Print 43 comment(s) - last by creathir.. on Dec 15 at 12:04 AM

Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell wants to remove the anonymity of the Internet from sex offenders

Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell is seeking legislation requiring convicted sex offenders to register their online identities with the state’s recently revamped Sex Offender Registry. Sex offenders will have to identify their email addresses, instant messaging and chat room screen names so that sites such as MySpace can more easily block access of predators.

This decision comes after a discussion in Attorney General Bob McDonnell’s Youth Internet Safety Task Force. A member who represents told the group about the Web site’s initiative seeking federal legislation that would require convicted sex offenders to register all of their email addresses in a national sex offender database. The group instantly supported the idea but added the additional requirement of instant messaging identities.

Speaking about the proposed legislation, Attorney General McDonnell noted, “We require all sex offenders to register their physical and mailing addresses in Virginia, but in the 21st century it is just as critical that they register any email addresses or IM screen names. This has become readily apparent during the meetings of our Youth Internet Safety Task Force, and it is time we take this step. has led the way in coming up with this proactive solution, and Virginia will take the lead in being the first to propose the measure on a state level. I hope other social networking sites will join in implementing the software necessary to accomplish this goal.”

MySpace last week announced a technology that will be able to search existing state and federal databases to identify and delete the profiles of registered sex offenders. Such an effort to identify sex offenders on MySpace was first reported early October when Kevin Poulsen used a Perl script to cross reference MySpace users with state databases.

By creating a database of email addresses and IM names, and allowing social networking sites such as to access that database, law enforcement will be able to help such sites monitor users. When, or any other social networking site, comes across the email address or IM name of a registered sex offender they will now have the ability to both delete and/or block these individuals from accessing their site. 

“It is critical that states take this step as the vast majority of prosecutions and convictions for sex offenders take place at the state level,” McDonnell continued to emphasize. “This is not a foolproof approach, as we all fully realize how easy it is to get new email addresses. But by requiring registration, and by making the penalties for failure to register the same as those for failure to register physical and mailing addresses, we will take another positive step towards protecting children online.”

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By mindless1 on 12/13/2006 5:18:42 AM , Rating: 5
Some sex offenders I think should be dropped into a hole in the ground and left there. Others, it's a bit ambiguous that they're even the stereotypical "sex offender", suppose for example a 17 and 18 year old having consensual sex, or in some states I believe it's even a sex offense to (give or have?) a BJ.

They'll likely try to lump everyone together, an automated process such that no matter what you did, you get on some list. IMO, if the people this is meant to stop need to be monitored, they should NOT BE LET OUT OF PRISON. As for the rest, I'm opposed to these lists and monitoring, not even considering the potential abuse (suppose a hacker got a lot of innocent people onto a list and then circulated it somewhere?).

Then there's the issue of effectiveness, as another poster already mentioned a sex offender looking to do harm to someone would tend to use a non-registered email address unless they're dumb as a rock.

RE: Opposed
By mindless1 on 12/13/2006 5:22:17 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Opposed
By kontorotsui on 12/13/2006 6:05:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well, they should punish the parents, not the kids.

RE: Opposed
By Dfere on 12/13/2006 8:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
I believe records of minors get expunged when they turn 18. I have not heard their is any exception to this in any state.

In Ohio, this is one reason 15 year olds are being tried as adults- not just for sentencing. If adjucated as an adult during the act, they receive no benefit or defense for being a minor when committing the act.

RE: Opposed
By Kuroyama on 12/13/2006 9:08:40 AM , Rating: 1
Didn't you just contradict yourself? Presumably if they are tried as an adult at age 15 then that will not be expunged when they turn 18. I suspect that petty crimes like theft will be expunged, but a crime like rape or murder will probably result in trial as an adult and not be expunged.

RE: Opposed
By Dfere on 12/13/2006 11:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
No. I did not.

If adjucated as an adult, this is an adult record, not a juvenile record. It does not get expunged. A 12 year old with a sex offender conviction would get expunged. A 17 year old would if he did not get tried as an adult. In the instant case I was responding to, there was nothing to indicate the 12 year old was being tried as an adult. The convict does not obtain any benefit or defense as a minor. The 12 year old would get the benefit of being a minor and having her records expunged at 18. If a 17 year old were found to be committing a sex crime as an adult, he would not. This is the whole point of attaining such an adjucation. I am not really for trial as adult for 15 year olds (in most cases, so far that I have known the facts of), but it exists.

