Actresses claim to have been sexually assaulted as children

Fixed.

Last Edited by The Comedian :D on 10/17/2017 06:36 PM

For all the sick deneragtes on here saying that teens are adults..let me School you..these are kids you sick f@cks! I hope Trin bans you freaks!

Lol. It is happening as I predicted, this is an integral part of the liberal mentality of victimization coupled with the need for artists to want to appear.

A lot of these new "social justice" twitter clusterfucks ring more to me of "lipstick liberalism" and shameless self promotion than anything else. If these hollywood stars were so hurt and angered by what happened to them, why did they wait 20 or 30 years to say anything about it? Why aren't they naming the perpetrators? Why didn't they bring these people to justice when the incidents happened?

Making statements about being in fear or that so and so was rich and powerful is hogwash to me. If there was any voracity to the claims, they could have gone to police, provided the evidence, and the suspects would most likely have been locked up until their court date. At which point, if they were in fact provably guilty, they'd be doing jail time. Laws were on the books for these type of offenses at least since the 1980s if not earlier.

I'm not saying that none of this abuse has happened, but there is a certain liberal contingent out there that wants everyone to believe that every single actor or actress that got into the business before the age of 18 was sexually molested in order to achieve stardom. Meanwhile, we're pushing on roughly a century of these abuses occurring, but nobody seemed to know about it, the parents turned their heads, the people in question weren't going along with it? I'm not buying it.

There also seems to be a double standard. We keep hearing about all the women who were abused, but rarely anything about the men. I suppose all those young little starlets were just too young and naive to understand what was happening to them but the boys must have wanted it? I've noticed time and again, if a 16y/o "boy" has sex with say, a 30 y/o woman there seems to be no implication of rape, but if a 16 y/o "girl" has sex with a 30 y/o man its definitely rape. Nevermind the fact that women enter puberty much earlier than men do on average and are therefore far more developed physically, sexually, and mentally than men of the same age.

They are not children, they are actually teenagers and adolescence is a modern construction. People once moved from the phase of childhood straight to adulthood.

For centuries it was not uncommon for women of 14, 15, 16, and 17 to marry. The woman was already considered a woman when she had menarche, the man when he had money to support himself, to support his wife and children.

child
/tʃaɪld/
noun (pl) children
1.
a boy or girl between birth and puberty
(as modifier): child labour
2.
a baby or infant
3.
an unborn baby related prefix paedo-

young adult
Examples
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a teenager (used especially by publishers and librarians).
2.
a person in the early years of adulthood.

You are why nobody wants France to survive.

*ding ding ding* we have a winner! By these liberals' definition, most people will now remain "children" until they are into their mid-20s or early-30s since many remain living at home, unable to fully support themselves while going to school or even afterwards because they can't find a job that pays enough to move out on their own.

If you went back in time to the 1950s and asked someone what is a teenager, he would not even know how to respond.

He would know what is child and adult.

So she was sexually assaulted as a teenager. Happy? What difference does age make if it's NOT consensual?

Go To hell! The law is the law.yu body is not fully developed til over 18 ..so many deaths in the old days due to pregnant kids under 18. These are children. If you don't understand or have the intelligence of this fact then you are a danger to society in general.

The scale and scope of this awful affair is huge. There will be very few household names left untarnished.

I have to agree with you. They could have walked away and got normal
jobs at anytime. They sold out and now that they are rich and famous
they are complaining .. I don’t get it
The kids are another story. They are innocent victims and didn’t know any better.

Well it doesn't per se. Non-consensual sex is no doubt wrong and illegal. That said, the time to make those allegations was when she was 16 and to the police and in a court of law, not 30 years later on twitter. I have to question the motives if she waited so long to come out with this.

Believe it or not, 16 is legal age of consent for sex in Canada.Used to be 14 but they upped it under the Steven Harper govt.

It is sad. And, as a parent, you do a beat down of someone banging your 16 year old teen kid, you go to jail and the perv walks free.

Only exemptions to this rule is if the perv is in a position of trust, such as a teacher, then he/she goes to jail.

You're Canadian and you don't know your own law. It's 16 in Canada.

You must be a control freak. Are you going to beat down her boyfriends too when she gets to college and has sex with them? I mean she was 16, right, so she couldn't possibly have known any better? What if it was a 30 year old woman getting banged by your 16 year old son? How would you feel about that?

shirley temple died in 2014 - she always wanted to talk about why she walked bowlegged after visiting a big Hollywood name one night -

Not Canadian you asswipe!

You must be a pedo

Agreed but when you have a nation, such as Canada, saying 16 is the age of consent, what can you do as a parent?

They upped it from 14 because of public pressure. When it was 14, I remember my hometown cops arresting an American who they caught in a hotel room with a 14 year old girl. The parents knew so the cops made the bust.

About an hour later they released him without charges. The only saving grace was they passed the name of the guy on to the media in his hometown.

