"Cool mom" gets 30 years for sex parties

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I find it creepy. I don't see what would have been so hard about hanging out with boys from the local community college instead of high school!

Yes, as a parent, I think the age is relevant. Now, for someone still in their twenties, teenagers aren't that far away, but a 41 year old woman should have no business with the kiddie set. Yes, I see a problem with getting them high and drunk then having sex with them, especially the younger ones. Still, thirty years seems like a lot. I wonder how the boys feel, do they feel they were molested? Murderers often get less time than that.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Dr Rock said:
that's cos killing someone is trivial compared to the horrific crime of giving them an orgasm

Yeah, she wasn't accused of forcing them, even though I do understand the legal implications. Personally, I think the boys' perception of what happened is relevant, I would just like to know how they feel. I mean, they were going to her house willingly as far as I know. They knew what was up with her, I'd bet.
 

MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Posts
41,064
Media
0
Likes
41,243
Points
718
Location
New Jersey, USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
Yeah, she wasn't accused of forcing them, even though I do understand the legal implications. Personally, I think the boys' perception of what happened is relevant, I would just like to know how they feel. I mean, they were going to her house willingly as far as I know. They knew what was up with her, I'd bet.

Well, you know, irregardless of whether or not there was force involved, the law still recognizes the whole crime as providing to minors, as well as statuatory rape of a minor.
 

Dorset

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Posts
391
Media
4
Likes
5
Points
163
Location
UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK said:
Well, you know, irregardless of whether or not there was force involved, the law still recognizes the whole crime as providing to minors, as well as statuatory rape of a minor.
Is that true though? As I said in my previous post, over here the minor has to be under 13 for it to be considered statuatory rape. I think this is on the basis that if you can be tried as an adult at 13 then you can decide if you want to have sex or not. Having sex with someone between 13 and 16 is sex with a minor and carries a far less severe sentance

I'm not saying you're wrong about it, as sex laws are so much tighter in the US, but I was just wondering if anyone knew if US law makes that distinction?

Also, she was tried for having many of these sex parties so surely they can't claim that she got them high to manipulate them sleep with her that many times. I'm sure they would have worked out after the first 2 or 3 times that she would do that and stop going!!!
They boys obviously liked it
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
will you clowns shut up about the fucking law for a second? we already KNOW what the law has to say - that's why she's in JAIL. we know, she knew, and the guys themselves probably knew at the time that it was ILLEGAL. the question is whether she SHOULD actually be punished for what was, by any logical standards, fairly harmless behavior. I mean, I personally wouldn't do her either, but that doesn't mean anybody else would have to be coerced into it.
 

B_DoubleMeatWhopper

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2002
Posts
4,941
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
268
Age
45
Location
Louisiana
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Dr Rock said:
we already KNOW what the law has to say - that's why she's in JAIL. we know, she knew, and the guys themselves probably knew at the time that it was ILLEGAL. the question is whether she SHOULD actually be punished for what was, by any logical standards, fairly harmless behavior.

That question is bound up in the legality of the matter. Of course, we know what the law says: you do the crime, be prepared to do the time. She did the crime knowing full well what the possible consequences were, so she really has no right to whine about her sentence when those possible consequences became a reality. She took the risk and lost: her fault. I cannot agree that providing drugs to minors, or to anyone, is fairly harmless. After watching people I know die or become comatose or worse due to drugs, I can't view drug use as a harmless recreational activity. Parents have certain responsibilities; getting her children's friends drunk, high and laid aren't among them.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
DoubleMeatWhopper said:
She did the crime knowing full well what the possible consequences were, so she really has no right to whine about her sentence when those possible consequences became a reality.
i'm not especially interested in what she has to say about her sentence. I'm pointing out that, as with most laws relating to sex and drugs, this one is clearly retarded.

After watching people I know die or become comatose or worse due to drugs
due to drug abuse, i assume you mean. the only drug that ever killed anyone is heroin (which kills everyone). you don't die from smoking pot or snorting coke at a party, even a party thrown by your buddy's mom.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Yeah, I guess the problem I'm having here is that these boys were going there voluntarily, knowing what was there. If they wanted to have sex with some lady for booze and drugs, that seems like a free choice. I doubt she was rounding them up and holding them hostage.
 

B_RoysToy

Cherished Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Posts
7,119
Media
0
Likes
284
Points
283
Age
33
Location
memphis, tennessee
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
DoubleMeatWhopper said:
That question is bound up in the legality of the matter. Of course, we know what the law says: you do the crime, be prepared to do the time. She did the crime knowing full well what the possible consequences were, so she really has no right to whine about her sentence when those possible consequences became a reality. She took the risk and lost: her fault. I cannot agree that providing drugs to minors, or to anyone, is fairly harmless. After watching people I know die or become comatose or worse due to drugs, I can't view drug use as a harmless recreational activity. Parents have certain responsibilities; getting her children's friends drunk, high and laid aren't among them.

