Reply To: NARSOL condemns civil commitment practices


Mary Davye Devoy,

Not sure what you read but here’s what I just read:

“Baughman’s publicly available record reveals no history of violence. Violence is defined as, “The use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.”

So then YOU said his “victim” was a 16 yr old. The VA age of consent is 18. Ok, fine. But where is this “violence” and why should this man be considered a ‘threat’ for sexual encounters with human beings who are legally old enough to drive cars? Sorry, I don’t buy into this idea that you’re mature enough to operate a motor vehicle which could KILL someone (see “vehicular manslaughter”) if you’re not careful, yet somehow the nature act of sex and the natural INDIVIDUAL attraction to an older person AFTER PUBERTY makes the “offender” the bad guy? Not buyin’ it.
I don’t know the whole story of his offense with these quasi-young-adults, but seems to me that it was consensual. So, being consensual, it cannot also be “violent”. That’s an oxymoron. And don’t even try that “But they’re not old enough to consent” line with me. In 27 other states a 16 yr old CAN give consent. And when it’s a person – as i’ve said before – who can legally operate a motor vehicle, then IF the law says they’re not ALLOWED to consent (based on who’s imagination in the legislature) then so be it. But don’t say that said 16 yr old CANNOT KNOWINGLY GIVE consent, because they can and they do.

If you don’t think a 16 yr old can give consent to a (very natural) sexual encounter with an older person, then they also cannot give consent with someone their own age. You cannot burn the candle at both ends. If they can’t consent, they can’t consent. But that can. Just like people under 21 CAN and DO get their hands on alcohol. Doesn’t get the underage in trouble does it? Nope! The first thing the cops want to know is “Where did you get this?” And then hold the provider responsible. Even if the provider was a liquor store who CARDED the individual but didn’t know it was a false ID or maybe the person’s older sibling’s ID.

Amazing how SEX is the ONLY horrible thing that a teenager can ever have happen to them.

Here’s something to toss around in your brain: If a 15 year old has sex with another 15 yr old and she gets pregnant and goes through the full pregnancy and pushes that baby out of her womb, please help me understand how – after all that – if she (still at age 15) decided to have a relationship with a 20 yr old who actually gave a crap about her and wanted to take care of her and her child, how is HE (the 20 yr old) committing a crime that makes her a victim AFTER she’s already been through child birth and ‘mother nature’ kicked in to mature her faster than what we ASSUME she would have matured. Please explain this logic to me. To the 20 yr old, this single teen mother would be considered a “victim” who “couldn’t possibly know what she was doing with someone older than her”. Funny, she seemed to know what she was doing with the penis of a 15 yr old boy who impregnated her. Now suddenly she’s an idiot to sex? Come on!