RE: Opposed
By rushfan2006 on 12/13/2006 4:19:07 PM , Rating: 1
Capital offenses are never "espunged" from your record...doesn't matter if you are 14 or 40....this applies all 50 states because its Federal law, and not state.

RE: Opposed
By littlebitstrouds on 12/13/2006 5:50:19 AM , Rating: 2
suppose for example a 17 and 18 year old having consensual sex, or in some states I believe it's even a sex offense to (give or have?) a BJ.

Nah there is no state where a 17 and 18 year old can't have sex. In PA it's 16 with consent within three years of one's own age. So 16 with 19 is fine but not with 20. There might be no "BJ" laws but there are also laws in some states where teachers can't marry, or it's illegal to spit in public... in PA they are called "blue laws"... they are not enforced.

But as to the point of your arguement, yes there are lvl's of sex offenders which are harmless and perhaps their rights need to be protected. However I doubt these are the people that they are going after.

RE: Opposed
By OrSin on 12/13/2006 9:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
You are very wrong. In many states if you ahve sex and is under 16 you can arrested. Lucky its not usually inforced.
I know in GA if the girl is 15 or younger a guy no matter his age can be arrest for a sex offense if she gives him a BJ. He can even be younger. The problem with the sex offense registry is it doesn't group people correctly.

RE: Opposed
By littlebitstrouds on 12/14/2006 5:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
Load your brain before you fire off that gun... I never said there were no laws saying 15 year olds can't have sex... What I did state, was the 16 with three years of consent law. Make sure you know what your reading before you post please.

RE: Opposed
By marvdmartian on 12/13/2006 9:39:02 AM , Rating: 4
Agreed. Blanketing anyone who has received a "sex offender" label is foolish, and I believe they'd do better to expend their efforts towards the true "sexual predators".

I had a buddy, years ago, who got caught taking a piss behind a dumpster, in an industrial area (no houses for miles in any direction, no schools nearby), at 3 in the morning, by a cop. He went to court, pled guilty to misdemeanor public exposure, and then found out he had to register as a sex offender in California. WTF?? Granted, what he did wasn't the brightest thing he'd ever done, but it was by no means the same as whipping it out in front of a bunch of kids at an elementary school!!

And, like others have stated (below), how difficult is it to go to Yahoo or G-mail, and obtain a new e-mail address?

RE: Opposed
By creathir on 12/13/2006 11:00:19 AM , Rating: 1
First of all, under 18, your record is sealed.

Second, if an 18+ is having sex with someone under 16, they should be in prison. Period. Sex with a minor... hello. I can understand the 2 year concent rules, but beyond those years... it is wrong. The person below that age most likely is not mature enough to be making an adult descision. This is why we do not let people under 16 drive alone... or people under 16 work fulltime jobs. They are not as mature as an adult is at that age, and a sick person that would prey on that needs to be locked up... plain and simple.

As for a hacker, a hacker could hack the police records database and put your on it, but without the proper SEALED paperwork, it is useless in a court of law. The same would apply in this type of system. If you honestly think this would be some electronic only submission system, you would be kidding yourself. This will be part of the package of paper work parole officers give offenders to fill out.

Incintive of course, is that if they find out you have not disclosed some information, parole tends to disappear rather quickly.

- Creathir

RE: Opposed
By BladeVenom on 12/13/2006 12:29:43 PM , Rating: 5
Why is 18 so sacred? Puberty happens at 12 or 13. Is God or evolution wrong, and politicians are right?

RE: Opposed
By ninjit on 12/13/2006 12:56:03 PM , Rating: 3
Is God or evolution wrong

Nice, I like the PCness of your comment...

RE: Opposed
By masher2 on 12/13/2006 12:59:22 PM , Rating: 1
He covered his bases, for sure...

RE: Opposed
By Christopher1 on 12/13/2006 8:56:51 PM , Rating: 3
He's got it half right. Puberty lately has been starting in girls and boys at the age of 7 in most cases (puberty starts WITHOUT obvious signs in most children)!

