DVDizzy Forum

This article has a few comments from Kentwood, LA residents (where the Spears family is from):

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/157852 ... ndex.jhtml

And this article talks about the "Is it rape or not?" question:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/157694 ... tney.jhtml

Given Spears' status as a minor, what does that mean for longtime boyfriend Casey Aldridge, whom Spears reportedly met while attending church services? Depending on a number of factors, it could mean jail time for Aldridge — who, depending on the source, is either 17, 18, or 19 — but only if Spears' family decides to press charges, which, judging by the public statements made by press time, appears unlikely...

According to the FBI's definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent in each respective state.

So, the article says that it depends on where the baby was conceived (the "venue") as to what legally will happen next, and some sources say that her boyfriend is 17, some say 18, and some say 19. And if he's 19, then he could be in trouble.

I never at any point said anything about rape being ok DvdJunkie, I know that it is illegal, and that it's a horrible thing. My friend's parents allow her and her boyfriend to sleep in the same room together because they trust them not to do anything. I don't promote those types of actions, but I won't judge people for letting that happen, it's their life, their mistake, their problem not mine and the last thing they need is someone critisizing them.

You said he violated the law, yes he did but she should have a lot of blame as well for being stupid enough to consent, she could have very well have said no, and should have. She should have known better to do something like this when she's in the public eye, but she made a mistake and has to fix it.

I don't know why you insinuated that I would want to say rape is a good thing, because you obviously don't know me very well.

One thing I find interesting is what blackcauldron posted, about how is age is different depending on the source. For all we know he could be under age as well, there are some teens out there who look older than they are so perhaps thats why he was put as age 19.

Chernabog_Rocks,

I'm not blaming Jaime and Brittany for the mistakes they have made. I just don't see them as good role models for young girls anymore. Why did Jaime decided that she wanted to have sex and should have respected her body instead. Many couples also wait until they get married to have sex. Another option for Jamie is to wait until she was 18 to have sex. Also want to say that Jamie probably had unprotected sex. All I'm saying, now young girls and boys will think its safe to have sex before being 18 or before getting married or will consider to not have unprotected sex. I hope parents explain to their children what can go wrong when sex happens. Young people should respect themselves, grow mature and have sex until they are at least 18.

dvdjunkie wrote:Lazario, the law is the law. I have five brothers who are in different areas of law enforcement in California, so I have consulted them before I began my posts.

DVDjunkie, fuck the law. You are talking to someone about lawfulness who isn't allowed to legally marry the person he most loves if he decides its' right. All because some law tells me what is right for me. I think I'm smart enough to see that the law has little place in the bedroom of two consenting people. And even in this case, the law was not designed to protect the child. Especially since you're talking about how bad it was that they had sex, not that they're having a child now. This law is mostly just one more thing to control peoples' sex lives. Because you're saying it's not related to non-consentual rape. Which is still the only kind of rape in most peoples' eyes.

I think we all know the law is sometimes wrong. So, don't sit there with a straight face and say, "but...the law." Just because something is law does not make it right. Or, have you not read the joke book about the Crazy Laws? The book is not a joke, the laws are. Don't say just because something is made law, all laws are just and correct. Laws say nothing about who a person is inside. And they never will. So, get with the program, and recognize that this issue has nothing to do with the law. And it will not, no matter what you say.

That said, I completely respect everything you're trying to say. I know you care. But, get off the Judge's podium. Time to give the gavel to someone less extremist.

dvdjunkie wrote:Rape is rape, whether it is consensual or not.

You're going to have a hard time convincing most rational people with that argument. And considering this is damn serious, you also can't tell people that they have to agree with you because you're... thinking about their rights? Wait, if that's not what you're doing, what good does it serve- this rule / law you're explaining to me, that I apparently don't understand??

dvdjunkie wrote:he belongs in jail and needs to be registered as a sex offender the rest of his life.

