On Sep 30, 2005, at 8:38 AM, The Fool wrote:
Judge Orders 17-Year-Old Girl Not To Have Sex POSTED: 10:16 am EDT September 30, 2005 SHERMAN, Texas -- No sex. That's part of a sentence imposed on a 17-old-girl by Texas state district judge Lauri Blake. She's ordered the young drug offender not have sex as long as she is living with her parents and attending school, as a condition of her probation.
This sounds bad on the surface, but let's think. Parents are supposed to be responsible for their kids until they're 18, the girl IS an offender, and presumably she's been promiscuous.
So what's happening here? An over the top lampoon of a judicial system that is fundamentally broken in the way it regards "minors" as such, or a judge going nutcake? Or, perhaps, a little bit o dis, a little bit o dat?
Those who've read my fiction, all five of them, know that I'm a proponent of teen liberation, but that I also tend to delve into responsibility for actions, often as learned by teens. The way the US reacts to teen sexuality is, to me, a travesty — but letting them go out into the sea alone without any understanding of — umm — seamanship is also not the best plan.
Is there an ideal way? Probably not. But I'm fairly sure that overprotectionism is the wrong choice, or at least one of the least right ones.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books <http://books.nightwares.com/> Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" <http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf> <http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf> _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
