So the media stopped covering LGBT icon Terry Bean's story in November

[Silhouette]

You DO realize those "imaginary age of consent" limits are largely to protect EXACTLY the type of child/minor who may quite likely be experimenting sexually to mingle love with the act with peers, right? That is so adult predators, who seek the act of sex with those much younger than themselves (Terry Bean in his 60s with a 16 year old) for purely instant gratification and devoid of love (How could Bean love the boys he was barebacking, exposing them to death by HIV?) don't sully them or sully them further?

Again, all the way up until the 19th century, a 15 year old was considered old enough to marry. Here was the thing. This teen was putting himself out on gay dating apps... I doubt Bean was his first sex partner....There's a whole article in New York Magazine about how young girls are paying their way through college through prostitution because it pays better than McDonalds.... but I don't see you getting worked up about that.

.

I have to assume, since I just gave you a detailed explanation of why even sullied adolescents (especially) need protection from adults reacting to their advances, is that you are ignoring the need for protection of minors in favor instead of what adults want to do with them..even and especially when the minor himself is "putting him (or her) self out there" for adults to consume. It is incumbent upon the adults to say an emphatic NO! to the minor, to correct any past damage to the minor which may have been done by an adult to give the minor the idea in the first place that "love = random anonymous sex with adults much much older than me"..

See the reason for the laws yet?...No? Coming at it from a pure loveless "rights to" sexual gratification of creepy adults angle still are you?...

You discuss the angst of the damaged minor as if he is a mere commodity, like a can of chili that fell off the shelf with a dented lid and as such you don't have to pay full price for him anymore. You want to discount your morality because "hey, the can of chili is already dented".. Kids aren't cans of chili for your consumption. If they exhibit signs of sexual damage you should DOUBLE DOWN on protecting them: not the opposite...

 

[Skylar]

You DO realize those "imaginary age of consent" limits are largely to protect EXACTLY the type of child/minor who may quite likely be experimenting sexually to mingle love with the act with peers, right? That is so adult predators, who seek the act of sex with those much younger than themselves (Terry Bean in his 60s with a 16 year old) for purely instant gratification and devoid of love (How could Bean love the boys he was barebacking, exposing them to death by HIV?) don't sully them or sully them further?

Again, all the way up until the 19th century, a 15 year old was considered old enough to marry. Here was the thing. This teen was putting himself out on gay dating apps... I doubt Bean was his first sex partner....There's a whole article in New York Magazine about how young girls are paying their way through college through prostitution because it pays better than McDonalds.... but I don't see you getting worked up about that.

.

I have to assume, since I just gave you a detailed explanation of why even sullied adolescents (especially) need protection from adults reacting to their advances, is that you are ignoring the need for protection of minors in favor instead of what adults want to do with them..even and especially when the minor himself is "putting him (or her) self out there" for adults to consume. It is incumbent upon the adults to say an emphatic NO! to the minor, to correct any past damage to the minor which may have been done by an adult to give the minor the idea in the first place that "love = random anonymous sex with adults much much older than me"..

See the reason for the laws yet?...No? Coming at it from a pure loveless "rights to" sexual gratification of creepy adults angle still are you?...

You discuss the angst of the damaged minor as if he is a mere commodity, like a can of chili that fell off the shelf with a dented lid and as such you don't have to pay full price for him anymore. You want to discount your morality because "hey, the can of chili is already dented".. Kids aren't cans of chili for your consumption. If they exhibit signs of sexual damage you should DOUBLE DOWN on protecting them: not the opposite...

Yeah, but the only time you get upset about it....is if its a gay person.

Just like the only victims of child abuse you care about are those abused by gays.

Just like you only care about boys who have been abused, despite making up a fraction of child abuse victims......because little girls don't let you accuse lesbians for hating men or gay men of being pedophiles.

Just like the only children you demand must have a 'mother and a father' in thier lives....are the children of gay parents. Never the children of single parents.

As usual, the only child you give a fiddler's fuck about...is the child you can exploit and use to attack gay people. If the child can't be used to attack gays...they're beneath your contempt.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, but the only time you get upset about it....is if its a gay person.