How refreshing to read a level-headed post among the multitude of irrational ones! LPSG is fortunate to have you, DMW, for your wisdom and willingness to so fluently share it! :)

Luke
 

B_DoubleMeatWhopper

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2002
Posts
4,941
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
268
Age
45
Location
Louisiana
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
Yeah, I guess the problem I'm having here is that these boys were going there voluntarily, knowing what was there. If they wanted to have sex with some lady for booze and drugs, that seems like a free choice. I doubt she was rounding them up and holding them hostage.

Oh, I agree that the kids share the culpability, but that doesn't make Mama any less guilty. Sexual molestation and contributing to the delinquency of a minor are still crimes even if the 'victims' sought them out.
 

Max

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
862
Media
0
Likes
25
Points
238
Age
74
Location
UK
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
Yeah, I guess the problem I'm having here is that these boys were going there voluntarily, knowing what was there. If they wanted to have sex with some lady for booze and drugs, that seems like a free choice. I doubt she was rounding them up and holding them hostage.


If the genders were reversed would we allow a man to use young girls' 'free choice' of such acts as a defence?

These boys were entitled to the protection of the law; as DMW pointed out whether they 'consented' or not was immaterial.
 

GoneA

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Posts
5,020
Media
0
Likes
37
Points
268
DoubleMeatWhopper said:
Oh, I agree that the kids share the culpability, but that doesn't make Mama any less guilty. Sexual molestation and contributing to the delinquency of a minor are still crimes even if the 'victims' sought them out.

I agree.

I think that if you are going to punish the mother, you should punish the high school students, too.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Max said:
If the genders were reversed would we allow a man to use young girls' 'free choice' of such acts as a defence?

These boys were entitled to the protection of the law; as DMW pointed out whether they 'consented' or not was immaterial.

Immaterial? Not even by legal definition. Consent is the difference between statutory rape and rape, a wide chasm of difference. Consent goes to the basis of impact on the "victims" as well- if they were forced, it would be a much more grievous crime than if they were just underage, but did it willingly.

Yes, I agree that they are entitled to protection under the law because of their ages, but the degree of criminality here seems less severe than many crimes that are punished with far less time.

FWIW, I agree Jacinto that she knew what she was risking and now she has to suck it up, but I personally don't feel the punishment fits the crime, however I don't know all the details.
 

Pecker

Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Posts
54,502
Media
0
Likes
301
Points
283
So Mommy wanted to be "cool." Somehow she decided it would be 'cool' for boys to come to her house and use pot and meth, drink Jack Daniels and Smirnoff, and it would be 'cool' for them to snuggle between the legs of their classmates' Mom.

So, for a full year of almost weekly 'parties' she supplied just that. A total of 8 boys, 15-17, were involved, 5 of whom had sex with her.

Repeatedly.

So the D.A. dropped the drug charges since she plead guilty to other counts:

Two sex assaults, each carrying a max of 2 years in prison.
Nine contributing to deliquency, each carrying a max of 6 years in prison.

She got 30 years. She could have gotten 58. She'll be eligible for parole in 10 years. Her victims will be in their mid-20's.

It's mentioned above that while she was on bail awaiting sentencing that she was in an auto accident. Yup. She was in a Jeep Cherokee with 3 teens, including her son and the 14-year-old driver! They report that Mom was injured but they don't say anything about the kids' injuries, if any. At any rate, she was apparently still being "Cool" by letting a child drive and she was in violation of a restraining order by being with her son.

Which brings me to my main point: she has 3 children of her own. What do you suppose this experience has done to their psychological well-being?

Cool Mom? Give me a strict stick-in-the-mud who'll always be there for me when I need her and who knows the difference between being a pal and being a parent.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Well thanks for the info Pecker, I can see your point about her other kids. The thing is, in most states, the age of consent is 16- I don't know about her state. I would also be interested to know if these boys were doing drugs anywhere else or if she was their only drug-using experience. If they're doing it anyway I don't see how they (the boys) could blame her for choices that they made. If it was going on for a year, they knew what they were getting into. Children as young as 13 have been tried as adults for murder if it is determined that they knew the difference between right and wrong, so I just find it a bit disturbing that this case negates the boy's cuplability in these events. They CHOSE to do drugs and have sex with her, they weren't kidnapped.

Personally, I would never consider doing ANYTHING with a minor age person, because of the legal implications, but I was certainly on the opposite end when I was underage. I never felt "molested" because I chose to have sex with someone who was older. I made decisions based on how I felt about myself and my ability to make decisions at the time, and I was fine. Granted, I wasn't giving up booty for drugs, but if I was it still would have been my choice to take drugs, so I just can't see holding someone else accountable for something I did willingly.

Still, illegal is illegal. We all know the laws and know that if we break them there can be consequences, so I have no real gripe with her being punished, but those boys were not children. Whacko-Jacko hasn't done time for the children he's molested, and they were much younger. It's actually pretty tough to get a conviction on molestation charges alone, I doubt it would have happened if not for the drug use.

"Cool mom" is hardly what I'd call a mature woman who is frolicking about with her son's friends, there is an ickiness factor there that's pretty strong.
I liked being friends with Julianna's friends, but the thought of having any kind of sexual relationship with anyone she brought home would disgust me beyond words. I think my biggest gripe with this woman is why couldn't she find her own playmates? As parents, we're supposed to add to our children's lives, not take away.