I know some girls around me, who are sexually active at the age of 9 (at least from what they have told me), and who started developing SSC's at the age of 5, without any hormone problems, tumors or anything else that would start puberty early. Some of them were even tested for exposure to those plastics that cause early puberty, and it came back negative.

The only thing that is different from 200 years ago is that children are better fed today, therefore their bodies don't have to wait to start puberty because of lack of food.

We know, from gymnasts and physically active girls, that girls who burn off calories to the point of not having any fat reserves whatsoever, start puberty later.

We know, from fat girls, that those who have LARGE reserves of fat start earlier (including my cousin, who started at the age of 8 because she was slightly overweight).

Nature and evolution have made their decision, and that decision is that children are SUPPOSED to be sexually active. Otherwise, nature would have made us WITHOUT sexual organs until that magical age of 18, when we would suddenly develop a penis or a pussy.

RE: Opposed
By creathir on 12/13/06, Rating: 0
RE: Opposed
By Christopher1 on 12/13/06, Rating: 0
RE: Opposed
By creathir on 12/15/2006 12:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
Are you insane???

A 6 year old... you would rob the innocence of a 6 year old like that (or you have no problem with it)

You can believe God is imaginary all you want, that is a totally separate topic, but the mere fact that you want a 6 year old to be able to have sex with whom they please is quite disturbing. We are talking about children that lack the ability to read and write (some of them), multiply, and for some to tie their shoes.

Have you ever been around a 6 year old? Have you seen how indecisive they are? Have you seen how poor their choices are at times? (Hello... this is why it is called RAISING your children... to instill values in them)

What were you doing at 6? Imagine if your 30 year old neighbor wanted to have sex with you... would you have even been able to know what that is? Would you have even been able to have sex!?

Pressure is having the kid be freaked out for the rest of their lives because the societies they live in view them as a sexual commodity than rather the societys future.

You are a disgusting human being, and totally revolt me for posting such a dreadful comment. You have the right to your opinion, but people such as yourself have helped to shape this world into a much more dangerous world than it used to be.

As far as the age of adulthood, it really needs to be INCREASED for someone of your immaturity. However, from a logical stand point, let me offer you this:

I suppose it is alright for everyone then, (no age of adulthood) to be drafted? How about everyone be able to be handed the death penalty for a murder they commit? Or how about the ability for a child to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt? Or maybe the ability for the child to work 16 hour days...? Sound good?

I know... how about the ability for the child to decide they do not want to go to school, as they would rather be playing outside.

Or maybe it should be the right for the kid to buy a gun? How about the right to drive a car?
How about the right to drink as much booze as they want?
How about the right to smoke as much as they want?
How about the right to do whatever the heck they want?

They can make great decisions... there is nothing wrong with them skipping school to buy a gun, booze, and cigs on the credit card they got that they pay of the bills with the job they work so they can go home and have sex with the neighbor if they so wish...

Yup... sounds like happy times to me...
I really want me next door neighbor and his new wife to be a 6 year old. Yup... just gotta watch out for him when he is driving... he tends to ignore the fact that there are consequences for his actions.

You sir, are an idiot, plain and simple. Your thoughts, revolt me, and I do not say that very often. Be sure to let us all know what town you are in, or even state for that matter, as I want to know where NOT to visit with my children, for fear of their safety.

- Creathir

RE: Opposed
By littlebitstrouds on 12/14/2006 5:59:14 AM , Rating: 2

Dave Chapel did a stand up in 2004, right before he went a little nuts, where he makes fun of this law... I would advise anyone to download it, as it's pretty damn funny anyway but he also uses a good analogy.


RE: Opposed
By Christopher1 on 12/13/2006 8:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it wrong? Are you one of the IDIOTS who are trying to say "A 18 year old is more experienced than a 15-year old!"

Frankly, experience is over-rated, and I have met 2 YEAR OLDS who are more mature than their parents! Seriously here, I have met two year olds who are more honest, more trustworthy, and more able to make their own decisions than adults.

It's time to abandon this 'matureness' issue, and simply go to the 'Do they want to do the sexual thing' issue.

