Hey! Isn't that Dad up on that billboard?

IM oh so HO

Prostitution should be legalized and regulated....as with other things. :cool:


As for a pedaophile sex offender ...they should be stuck up on that billboard ...as suggested by MURACU

And Gore...your just twisted ;)

We in Canada have a notorious sex offender being released from prison next month...she cut a pretty good deal.

I really resent the fact that she is getting out...with a degree..(paid by our tax dollars)...when she is actually on tape taking part in the crimes.

I truley admire the French\Maheffy families......as I am not sure how I would have dealt with what she did to their families.

INFO

MLF

A lot of things should be legalized. Hell, yesterday two dying woman were in court because they use medical pot. The supreme court decided they don't like people doing that even though nothing else helps them. They would rather watch them suffer on their death beds than help them.

Maybe this is why I never get caught? They don't want to because they know I'd make them look stupid being someone who is not another drug user who knows nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
While every state is different, the going trend is not so cut and dry. Even if you are over 18. There are a couple of factors... in a "position of trust" in most cases would be Sexual Assault. That is your father, uncle, brother, teacher, baby sitter etc. If you are 16 and she is 15, it's ok as long as there is parental implied consent or the girl says she wants to have "sexual relations". Now if she is 13 and you are over 17 then is Sexual Assault with a child. 18 isn't even a factor there. The ages vary state by state but most have similar circumstances.

---

In virginia a 15 and 16 year old having sex is considered statuatory rape. Oddly enough the charge goes against the guy. It doesn't matter if the girl is consenting at all, just whether her parents want to prosecute. This is with both partners under 18. If one is over 18, then there has to be less than 3 years between the two parties. Really stupid in my opinion that you can become a sexual preditor for sleeping with your girlfriend.

Negative Gore.

I happen to be a female a**holl who's serving. Understand and respect other peoples opinions. Point of my post was that we are subject to military standards at all times. Whether in uniform or not. I'm just sorry you have a negative perspective of US military members.

That is stupid Zenger, I wonder where they draw the line as "child" in Virginia.

Rain': when I spoke I wasn't thinking of the UCMJ. If thye say, NO S.E.X and then you are caught (which would be difficult) you will be court martialed. I was refering to civilian law. Does the UCMJ specifically say it's illegal?

Roadclosed,

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/002584.php
"US military members have been and will continue to be prosecuted for prostitution for violating existing orders and regulations. What the Pentagon really wants to control is the behavior of contractors and US civilians employed by the military. Contractors and civilians are not subject to military curfews or military law, and local authorities have little interest in these cases. "

http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/...twasb11f1.html
"In 2005, a new Article 134 will come out that will make solicitation for prostitution punishable by a dishonorable discharge and up to one year in prison."

Article 82 of the UCMJ - Solicitation
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...o/mcm/bl82.htm

Article 134 of the UCMJ - General Article
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punit...cles/a/134.htm

"Prostitution Illegal Under Pending UCMJ Changes"
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/6405/CFI/family/


So basically, the military was being forced to let the "act of procurring sexual services" slide up until last year when all branches adopted a zero tolerence policy. This seemed to be mostly in lieu of incidents occurring in Korea. In conclusion in DoD terms, "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”

Of course, it seems, everything often times is based on perception in a military environment, whether right or wrong.

Roadclosed, apologies if I misread your statement. Long day at work.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Rain6770
Negative Gore.

I happen to be a female a**holl who's serving. Understand and respect other peoples opinions. Point of my post was that we are subject to military standards at all times. Whether in uniform or not. I'm just sorry you have a negative perspective of US military members.

---

Negative? He was in this too? I come back form the Dr and my post is gone, no message on why just gone? And why in the hell would I respect your opinion when you don't respect mine? Tell you what, I can change how I feel about people sticking their noses in other Countrie's business and how I fell about war in general when policies get chaned where two old ladies are criminals for trying to live.

Gore,

"Are you one of those ****ers who was in the Middle East burning the Poppy fields? "


When I said "Negative Gore", that means that I am not one of the F**kers burning poppy fields.

"And why in the hell would I respect your opinion when you don't respect mine?"

When I said "Understand and respect other peoples opinions." Simply means I understand and respect other people's opinions. Poorly worded on my part. Apologies. But I don't understand why you think, correct me if I am wrong, that no service member cares about what you think and respects your opinion? Perhaps you had a bad experience with someone you met but please don't stereotype every military member that you speak to. I speak for myself when I saw that I understand/respect/value other people's opinions. If you couldn't tell me what you think, then what would I be serving for? And sorry dear, I can't change the United States policy concerning foreign countries, and I may not agree with many of them, but I have a job to do. Integrity first, service before self, and excellance in all we do. Those are my standards.

Quote:

---

That is stupid Zenger, I wonder where they draw the line as "child" in Virginia.

---

Hey Road & zENGER... It may sound stupid but it is pretty cut and dry when you break it down. Using Virginia as an example.

At some point in time the community decided that the appropiate age at which an individual can make an informed and consentual decision about having sex was 16; and the community(via local government) enacted laws to protect children that are ages 15 and under. Being boyfriend and girlfriend, or consent, has no bearing. If one individual is over the age of 15 and the other is under the age of 16, it becomes a matter of breaking the law and not a matter of opinion or preference. This is what holds men over the age of 16 accountable when they seduce 15 year old and younger girls into having sex. The law is correct unless there is a change in the mindset of the community where the local laws are amended. But this where thing start to become really murky. What is the appropriate age that an individual has to achieve before they can be deemed mature enough to make the decision to have sex? Some people say 18, others say 13, many child molesters willl tell you that 4 is the age where a child can make up their own mind. It seems to me that the age of 16 was the compromise that was reached.

Personally I fall on the 18 year old side, because I think that we have way to many school age teen pregnancies in our country as is. (but that is a different subject all together)

Just my 2 cents worth.

Hmm what you are saying Overdue is that all those pregnant girls along with the fathers of their children should be criminals. But in each case where one is older than the other, say boy 16 girl 15 then the older one gets the criminal record? In this case a agree with the age of criminal intent to be 13. At 16 I would have been a criminal and would never have had the opportunity to work on some crtical government contracts. Since having a federal conviction rules that out. Plus if I had chosen to pay some women who solicited me, my future would have laid before me on a gigantic billboard of rightousness.

//EDIT I have read the UCMJ before and I see that the article 134 is new. That would be tough in societies where it not only tolerated, it's a good job. Perhaps the only job available. Or course i am taking the moral implications out of it. But societies DO tolerate and elevate it. Even Americans in some places.

I get onto the left often because they continue social programs and political vandettas that don't work. On the right they have their own follies that do more harm than good - when you look at the entire social structure of this society.