Couple Charged With Having Intercourse In Front of 9-Year-Old Daughter to Teach Her About Sex

[eakers]

I think it is inappropriate for a child to watch pornography and even more inappropriate to watch sexual acts in person... especially when its the parents involved.

I also think its pretty sick for people to allow a child watch them have sex.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
In a large part of the world seeing you parents having sex is how kids learn about sex.
And for the most part that's the way it's always been. Not only do a lot of families share a single room, but many share a single bed.

Charging them for that is, IMO nuts....

Indeed. In the vast majority of the world this isn't even a story.

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Had the guy been punching his girlfriend in front of their child, there'd likely only be an assault charge, but no child-neglect charges.
Go figure.

Great point and, IMHO, an example of the serious bastardization of 'morality' in our society. Violence is always more harmful and more 'wrong' than any consensual sex act could ever be but you wouldn't know that by observing primetime television in the US where simulated, and sometimes real, acts of murder and/or shocking violence happen with little to no complaint from the 'public' yet god forbid a naked breast is exposed the FCC is overwhelmed with 'BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!' letters and calls.

Sick and twisted priorities IMHO.

They also don't charge with abuse if the mother is the only adult witness to the kids being hit and their isn't any physical evidence of the kids having been hit, and the mother dies.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eakers
I think it is inappropriate for a child to watch pornography and even more inappropriate to watch sexual acts in person... especially when its the parents involved.

I also think its pretty sick for people to allow a child watch them have sex.

Ohhh noes.. its the "for the sake of the child.. think of the children!!!" guy... there always has to be one in the group...

 

[sandorski]

Once I could see, but repeatedly? Seems suspicious to me, like they may have had alterior motives. Maybe not though, people can do strange things for strange reasons yet not intentionally to cause harm.

 

[mundane]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Once I could see, but repeatedly? Seems suspicious to me, like they may have had alterior motives. Maybe not though, people can do strange things for strange reasons yet not intentionally to cause harm.

One of them is an exhibitionist?

 

[Kadarin]

From TFA:

"providing an environment that is lewd and depraved in a manner that makes their home unfit for the child to live in,"

While I don't believe having sex in front of a child is appropriate, I don't think I would consider sex to be "lewd and depraved". I also seriously doubt this child was harmed by any of this.

 

[TheAdvocate]

It is blatantly obvious that the overwhleming majority of posters on this thread do not have kids.

Doesn't suprise me that Amused posted this, although he left the "nanny-state" rhetoric unsaid this time.

This just in - kids /= adults. If there's one thing the govt. should be doing, it's protecting kids from parents like this. Has absolutely zero to do with morality and everything to do with a child's capacity to understand and object. The law is VERY clear on this, and it's based on sound science.

 

[j00fek]

man wtf is wrong with people? well wait they are from RI...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I dont believe in hiding sexuality from kids. They will learn about it one way or another. Better to teach them properly before TV, magazines and especially the internet do it.
HOWEVER......
I dont think banging in front of your kids is the healthy way to go about it.
Better to get an educational video or something.

Agreed. I would never have sex in front of my child.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
It is blatantly obvious that the overwhleming majority of posters on this thread do not have kids.

Doesn't suprise me that Amused posted this, although he left the "nanny-state" rhetoric unsaid this time.

This just in - kids /= adults. If there's one thing the govt. should be doing, it's protecting kids from parents like this. Has absolutely zero to do with morality and everything to do with a child's capacity to understand and object. The law is VERY clear on this, and it's based on sound science.

Wow. Why would you assume I approve of parents doing something like this?

Libertarianism is about doing as you like, so long as you harm no one else. You may want to keep that in mind so you can keep your foot out of your mouth later.

 

[necine]

Originally posted by: LookingGlass

Originally posted by: necine
If it's normal sex I don't see what the problem is... kid needs to learn about it at some point anyway.

I do hope you are kidding. What, you plan on doing that to your kids if you ever have any?
I feel sorry for your future kids.

No, I don't plan on doing that. I just don't think we should arrest these people for doing that if what they say is really how it happened. We intrude too much on peoples lives.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

They might not be the best parents, but I doubt they were trying to harm the child.
I will stick by my opinion that children should be handed over to government officials upon birth. Cut out the middle man. Saves time.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eakers
I think it is inappropriate for a child to watch pornography and even more inappropriate to watch sexual acts in person... especially when its the parents involved.

I also think its pretty sick for people to allow a child watch them have sex.

Ohhh noes.. its the "for the sake of the child.. think of the children!!!" guy... there always has to be one in the group...

Ohhh noes... its the "I am a pervert and see nothing wrong with having sex in front of a nine year old so I will make a stupid comment about someone who feels it is wrong to do so" guy... there always has to be one in the group.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Amused
Wow. Why would you assume I approve of parents doing something like this?