If that is the case, that they do want to try or do sexual things with an adult or an older child, piss off and let them do it!
Your job is to protect your children from imminent PHYSICAL harm, not from psychological harm (which is usually caused by you forcing them to testify in court against an adult when they do not wish to!) or from their own sexual choices. Note that word: choices! Something that even a retarded 2 year old should be allowed to make.

smoke and mirrors
By rika13 on 12/13/2006 8:55:19 AM , Rating: 3
how hard is it to get an email these days?

chester the molester gets a new email on yahoo in five minutes, sure you cant automate that, but it is too easy to do that under a false name (like jack ass) which is not illegal (i have a right to protect my identity)

RE: smoke and mirrors
By Cogman on 12/13/2006 9:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
I agree completly, What if they get an email account from an Idaho company. Then they are not sending out emails from Virginia just broadcasting data to Idahos servers that make it into an email. This is a worthless law that they can't enforce. They would have to take away every sex offenders computer and give them limited access to and even then thats not to hard to get around if you have the hardware at your home (or pcworld nearby)

RE: smoke and mirrors
By masteraleph on 12/13/2006 10:02:38 AM , Rating: 3
Ahh, but if you later get caught for another sex offense and you didn't register, they can use this law to show that you were trying to hide your identity and that you are thereby more dangerous than an average repeat offender.

RE: smoke and mirrors
By Cogman on 12/13/2006 10:12:22 AM , Rating: 2
so you register and never use it, or ocasionally use it. Safe.

RE: smoke and mirrors
By peternelson on 12/13/2006 11:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
I have no problem with asking offenders to REGISTER their IM, email, screen names.

What I DO have a problem with is an automatic blocking of all such details on various systems like myspace.

If someone using that identity is found OFFENDING then you can throw the book at them, but until that, you should not ban it.

This is because if you block myspace, where do you stop? eg uploading to youtube, eg posting on anandtech forums, eg sending emails?

You will deprive even people with relatively minor offences from the commonly accepted benefits of using the internet. If someone asks you "what's your msn" (or similar ubiquitous messaging system like AOL, yahoo), and you cannot give them it, or set up an account, that is pretty much effectively making them wear a sign around their neck saying I'm a convicted sex offender for the rest of my life. It could also lead to vigilante attacks.

Further this makes no distinction between minor things (like possessing not buying pornography) versus violent rape and murder. In the latter cases there is probably some merit in keeping people off myspace, but doing it automatically regardless of offence is problematic. In UK there is specific offence of "grooming" a young person, and if the offender was monitored doing any such activity then action should certainly be taken immediately.

For this reason I support the registering of online names, but not blanket blocking of those accounts.

eg the ability to have an account on ebay could be a legitimate means of income (even though it could be used as a means to meet victims).

Also regarding convicted hackers given sentences like you can't use a computer for the next 5 years. That is pretty dumb. The restriction should be against doing naughty things with computers, because just using them is an important part of daily life eg home banking.

RE: smoke and mirrors
By Dactyl on 12/13/2006 8:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
chester the molester gets a new email on yahoo in five minutes
Yes, but if they catch him using an unregistered email, that's enough to throw his ass in jail.

Makes it a lot easier to crack down on them if they behave badly online. No need to prove exactly what they were using the email addy for.

Excellent Idea and...
By Dfere on 12/13/2006 7:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
They should also register with any online gaming company that has kids as subscribers that would voluntaruily set up a database.

WOW has tons of 10-13 year olds IM'ing all the time.

I am going to try to contact the task force for this recommendation. How could Valve and Blizzard not wish to help out?

RE: Excellent Idea and...
By Master Kenobi on 12/13/2006 8:07:25 AM , Rating: 2
In gaming you generally don't see this kind of stuff. Kids on the internet that are gamers do not seem to fall into the range of people being victimized for this crap. Probably because you need to register personal information with Blizzard etc.... Blizzard could look up your account name, what you said, and slap charges on your ass for violating EULA and TOS, not to mention any state/federal laws. I don't hear about kids being picked up in games, its always social networking sites and chat rooms.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that maybe because online gamers aren't wearing such rose colored glasses as morons on places like myspace? Really lets just for the sake of ranting show something interesting here. Computer online forums and gaming has been around for quite some time now, and kids have been doing online gaming etc.... for years. Yet only since these megasites like myspace, etc.... have poped up have you started to see predators on them trying to pickup kids..........

Not saying anything just an observation that maybe theyre making it a little "too easy" for kids to setup websites and whatnot and share personal information.

