|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| morbis69 |
Posted - 08/10/2009 : 10:09:11 PM
a friend of mine is a registered sex offender, he just got off probation (3.5 yrs). basically he had consentual sex with a 14 yr old minor without knowing her TRUE age, (she told himshe was 18, this is documented. he is a very good person and made a serious mistake, my friend is very kind and would never harm a child in any way and he doesn't look at children in a sexual manor, i know this because i have children and he is very good with them. anyways, he is a naturist and is bored of not being around other naturists. he would like to join the naturist resort near his area but doesn't think he would be able to do to his registering offense. is there anybody who may be able to offer any help on this subject? suggestions? please help. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diger |
Posted - 08/25/2009 : 10:27:19 PM
morbis69,
I agree that nudists are not judgmental, but I think you are setting yourself for disappointment. Nudists are also very guarded about the integrity of their resort.
Diger |
| morbis69 |
Posted - 08/24/2009 : 8:25:22 PM
well, my buddy did take the first aggreement offer on the table. 2 my kids grew up with my buddy, and so have i, he does not look at children in a sexual manor, he just would like to join my world is all, and i knowing that the nudist community is very loving and accepting as well, from what i know and my experience is that most nudist communities are very open minded and is never judgemental on others without getting to know them first |
| Jim in Boston |
Posted - 08/17/2009 : 11:12:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kender
quote:
Originally posted by FlCpl4NewdFun
But I also know I can tell the difference between an 18 year old and a 14 year old. Unless this man was under 19 at the time I would be highly suspect.
you may think you can tell the difference but 14yr olds are not built the same now as they were in the 70's and 80's.
Any time I have run across a RSO and have had to make a judgement on them I have always gotten as much of the story as I could just because of the issues with the law like I posted above.
Well, this snippet is absolute nonsense. People have not changed much in morphology in millenia.
This is not to say that the basic notion of the thread is incorrect: the law is an ass with regard to statutory rape, which is what we are discussing here. But, aside from lobbying to change the law, this is what we have to live with, and those poor souls who violated the law, by showing themselves off at an inappropriate time or by screwing an underage chick are really stuck.
jameslkirtleyjr |
| Warmskin |
Posted - 08/13/2009 : 02:55:50 AM
The originator of this thread will find full acceptance at the Disappearing Troll Nudist Resort for Child Molesters. Unfortunately, that resort has many violent felons, who love, in a manner of speaking, trolls. It's a resort for prison inmates who don't behave themselves, and are thus remanded to there for isolation.
Morbis69, we will front you the money to go there to be entertained with fun and frivolity. You may notice that later you will be able to run faster than gold medalist sprinter. No need to thank us; just enjoy! 
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
James Madison
|
| NaturistDoc |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 9:45:07 PM
VLM34,
I'm amazed you know so much about me and how I think. It's uncanny. Say ... you're not a "Birther", are you?
Doc |
| Kender |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 5:54:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by FlCpl4NewdFun
But I also know I can tell the difference between an 18 year old and a 14 year old. Unless this man was under 19 at the time I would be highly suspect.
you may think you can tell the difference but 14yr olds are not built the same now as they were in the 70's and 80's.
Any time I have run across a RSO and have had to make a judgement on them I have always gotten as much of the story as I could just because of the issues with the law like I posted above.
|
| Kender |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 5:47:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 2newnudists
No, that we know for sure. Here is what Florida law says:
Florida Statutes, Section 800.04
(3) IGNORANCE OR BELIEF OF VICTIM'S AGE. -- The perpetrator's ignorance of the victim's age, the victim's misrepresentation of his or her age, or the perpetrator's bona fide belief of the victim's age cannot be raised as a defense in a prosecution under this section.
This law has been on the books for at least 12 years and I have hated it ever since I found out about it. At that time I was 19 and this law didn't really affect me but I could see even then how it was a knee jerk legislation made by single minded idiots. I agree that some law is needed so that a pedo can't use the " I thought she was 18 " defense with a female that is obviously no where near 14. The part I disagree with is that if she misrepresents her age.
Take this scenario: A 17 year old female uses a fake I.D. To get into a bar and when the 25 year old guy hits on her she slips in the conversation that she is 22. She has her hair and make up done to look older and is a fully developed "woman". The friends that she is their with all back up her story that she is 22. The guy takes her back to his place at her insistance with all her friends around to witness that it is her idea. A few days later the girls mom finds out about it and calls the cops. When the trial comes the guys lawyer has the video from the bar (21 and up only establishment) with the girl using the I.D. And looking old enough to drink. The guys lawyer has affidavits from the girls friends swearing to her actions even the girl herself swearing that she lied to the guy. However because of this law the only thing the jury will hear is that a 25 year old had sex with a 17 year old. This guy now has to register as a sex offender because he didn't get her DNA and have it dated to give him her real age. The way this law is written is just plain wrong.
|
| Admin |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 1:37:18 PM
This is perfect material to set off a firestorm of opinions, especially when the opening poster disappears after the first post.
Beep... beep... beep...
An advanced model trolation detector.