Note the thread title and the OP. I'm responding to the Terry Bean allegations that he sodomized a minor and got off the hook by paying him not to testify. However, there's another witness that says not only did 60-something Bean sodomize "bareback" this minor but does so routinely and "never wears a condom". That's attempted murder on top of sodomizing a minor. I believe, no matter who the minor is, that Bean should be tried for at least one felony, possibly more and his penchant for attempted murder would be quelled. I believe this is in the best interest of children.

Feel free to start another topic if you like; or just address this one as it is presented.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, but the only time you get upset about it....is if its a gay person.

Note the thread title and the OP. I'm responding to the Terry Bean allegations that he sodomized a minor and got off the hook by paying him not to testify.

You're predictably focusing *exclusively* on attacks on gay folks. As I said, the only instances of abuse that are concerned with is if gay people do it.

I remember when Duggar was outed as molesting his own sisters when they were far younger than the victim in this case, you tried to defend Duggar. Just obliterating any claim you might make to carring about kids.

As I said, the only time you give a fiddler's fuck about any child...is if you can use and exploit that child to attack gays. That's it. If you can't use a child to that end...they're beneath your contempt.

 

[JoeB131]

You realize you're defending pedophilia right?

Um, no. 15 year olds are not "children". Just ask your fellow right wingers every time a cop blows away a 15 year old because he was black with an attitude.

 

[JoeB131]

I have to assume, since I just gave you a detailed explanation of why even sullied adolescents (especially) need protection from adults reacting to their advances, is that you are ignoring the need for protection of minors in favor instead of what adults want to do with them..even and especially when the minor himself is "putting him (or her) self out there" for adults to consume. It is incumbent upon the adults to say an emphatic NO! to the minor, to correct any past damage to the minor which may have been done by an adult to give the minor the idea in the first place that "love = random anonymous sex with adults much much older than me"..

See the reason for the laws yet?...No? Coming at it from a pure loveless "rights to" sexual gratification of creepy adults angle still are you?...

If the kid was old enough to put himself on a gay dating website for gay hookups, he wasn't a "child" being "exploited".

You discuss the angst of the damaged minor as if he is a mere commodity, like a can of chili that fell off the shelf with a dented lid and as such you don't have to pay full price for him anymore. You want to discount your morality because "hey, the can of chili is already dented".. Kids aren't cans of chili for your consumption. If they exhibit signs of sexual damage you should DOUBLE DOWN on protecting them: not the opposite...

Actually, if the Can of Chili is following me down the aisle, screaming "Eat me, eat me!" you shouldn't be surprised when I eat it.

Other than a talking can of chili is kind of freaky outside of a commerical, but I digress.

Actually, he sounds like kind of a shakedown artist. Have sex with an older guy, and then threaten him unless he pays you a lot of money....

 

[Skylar]

You realize you're defending pedophilia right?

Um, no. 15 year olds are not "children". Just ask your fellow right wingers every time a cop blows away a 15 year old because he was black with an attitude.

The generally recognized definitions of pedophilia are interest in kids 11 or younger.

 

[Silhouette]

You realize you're defending pedophilia right?

Um, no. 15 year olds are not "children". Just ask your fellow right wingers every time a cop blows away a 15 year old because he was black with an attitude.

Are you done with your non sequitur? Or will you try to run with this diversion for awhile? 15 year olds are the age group most targeted for the "no adults having sex with" demographic. It is precisely because they are fledging their own personal sexuality which is the very precise reason adults must not tamper with them....REGARDLESS of their sexual activity among their peers or lack of it. And, if a state says under 18 is a minor, under 18 is a minor. Period. Your taste for them, and/or defending others' taste for them at this age doesn't allow you to defy the law.

 

[Skylar]

You realize you're defending pedophilia right?

Um, no. 15 year olds are not "children". Just ask your fellow right wingers every time a cop blows away a 15 year old because he was black with an attitude.

Are you done with your non sequitur?

You intentionally and flagrantly misleading isn't a 'non-sequiter'. Duggar molesting his 11 year old sister, that would be pedophilia. Which you defended.

This is, as you were forced to admit, a 'no adult having sex with' demographic. Which you only condemn if the person is gay. if they're not, the victims of such abuse are either beneath your contempt.....or you bizarrely defend their abuses.