RE: Excellent Idea and...
By Dfere on 12/13/2006 8:21:25 AM , Rating: 2
The contact for the task force, as far as I can tell is

By the way, proposed legislation in sveral states and the federal level would actually rank predators, with the examples of the 19 and 16 year old love story, being the lowest type of infringement, if it were prosecuted by some vindictive back water county prosecutor.

My sister was a assistant D.A. in Queens and then Westchester County prosecuting these types of cyber crimes. The romance story proposed above is not typical and would not have been prosecuted as such, unless there was more the the facts than what is outlined in the arguments above.

RE: Excellent Idea and...
By masher2 on 12/13/2006 9:58:31 AM , Rating: 3
> "My sister was a assistant D.A...The romance story proposed above is not typical and would not have been prosecuted as such..."

Regardless of what you and your sister may think, such prosecutions can and do happen. There was a similar case in my own jurisidiction, involving an 17 year old high school student, and his 16 year old girlfriend. He was charged with a felony and lost his upcoming college scholarship as well. Or another case, where a man slapped a (not underage) female coworker on the bottom, and wound up as a misdemeanor sex offender.

A prior poster also points out an even more egregious case, of a friend relieving himself behind a dumpster at 3am, who now has to register as a sex offender.

RE: Excellent Idea and...
By Dfere on 12/13/2006 11:38:54 AM , Rating: 2

This is the idea behind some of the proposals being presented.

Also, my sister did not prosecute anyone for urination as a sex offender. Besides, if you have the court documents, perhaps we could examine that instance more carefully. Were there other charges which were dropped? Was other evidence which had to be dropped by the courts (drugs etc) which made DA go for the worst sentence you could possibly get for what could be proved? Was there a plea deal and agreement as to how the charge was to be presented to the public?

I can't speak to a few incidents by some other law officials (I did say backwater, though). I can tell you my sister deliberately went on line, and other ADA's and acted as 13 year old girls, and typically busted these guys at a bus station. They typically proved this in court by requesting certain items be present, especially specific beer and liquor types. The guys always had this on them and rarely wanted this to go to court and pled out. She rarely had to subpeona email accounts and records.

She never once prosecuted a case of two kids who were arguably in love, nor did she prosecute anyone for slapping a females butt. I am not sure she would have, but will check in with her to see if she ever did or the courts she worked in had, or her boss (-who was also female and ran against Hillary Clinton) ever had this as a prosecutable item or aqgenda. From previous discussions with her I think not, but I will check.

RE: Excellent Idea and...
By masher2 on 12/13/2006 1:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "my sister did not prosecute anyone for urination as a sex offender...She never once prosecuted a case of two kids who were arguably in love, nor did she prosecute anyone for slapping a females butt...

Your sister, however, is only one of tens of thousands of DA's and assistant DA's around the nation. Many of them can and do regularly engage in such prosecuturial malfeasance. And, at present, additional federal sex offender requirements play into their hands, and make a bad situation worse.

As for such cases ocurring only in "backwaters", the two I mentioned took place in one of the ten largest cities in the nation. Perhaps you can ask the other poster if his reference was in Jerkwater, USA.

By Hypernova on 12/13/2006 3:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
What if they create a mail account and choose not to reveal that to the register? There is no way to know and how can you tell that the guy has disclosed ALL the addresses.

RE: er...
By Dfere on 12/13/2006 8:29:09 AM , Rating: 3
That is what is called deterrent. You make it a crime not to disclose. You yank any parole if someone does not disclose. You additionally disclose on predator websites that this person does not obey the law, and you up his or her "predator rating" for it if caught in non-compliance

After all, many crimes are never caught. Just because someone can do something bad and not get caught doesn't mean you should strike down the law. It is deterrence that keeps some from doing bad things. As much as we like to talk about "reforming someone", our penal system has always been (and in every other major country I know about) punishment and deterrence. Read "On Crime and Punishment". It is a small book, a hundred years old, with big ideas.

New E-mail Hosting
By brshoemak on 12/13/2006 7:32:13 AM , Rating: 2
Some sex offenders I think should be dropped into a hole in the ground and left there. Others, it's a bit ambiguous that they're even the stereotypical "sex offender", suppose for example a 17 and 18 year old having consensual sex, or in some states I believe it's even a sex offense to (give or have?) a BJ.

i agree, there is a gray area for some instances but unfortunately not under the law. I would imagine the next step lawmakers would attempt would be to limit e-mail access somehow so registered sex offenders would be limited to a single e-mail host; something like

RE: New E-mail Hosting
By peternelson on 12/13/2006 11:31:42 AM , Rating: 2
Some people would likely wear such an address as a "badge of pride".