Tried to find a link but it is so old it doesn't show up.

Sick fuck!

Ass.

Let’s hope that this situation will lead to DC as well. I’m certainly not giving those freaks a pass!

Who propositioned who? Did she consent? You think its okay that the cops arrested and then attempted to publicly slander someone who had broken no law? Surely there was an investigation, and if the sex was not consensual, he would have been charged with rape regardless of the age of consent?

What is the big deal with people having consensual sex? I've never understood this reaction from certain parties to the whole ordeal. There are certain parents who go cuckoo even when their daughters have consensual sex with a boyfriend who is the same age. Why? Surely, she will be having sex one day. Just not ready to let go yet?

When I was in high school, I knew of several chicks(14 or 15) who were having sex with young college age men(say 20-25). This was all consensual. Some of the parents weren't thrilled about it but let it continue, some of them were indifferent, and a couple (religious freaks) absolutely went off the deep-end trying to press charges for statutory rape, threatening to beat them up, etc - even when the daughters didn't want them to, and had agreed to it. But, why? Why the reaction? I don't get it.

Okay, you're wiser than nature.

If I had a 14-, 15-, or 16-year-old daughter having sex with an older man I would not see any problem SINCE they got married earlier.

If she wants to have sex before she gets married then leave home and support herself because I'm not going to stand and let my daughter have another sex with her.

And if it were my son he would see no problem in having sex with an older woman, since in case she becomes pregnant he turns to support the child.

I've noticed that the libs always go mum once you get them pinned down in an argument. I realize that you are not the poster I was responding to, but you are clearly on the same side. Care to address my argument in any meaningful way?

I've noticed that anytime questions get posed that would force a liberal to admit any culpability in the argument, that they just refuse to respond to them, and then continue on parroting talking points from the liberal repertoire. They don't want to have a discussion, just seek to force others to bend to their viewpoints, all while claiming to want a discussion. Sickening.

So, evidence of a double standard. At least the conservative will admit that there is one.

WOW lots of arguements back and forth. i will try to sum this up for you all. 1st> laws are for peasants not the elite. hillary proofed this.
2> do as i say not as i do. the media aka hollywood says lots of stuff but does the opposite constantly. you are not their equal. do not foget this. do i need to make a list for u? marriage: as a lowlife u should marry once. elites change spouses like u change cars or hairstyles. make jokes about anyone, it is after all just a TV show. if u do that in public,they will call BLM,ACLU,or some other agency to condemn u for it.have sex with whoever, whenever, whereever.
but if u are a peasant see rule #1. u are not suppose to live a fun enjoyable life. u are to work and pay the taxes so they can keep living the highlife.

as to the arguements over the age of consent.without doing the research of the laws over the last 1 yrs,i will do it the easy intelligent way. who made the laws and why?
lawws are wrote by the elite,aka politicians, for 1 reason: to stop the average person from having fun.there are 2 other types of laws wrote. 1 is do not harm others<see the commandments AKA religious laws thou shall not murder or rob thy neighbor> and 2 is to give all your money to them via tax laws.smoking,drinking,sex,making noise,etc all fall under u are having too much fun so we will make a law so u can't do that.these are non-american laws by the way. this country is not "live as i do or else". it was founded on the principle that all men can live peacefully and freely even though they are different.someone changed the rules.hmm wonder who? why should we all live the same way and who benefits from that idea?
u all are arguing what is legal against what is right and u are confusing the 2. just because uncle ob-hill-bush-hollywood politician told u it is wrong DOES NOT MEAN IT IS. i'll give u a simple case: at 18 u join the military and can die for your country,yet u can not have a beer in your own country until 21. is this right? it is the legal way.think on that 1.now take this 1 step farther:since u are not smart enough at 18,why don't we make all kids under 21 illegal to have any fun??? no smoking,no sex,no nothing.u can't own property or make any adult descisions until you are 21.you have no rights nor can u vote.

the debate over when a person,male and female,has the mental ability to understand sex and the responsabilities of child-bearing. i believe the physical age is lower.the problem is parents don't want the responsability of raising the babies that come with it.if u take pregnancy out of the equation and then look at it from when do boys hit maturity to have sex,the argument changes.yet in todays society both male and females must mature the same according to the new rules.in reality if we as a society are going to make a rule that u can't have sex until such and such an age,then it should b inclusive to all ppl. it should also be enforced to all ppl younger than the assigned age. so if 2 ppl 15 have sex they get arrested and charged. why? because the point to the law is to stop ppl from having babies at young ages so parents don't have to raise them. kids 15 can still get each other pregnant.without this,the law is pointless.

to those ppl arging about kids having sex at 15 or 16,i have questions. 1> would u feel the same way for a son as u would a daughter? 2> if the daughter as 21,would u see catching her having sex on your sofa differently? 3> do your arguements come from the fact that u do not want to raise the added baby??