Posted on 08/03/2011 7:08:38 PM PDT by traumer
A female babysitter had sex with the 14-year-old she was hired to look after after plying him with alcohol, it has been reported.
Loni Bouchard, from Clinton, Connecticut, was taken into custody after the young boy's family found out about the alleged affair. The 20-year-old now faces charges that she sexually assaulted the boy last month after illegally buying him alcohol.
Authorities said they obtained a warrant after a complaint from a family member of the teenager. She then turned herself in to Southington police on Friday morning. Sergeant Lowell DePalma said the victim knew the babysitter before the alleged assault took place.
Bouchard, who has been released after posting a $1,000 bond following arraignment, faces charges of second-degree sexual assault, purchasing alcohol for a minor and two counts of risk of injury to a minor. She is being charged in two separate areas in Connecticut on similar charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
remember the movie animal house when the woman dressed like a playboy bunny goes flying into the window of an adolescent boy?
“Thank you, God!”
It's probably pointless to explain this to someone who asks this question, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, let me try.
Our laws recognize that children are not competent to give consent to sexual acts; there can be no "consent" because children do not know what it is they're consenting to. For this reason, contrary to what you and Whoopi Goldberg may believe statutory rape is "rape rape." If you think a fourteen year old is not a child, you've probably never raised any, but when you do, you'll understand that adolescents are still emotionally children even though they're physically adults. If you have children and don't understand that a fourteen year old is still a child -- secondary sexual characteristics not withstanding -- I feel very sorry for your kids.
WHENEVER an adult has sex with a child it is damaging to both the victim and perpetrator, just as every crime is morally and emotionally damaging to both the perpetrator and the victim. A child is not equipped to understand the meaning of sex: the fourteen year old in this circumstance is not simply rubbing off a quick one in the privacy of his bedroom; he's interacting with another human being in the most intimate, most expressive way we have of communicating. If he comes to believe that sex is nothing more than the shallow "relationship" he's had with this rapist, that will deprive him of the proper understanding of intimacy for the rest of his life.
Is that damaged enough for you?
Because as strange as it might seem to the juveniles posting in this thread -- and altogether too frequently on FR these days -- it's actually quite possible that this child has developed feelings for this rapist as a result of the act. Where does he go with those feelings when he discovers he was simply used, or, if as seems more likely, that his parents arranged for all this to happen? In which case, his first sexual encounter wasn't with another inexperienced adolescent who cared about him enough to want her first sexual experience to be with him, but instead, was with a prostitute.
Is that damaged enough for you?
And this isn't speculation. Many studies show that the earlier and more frequently people have sex before marriage the less likely they are to be able to appreciate sexual intimacy. This is verified in the actual personal experience of most people that I grew up with in the very permissive 1960's and 1970's.
Now, I have given you the courtesy of a lengthy, thoughtful reply. I would like you to show me the same consideration by asking, and honestly answering yourself the following questions:
If you personally know compulsive skirt-chasers or promiscuous women, are they really fully developed human beings? [Hint: NO]
How would your feelings about this sordid little episode change if -- instead of being a babe -- the alleged rapist was very old, extremely ugly, or morbidly obese, and she liquored up a kid for the purposes of using him for sex? If you're honest with yourself you'll understand why some of us are annoyed with the "Not guilty!" postings on this and similar threads.
Jealousy? Give me a break with that old tired standard BS canard.
Yup, I hate promiscuity. It leads to sad children and a society spiraling out of control.
Here’s a hint: The boy got the girl drunk, not the opposite.
Here’s another hint: The overwhelming consensus on the thread is that she is a “hottie.”
Your kind think that “hotties” are “dumpy.”
Thanks for the self-outting.
‘How would your feelings about this sordid little episode change if — instead of being a babe — the alleged rapist was very old, extremely ugly, or morbidly obese, and she liquored up a kid for the purposes of using him for sex? If you’re honest with yourself you’ll understand why some of us are annoyed with the “Not guilty!” postings on this and similar threads.’
Excellent hypothetical switch.
It was on my local (CT) TV news. In fact they interviewed her outside her home.
“the alleged rapist was very old, extremely ugly, or morbidly obese”
Wow - another reference to Helen Thomas in this thread.
Don’t think that an amputee could single handedly sail that rig in the open ocean, especially bare stumpping it. :o)
Hah!
That eightfold path is working wonders for you.
>> “ it’s actually quite possible that this child has developed feelings for this rapist as a result of the act. Where does he go with those feelings when he discovers he was simply used, or, if as seems more likely, that his parents arranged for all this to happen?” <<
.
Are you really that dense?
The boy liquored-up the girl, and in that sense, he is the user, definitely not the usee.
One more topic you know nothing about.
“Here’s a hint: The boy got the girl drunk, not the opposite.”
What makes you say that? All indicators are the woman got the alcohol and “plied” him with it.
“The boy liquored-up the girl, and in that sense, he is the user, definitely not the usee.”
Again, what news source says that?
wideawake is always at the weird-wacky end of every thread.
Probably useless to try to get any sense of logic out of wideawake.
She bought him the alcohol.
The parents "arranged" for a twenty year old to "babysit" a fourteen year old.
If you're twelve or younger, I apologize. Otherwise, get a clue.
That's why she's up on charges for purchasing alcohol for a minor, then?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't read the article, given the visual acuity you've displayed so far.
Here’s another hint: The overwhelming consensus on the thread is that she is a “hottie.”
That says a lot about the thread.
Thanks for the self-outting.
Methinks you protest too much.
I know.
A 14 y o boy does not need any outside stimulus to be drawn into an encounter with a girl.
Alcohol would have been an inhibitor if anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.