Similar has happenned with the UK's ASBO "anti-social behaviour order" where people try to get one so they can show how "bad" they are and then show it off.

This is "Law and Order SVU" type stuff here.
By encryptkeeper on 12/13/2006 10:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
We need detectives Benson and Stabler on this one.

In all seriousness, is the D.A. in Utah REALLY going after this case? That's the person that needs a good slap of reality.

By Dfere on 12/13/2006 11:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
Not Disagreed.

Impossible to implement
By ninjit on 12/13/2006 1:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
The issues of lumping all sex-offenders together aside (already being debated in some of the other threads).

How can they realistically expect to enforce this?

To show that an offender violated these terms, they would have to force any email provider to disclose all their records in order to catch the guy(or gal) at it.

Most email providers don't check whether you use your real name for registration. Prosecuters would need records of logged IP addresses along with locations of Sex offenders at the time (i.e. on the internet at home, or at a cafe), in order to correlate the two.

Even if by some magical Unicorn, they managed to pass a law forcing all US email providers to do just that (which I'm certain any company is going fight like hell), what about private servers? I can setup my on email domain using dynamic DNS in a few mins. And foreign servers? I can get yahoo accounts in India, France, Korea, Japan....

The guy who though this is up, is an idiot, as he obviously didn't think it through.

If elections weren't over, I'd say the guy was just trying to blow smoke rings in order to garner more publicity.

RE: Impossible to implement
By Dactyl on 12/13/2006 8:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
How can they realistically expect to enforce this?
It's not intended to be enforced in the sense that no sex offender, anywhere, will be able to get a secret email address. Or even stopping 90% of them from doing so.

It just makes it easier to bust them after the fact, or if they suspect someone in particular is up to no good, they can spy on him and then throw him in jail if they catch him using an unregistered addy (no need to prove he did anything worse)

Internet Privacy?!
By dlapham on 12/13/2006 2:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, first off I want to make it clear that I have the same issues with 'true' sex offenders as most other posters here. I personaly think that casteration should be manditory. It is humane and would fix the problem in most cases, but that isn't what this post is about.

I am not as paranoid as this post will make me sound, but I'll post it any way. What if the issue was an attempt to do away with anonymouse email access altogeather. What is Big Brother or whatever his name is these days used sex offenders as the scape goat because everyone hates them, but what they realy want is for all email address registered in the US to be verrified. This would be an impossible task and then international services would still be available, but I just see this as another attack on the internet being 'somewhat' anonymous. Sure your IP address is in the header of your email, but that is easy to get around... Again this is me playing paranoid. I don't realy think that "they" are out to get me, but one never knows do they :)

RE: Internet Privacy?!
By Christopher1 on 12/13/2006 9:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with the words "true sex offenders" is that there is really no such thing.

Rape, unfortunate as it is for me to say it, having been raped numerous times, is a survival mechanism created by nature for the purpose of allowing someone to spread their genes.
That is why men (even though women would disagree!) can be raped just as easily as women.

Child sexual abuse is a word made up by religious zealots who believe that children shouldn't be having sex and that their imaginary 'god' would have a problem with them doing it, when they don't stop to think that 'god' wouldn't have made them with sexual organs from that early of an age if he didn't intend for them to have sex that early.

Everything that is classified as a 'sexual offense' is really just a religious nut trying to retool reality, or a feminist, male or female, trying to do the same thing.

Rape is always going to be around. What we need to do is make it so that men do NOT have to rape, by women being a little more free with the nookie than they are right now.

For pedophiles, same thing! Stop trying to put them in jail and simply teach children that they have the right to tell someone yea or nay as to a sexual encounter, and stop letting children feed you the bullshit that "He touched me and I didn't want him to!" Speaking from my own experience being 'sexually abused', I asked the teenager and adults in question EVERY TIME to touch me.
I was just lucky that my parents taught me to take responsibility for my own actions and inactions.

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles
Registered Sex Offenders Found on MySpace
October 20, 2006, 8:03 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki