Master Don Juan
- Jan 14, 2018
- Reaction score
Then I'll be clear in my response to you.Because the girls were not charged with ignorance in a court of law. It is not their fault if their parents failed them.
You can just as easily argue that no amount of instilled values will stop a teenage girl from taking easy money from a predator.
The same as I wouldn't blame a teenage boy for following a pedo-priest to his rectory for whatever ostensible reason was presented.
Plenty of adolescents raised by good parents with values make poor decisions, sometimes with fatal consequences.
And that the law failed to prevent it is irrelevant. He took the risk and the law caught up with him.
Did the perp got what he deserved? Yes.
Does it exonerate the perp that those girls took money in return for sexual favors? No.
Are those girls morally guilty for taking money to perform sexual acts? Yes.
I think we can agree with that.
But let's go beyond that into a realm that one seldom encroaches.
Let's 1st take a look at how society views those "victims".
Now that they are the "victims", they are on the air daily, ur society talks about it, even millions of little girls can't help but hear it spoken over the dinner table, the indignation and anger from her parents.
The direct communication = The man was a monster.
But at the same time there's a subcommunication too.
I'll give a hint, if I were to place an advert for teenage girls, that shows a sexy sweating girl wearing hot pants on a hot day drinking Coca-Cola with the heading "Sugar Is Extremely Bad For The Body" and for added effect "Diabetes Kills Millions".
The direct communication is there but so is the subcommunication, when they notice teenage boys ogling at the picture.
What do you think the subcommunication that's being communicated to millions of little girls in this case?