We heard you the first time, and since you're having a terrible case of the Polly's (unresponsive, stubborn bird - I call 'em like I see 'em ) all I have to say - the court (of popular opinion) has already had its say. And the guy is free to go. You don't think that's for the best in this case? Since you've already assumed such an awful lot, it's my turn now : why do you think you know this person well enough to tell them what they were doing? How do you really know what went through his head?? You can't convince anyone they do something regardless of intention. And maybe that's why most people'd find you the extremist. Look around...

dvdjunkie wrote:Yes, she is just as guilty as he is, but she still is underage

Just in case you can't see a certain amount of my trying to nip things in the bud before they bloom - I am. So, I'll just stop you there and impress something upon you: the reason why he's basically getting off is because we value something culturally that's perhaps escaped you. We don't want to be judged solely off of our actions. We expect to have our intentions considered while our actions are being judged.

So, like I said before- what's wrong with this picture is that they were inconsiderate of the baby when they had sex. Not of society. The law you're screaming about here isn't protecting society, or victims' rights.

dvdjunkie wrote:A parent is responsible for his child until the age of 18, and that is the law.

Responsible for guidance, but that's not a license to control anyone else's life. Guidance is one thing and appropriate while a child has no idea what they're doing, but there comes a time in a person's life when they are allowed to make decisions for themself.

Control over someone else's life = slavery. When a law is not designed to protect a person's rights, it is wrong and unimportant. So again, the problem with Jamie and her boyfriend is that they were not mature enough. But this is not a blanket rule for all teenagers. Not in the real world, where you actually have to think about other people if you expect anyone to take you seriously. And again, I knew as many 16 year olds when I was in high school who were fully able to deal with sex.

dvdjunkie wrote:I don't understand how anyone can defend such a crime.

It's easier than you think. Just get a better understanding of how the law has been wrong in the past. Or have a damn good day-to-day understanding of how the law discriminates against a lot of people.

And obviously, I don't think what they did was a crime against society. Just horribly unfair to the baby. The point is - you can't just point at teens having sex and say- "that's what happens." Because it's b.s. This case is about not having common sense about what sex can do. Not a misunderstanding about what sex is.

Here we go again..............Jaime Lynn Spears "hit" television show started its fourth season last night on Nickelodeon without fanfare and with a minimal appearance by Miss Spears.

How is this for a network listening to the general public, who remain non-plussed that this teenager is pregnant out of wedlock by a lone young man whom the parents let stay in their home and share a bed with their daughter.

I still maintain that California needs to change their laws and have this guy arrested for statutory rape, and we need to boycott this show and get it off the air.

Sorry, these are the ramblings of an old man who is definitely against pre-marital sex, and being the father of twin daughters just can't understand how parents can approve of their 16-year-old daughter having sex with a 19-year-old. Is it me, or am I just cranky?

I sympathise with you Junkie, I really do. I agree with most of what you say.

But I don't think the show needs to be pulled off air. Really, you don't like it, don't watch it. If enough people don't watch it, it will be taken off the air due to economics. That's true majority choice, not having other people who "shout the loudest" making the choice.

The whole "suitable for children" argument goes much further though than if a 16 year old is pregnant. I know its a debate that will never end, but if you view real-life behaviours to influence children's lives, then you have to assume the same for fictional behaviours. And if you do, you basically could end up censoring most shows, which I would have to object to.

People, including children, are normally more inteligent than people give them credit for.

Jamie Lynn is giving up her baby...to her mother!

I really think it's the most responsible choice. I just wonder what the Spear's family is going to tell the baby..

That does not bode well for the child or for Jaime.

What is she thinking? Why are we condoning the fact that she is only 16 and pregnant? Has America's morals stooped to this all-time low?

C'mon, the right thing for her to do is to give the baby up for adoption to a more deserving family. Not a doting mother who wants to raise another Britney or Jaime. She didn't get it right the first two times, what makes you think she will get it right this time?

I am sorry, but I am from the old school that we don't praise a girl who is underage and gets pregnant, but rather get the person who did this to her, and punish them for their crime. Let's face it, he is 19 and the mother of Jaime condoned them sleeping in the same room. What did she think they were doing, playing tiddlywinks? Mom should be punished for providing a place for this to happen, and the "man" responsible should be punished for his crime. It is a crime. Statutory rape is not a slap on the wrist offense. He should have to register as a sex-offender for the rest of his life, not become some 'adored' star in Hollywood.