Just like you did in the Duggar case.

 

[Silhouette]

You need to take a chill pill Skylar.

 

[Silhouette]

This is, as you were forced to admit, a 'no adult having sex with' demographic. Which you only condemn if the person is gay. if they're not, the victims of such abuse are either beneath your contempt.....or you bizarrely defend their abuses.

I condemn any and all sex with minors. The issue with the Duggars was more complex being a minor with a minor. Still a problem but since neither really is 'legally able to discern' it's more of a tragedy than an insidious crime. What he did as an adult is a different story.

The issue here where 'gay' makes a difference is the HUGE propensity for these youngsters getting HIV anally from Terry Bean (in his 60s, fully able, wily, and adept at discerning) "never using a condom" with minor(s?) as "bottoms" for him...according to the eyewitness. And apparently texts and phone messages on Bean's phone as well indicating a number of other youngsters he had codes for "barebacking" and what money he paid them off to stay silent about it....

Older gay men barebacking youth is one of the #1 vectors in spreading the HIV epidemic. And as such, Bean doing this as a routine means he is homicidal...

 

[Skylar]

This is, as you were forced to admit, a 'no adult having sex with' demographic. Which you only condemn if the person is gay. if they're not, the victims of such abuse are either beneath your contempt.....or you bizarrely defend their abuses.

I condemn any and all sex with minors. The issue with the Duggars was more complex being a minor with a minor.

Yeah, Duggar molested his own sisters. So incest pedophilia. And yet despite this fact, you defended him.

So please don't pretend you give a fiddler's fuck about children. The only concern you have a child is now they can be used or exploited to attack gay people. If they can't, children are beneath your contempt.

As you demonstrated with Duggar's sisters.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, Duggar molested his own sisters. So incest pedophilia. And yet despite this fact, you defended him.

So please don't pretend you give a fiddler's fuck about children. The only concern you have a child is now they can be used or exploited to attack gay people. If they can't, children are beneath your contempt.

No, I didn't defend him. I said I wasn't sure if he was guilty or not and then when it came out that he was, I stopped posting. Didn't you notice that? But of course you did. It doesn't fit the narrative of your strawman.

Do you care that Terry Bean has a cellphone stuffed with youngster's names that he's barebacked and paid off?

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, Duggar molested his own sisters. So incest pedophilia. And yet despite this fact, you defended him.

So please don't pretend you give a fiddler's fuck about children. The only concern you have a child is now they can be used or exploited to attack gay people. If they can't, children are beneath your contempt.

No, I didn't defend him. I said I wasn't sure if he was guilty or not and then when it came out that he was, I stopped posting.

You complained about how he was being attacked and defended his innocence. You insisted he was being targeted because he was Christian and to make his family look bad. For crying out loud, you created an entire thread dedicated to your inane pseudo-legal conspiracy theorists insisting Duggar should sue Oprah Windfrey

Should the Duggar Family Sue the Oprah Winfrey Franchise?

Didn't you notice that?

The only children you have the slightest concern for are those you can use and exploit to attack gays. If you can't, they're beneath your contempt.

In the case of the Duggar girls who were molested by their own brother.....far, far beneath contempt. As you feverishly tried to defend their molester

 

[JoeB131]

Are you done with your non sequitur? Or will you try to run with this diversion for awhile? 15 year olds are the age group most targeted for the "no adults having sex with" demographic. It is precisely because they are fledging their own personal sexuality which is the very precise reason adults must not tamper with them....REGARDLESS of their sexual activity among their peers or lack of it. And, if a state says under 18 is a minor, under 18 is a minor. Period. Your taste for them, and/or defending others' taste for them at this age doesn't allow you to defy the law.

Uh, if we arrested every person OVER 18 who had sex with someone UNDER 18, we'd have triple the prison population, and you know it. Your prudeness has already rendered Megan's law worthless, as they are filled with people who did stuff as post-teens and got branded for life.

But this isn't about your wanting to protect "Children", this is about you desperately trying to find one last audience for your homophobic bullshit.

