the girl was 14 or less then you'd probably have a great deal more hesitation in me then I would for this. If she was 11 or under i'd dare say I'm unsure which way I'd go at all.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.