This is what is so wrong with kids today born into families that think they are so far above eveyone else. We all need guidance from the time we are born until the day we die. I may be in my 60's, but I still make mistakes in the way I handle life's situations, but I am more than willing to listen to constructive criticism and change. These "starlets" are just spoiled brats, with no parental guidance, and only know what they have learned from their so-called 'friends' on the streets.

We should not be supporting this girl, or feeling sorry for her family. They have brought on this situation by not being the kind of parents they should be. Letting a child sleep with a man is no way to raise a daughter or a son.

I apologize for the rant, but I just can't get over how people think that this is okay. It isn't, there are laws and no one is above the law, not even the Spears family.

dvdjunkie wrote:I still maintain that California needs to change their laws and have this guy arrested for statutory rape, and we need to boycott this show and get it off the air.

Maintain until you're blue in the face. But nobody would really be helped by that. And it would just serve to make young people even more ashamed of their bodies than they already are. Lower their self esteem even more. Not to mention all the new criminals. Overcrowd the jails even more. With teenagers. For doing something natural. Just because it upsets the conservatives. Not a good enough reason. Not even close.

dvdjunkie wrote:Sorry, these are the ramblings of an old man who is definitely against pre-marital sex, and being the father of twin daughters just can't understand how parents can approve of their 16-year-old daughter having sex with a 19-year-old. Is it me, or am I just cranky?

Well, maybe they didn't exactly have a say in the matter. With a life as busy as the girl's obviously is, it would be hard for them to keep a tab on her. Especially since these are parents that have been in "the business" for some time. That tends to make people very self-absorbed.

As for what she does reflecting badly on today's young kids, I honestly don't think most kids her age give a rat's ass what she does. Young kids today are the biggest group of people advocating the "just watch" and who cares what they do in their private life. At least, in my experience. And, the ones with more responsible parents- I'd imagine.

dvdjunkie wrote:That does not bode well for the child or for Jaime. What is she thinking? Why are we condoning the fact that she is only 16 and pregnant? Has America's morals stooped to this all-time low?

Wasn't this your first response?

It's pretty obvious Americans do far stupider, far more apathetic things all the time.

dvdjunkie wrote:I am sorry, but I am from the old school that we don't praise a girl who is underage and gets pregnant

Yeah. And, what do you think happened to most of those girls?

dvdjunkie wrote:get the person who did this to her, and punish them for their crime. Let's face it, he is 19 and the mother of Jaime condoned them sleeping in the same room. What did she think they were doing, playing tiddlywinks? Mom should be punished for providing a place for this to happen, and the "man" responsible should be punished for his crime. It is a crime. Statutory rape is not a slap on the wrist offense. He should have to register as a sex-offender for the rest of his life, not become some 'adored' star in Hollywood. Letting a child sleep with a man is no way to raise a daughter or a son.

This is definitely the part where you're raving. You may be showing signs of senility. Who knows; I'm no doctor. And, some free advice: I've tried the "repeat it a million times, hope it sinks in" thing on people, myself. It never really works. It just agitates them.

But, just in case I never came right out and said it - you are no one to judge how mature this guy was. Being 19 does not mean you are psychologically a predator. Age does not make a person anything- it's nothing but a number. Haven't you heard the age-old expression; full grown men are just like 14-year old boys? It's not just something they invented in sitcoms.

dvdjunkie wrote:This is what is so wrong with kids today born into families that think they are so far above eveyone else.

Actually, I tend to think the problem here is that she wasn't given proper sex education. Who knows what kind of parents they were before Britney got famous? They were probably typical "don't talk about sex, baby" freaks, hoping ignorance will be bliss. Back when they cared. Though they may never have cared. Who knows; I'm not psychologist.

dvdjunkie wrote:These "starlets" are just spoiled brats, with no parental guidance, and only know what they have learned from their so-called 'friends' on the streets.

Now, there's something I think we can all agree on.

dvdjunkie wrote:I apologize for the rant, but I just can't get over how people think that this is okay.

Maybe that's not what we think at all. Maybe - we just don't care. Who knows; I'm no psychiatrist.