 

[Silhouette]

Uh, if we arrested every person OVER 18 who had sex with someone UNDER 18, we'd have triple the prison population, and you know it. Your prudeness has already rendered Megan's law worthless, as they are filled with people who did stuff as post-teens and got branded for life.

But this isn't about your wanting to protect "Children", this is about you desperately trying to find one last audience for your homophobic bullshit.

Most laws in most states have a "gray area" spillover age for the adolescent just over 18 or thereabouts for sleeping with someone 2 or so years younger than themselves. What most states DON'T have is a "gray area" for 60 year olds sodomizing 16 year olds without a condom. That's what Terry Bean did according to the witness; and to many many other youngsters.. If true, he's not only a serial pedophile, and a felon, he is guilty of attempted homicide..

 

[JoeB131]

Most laws in most states have a "gray area" spillover age for the adolescent just over 18 or thereabouts for sleeping with someone 2 or so years younger than themselves. What most states DON'T have is a "gray area" for 60 year olds sodomizing 16 year olds without a condom. That's what Terry Bean did according to the witness; and to many many other youngsters.. If true, he's not only a serial pedophile, and a felon, he is guilty of attempted homicide..

I'm a bit confused here... If a 16 year old having sex (not just the gay sex) is bad, then does it matter it the dick they are getting is 16 or 18 or 60? Are you saying you can't catch the AIDS from an 18 year old?

The sad thing is, a lot of guys on Megan's List Websites are guys who fell into your gray area... making Sex Offender Registries useless as they are full of people who didn't do anything serious like consensual relationships with teens.

The real problem is the law is a mess. You can marry a 14 year old girl in Texas but get arrested for banging a 16 year old. It's nuts.

 

[jillian]

He had charges dropped becaues he paid off his victim. They know he did this. They know he knew the victim was underrage, not like that's relevant to statutory rape. YET LIBERALS IGNORED THIS STORY. It didn't happen.

Previously Unreleased Police Interview Transcripts Suggest Terry Bean Knew His Alleged Sex Partner Was Under 18

who is terry bean?

did he pass over your pic on social media?

 

[theHawk]

If this had been a girl who was 15 YOU WOULD NOT BE blaming her, you would be blaming him.

Um, no, I'd be blaming her, too. Except I wouldn't consider it all that big of a deal in any event.

This whole notion that you are a minor unable to make sexual decisions even though your hormones and physical development say otherwise is a modern invention. Most of human history, 15 was marrying age. A 25 year old woman who wasn't married was considered an "old maid".

Fact is, most kids have lost their virginity by age 17. Nothing in this article even indicates that this kid had never had sex before that event.

Ask yourself, why have you never heard of Terry Bean and these charges before? He's accused of raping a 15 year old. They cannot consent, it is statutory rape no matter what app they used. Terry Bean is a major obama donor, he donated so much he got to fly in Air Force One. He also is the co founder of the Human Rights Campaign, the LARGEST LGBT organization in the country. Do you think if a consevative of this stature were accused of the same thing it would have been ignored by the MSM??

Um, yeah, it probably would be.

In fact, it was.

The Franklin Coverup Scandal The Child sex ring that reached Bush/Reagan Whitehouse

There are two main suspects in the child ring were Craig Spence and Lawrence E. King Jr. here are some pictures of them. Both were involved in the republican party. King sang the National anthem at two republican national conventions during the 1980s. He served time in jail for bank fraud and is now living somewhere on the east coast.. Spence was an important republican lobbyist, he committed suicide. Several of his partners went to jail for being involved in the adult part of the homosexual sex ring.

Craig J. Spence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, this involved a lot more actual criminality than what this guy is accused of, but you know what, it barely made a ripple in the media.

Oh look, another progressive now openly condones old men having sex with under aged boys. Funny how in another thread you were expressing a lot of anger towards "clergy" that we're having sex with under aged boys. But now that it's a Homo-Nazi activist who obviously is pushing the Agenda, it's "not a big deal".

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

never heard of the "Terry Bean" before today and neither has anyone else.

seems to me that according to the story, the young person involved used an app specifically designed to allow gay men to hook up. it wasn't like they put a bag over his head and dragged him into the back of a van or something.

That post says everything anyone needs to know about homofascism and its propaganda.