So, you're on record that "it's okay" for the gov't to be legally involved with prosecuting this type of behavior?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused
Wow. Why would you assume I approve of parents doing something like this?

So, you're on record that "it's okay" for the gov't to be legally involved with prosecuting this type of behavior?

If someone harms another person, of course the government should hold them accountable. That's why government should exist: To protect the rights of individuals.

Why do you confuse libertarianism with anarchy?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Amused
Wow. Why would you assume I approve of parents doing something like this?

Because this is ATOT. Before clicking on this thread I already knew we'd get about half qualified "I see nothing really wrong with this" replies. Because to the pathetic loser virgin majority here anything that involves sex can never be wrong because sex is the only thing that matters in life. Purity and innocence are purely Christian constructs created by the Pope to keep us down.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused
Wow. Why would you assume I approve of parents doing something like this?

So, you're on record that "it's okay" for the gov't to be legally involved with prosecuting this type of behavior?

If someone harms another person, of course the government should hold them accountable.

Noted and bookmarked for the next 20 times you defend someone taking advatange of someone else's personal freedom. Although that concept really has very little to do with what's going on here.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Amused
Wow. Why would you assume I approve of parents doing something like this?

Because this is ATOT. Before clicking on this thread I already knew we'd get about half qualified "I see nothing really wrong with this" replies. Because to the pathetic loser virgin majority here anything that involves sex can never be wrong because sex is the only thing that matters in life. Purity and innocence are purely Christian constructs created by the Pope to keep us down.

Like I said, this isn't a moral issue, it's a legal/scientific one: Capacity and a child's lack thereof. These two should have the book thrown at them. No plea bargain.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused
Wow. Why would you assume I approve of parents doing something like this?

So, you're on record that "it's okay" for the gov't to be legally involved with prosecuting this type of behavior?

If someone harms another person, of course the government should hold them accountable.

Noted and bookmarked for the next 20 times you defend someone taking advatange of someone else's personal freedom. Although that concept really has very little to do with what's going on here.

When have I ever defending someone violating the actual rights of another?

Never.

I know you sport a huge woody for me because I oppose your socialist ideology... but you must realize, that is because socialism violates individual rights.

 

[GasX]

I wonder how that knowledge came to light...

Sweety, if you are good later we will go to the candy store.

OK Daddy, can I get a chocolate starfish?

What did you say?

Mommy and her boyfriend are always moaning about getting the chocoloate starfish and I want to try one!

wtf did you just say?

Well, when mommy and her boyfriend are having sex on front of me...

:Q

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Amused

When have I ever defending someone violating the actual rights of another?

When have you not? Start with smokers and go on forever.

I know you sport a huge woody for me because I oppose your socialist ideology

I am anything BUT a socialist (If anything, I am what Libertarianism is supposed to be, not your twisted version of it). I dislike you because you're an ideologue. You have no concept of reality.

 

[waggy]

hmm the parents are idiots. while we do answere any question my daughter has about her body and her brothers i do not understand having sex in front of her.

Though will the cops arrest me if my daughter comes in my room while me and the wife are having sex and seh tells a teacher? hmm

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: HybridSquirrel

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Had the guy been punching his girlfriend in front of their child, there'd likely only be an assault charge, but no child-neglect charges.
Go figure.

Picture in your head your mother having sex.

i think every kid at one point in time has walked in on there parents doing the dirty bird. its not such a big deal specially when you your self have been walked in on by your parents. though it would be nasty to watch my mom sit there and boogy down her bf but who knows, RI is wierd

Yeah... been there. Last time I show up at my parent's house without calling first :Q

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Amused

When have I ever defending someone violating the actual rights of another?

When have you not? Start with smokers and go on forever.

I know you sport a huge woody for me because I oppose your socialist ideology

I am anything BUT a socialist. I dislike you because you're an ideologue. If anything, I am what Libertarianism is supposed to be, not your twisted version of it.

Smokers?

When have I ever advocated forcing private property owners to allow people to smoke on their property?

Never.

I have always stated that each property owner should have the right to allow, or disallow smoking on THEIR property. Any other option is a total violation of individual rights. The visitors have every right to refuse to enter the property if the policies of the property owner offend them. They do NOT have the right to force the property owner to conform to their wishes. People who oppose my position feel visitors to private property have some dreamed up right to force property owners to accommodate their wishes.

"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."

Now, please explain, in detail, exactly how my stands on "smokers" has been a "twisted version" of libertarianism?

 

[meltdown75]

lol... Amused, you're debating with someone in your own controversial news story thread?

nothing to see here folks, move along