But... what the hell, let's keep it going! What about the ridiculous case where someone is arrested for being nude on a beach after ignoring a warning, and the resulting sex offender status bars this person from ever visiting any nudist resorts, where otherwise he or she would be most welcome? |
| Randall50 |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 1:31:58 PM
Children are not adults. The imperfect law tries to distinguish between the two with measurable boundaries. This is often argued in court, especially when the parties involved are closer in age. Children need their parents to protect them above and beyond the law - that is a "natural" law as old as the first parent-child relationship. If the RSO person in question is a responsible adult as he is represented in this string of arguments, then he should excuse himself from these environments and not force parents/other adults to act. Parents who discover their children have been involved in an improper sexual relationship often blame themselves and receive little or no relief from the legal system. Don't expect parents to be "reasonable" on this subject and to care more for the "rights" of a RSO, right or wrong. I've said enough. |
| VLM34 |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 11:51:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by NaturistDoc
GeeWilly's question - "Why can a nudist resort not be enlightened enough to look further into the basis for the scarlet letter some might have to wear?" - deserves a response. There are 2 reasons why a resort might not be so "enlightened".
First, how many resorts can afford to hire a lawyer or paralegal to wade through all the depositions and trial transcripts in such a case?
About 95%.
quote:
And if the owner decides to admit a particular RSO and the RSO re-offends, what would be the owner's liability?
Presumably the same as if the offense were by a non-RSO or by a RSO from another state that the owners' background check missed -- assuming that the owner does such checks at all.
quote:
Second, nudist clubs and resorts are under constant attack by do-gooders out to shut them down on the grounds that we're all a bunch of perverts. <snip>. The presence of a known sex offender at a nudist club might be all the excuse a local zealot or crusading D.A. needs.
Ahhh, I see, you're absolutely, totally risk-averse. You wouldn't investigate to learn the facts of the case, you wouldn't even consider doing anything to at least partially right a possible wrong, and I'll bet you also wouldn't give the guy a job in a non-nudist business.
quote:
In the big picture, we're all for second chances and redemption.
But not if it's close to (your) home.
quote:
But in order to survive, a nudist club, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. There will no doubt be a few cases of unfair exclusion, but on balance the "no RSO" policy is the only sensible way to go.
If your own well being is the only consideration, yes.
I think you're missing the whole point. You don't know if the guy had adequate representation. He may have had none at all, just panicked and pleaded guilty on the advice of the police and prosecution, who always-always (ha!) look out for an accused best interests. You don't know that the guy was in fact guilty of anything. You don't know if he was guilty of anything that would impact his behavior at a nudist place. And you refuse to investigate. Good grief!
And, above all you refuse to recognise that hysterical legislators prompted by a hysterical public have decreed RSO status for "offenses" that have nothing whatever to do with the original purpose of such lists: the OP provided no reason to believe that the guy is a predatory rapist or child molester.
You just assume that "the law" and "the system" are always 100% right.
|
| NaturistDoc |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 09:02:50 AM
GeeWilly's question - "Why can a nudist resort not be enlightened enough to look further into the basis for the scarlet letter some might have to wear?" - deserves a response. There are 2 reasons why a resort might not be so "enlightened".
First, how many resorts can afford to hire a lawyer or paralegal to wade through all the depositions and trial transcripts in such a case? And if the owner decides to admit a particular RSO and the RSO re-offends, what would be the owner's liability?
Second, nudist clubs and resorts are under constant attack by do-gooders out to shut them down on the grounds that we're all a bunch of perverts. (See, for example, www.nudisthallofshame.info). The presence of a known sex offender at a nudist club might be all the excuse a local zealot or crusading D.A. needs.
In the big picture, we're all for second chances and redemption. But in order to survive, a nudist club, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. There will no doubt be a few cases of unfair exclusion, but on balance the "no RSO" policy is the only sensible way to go. |
| VLM34 |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 05:09:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by GeeWilly
Before jumping all over the "offender," please consider that in many states statutory rape is based on the age difference between the parties. Which is to say that if "offender" was 17 years old and at least three years older than the "victim," he would be guilty whether he knew it or not.
Most boys, at 17, find even a knothole passingly attractive; thus if a young girl fit the description, reasonably said she was 18, and was a willing partner, the true victim roles could be exchanged?
Now it could be that these are not the facts, but why not show a little grace? Why can a nudist resort not be enlightened enough to look further into the basis for the scarlet letter some might have to wear?
No, no, you don't understand! Seeking the facts would be unAmerican, unChristian, and against the vaunted nudist ethic. The law is always what the law should be, the judgment of prosecutors is always fair, judges and juries never err, and convictions are always 100% just. It's our duty as Americans, Christians, and nudists to ensure that this guy never has a moment of joy at our ever-so-perfect nudist resorts where no law is ever broken and where every parent perfectly raises perfect children who never-never-never think about, much less engage in, that most evil of all evils called (eeeeeeeeeeeek) sex.
Thanks GeeWilly for the only responsible post in the thread.
|
| 2newnudists |
Posted - 08/11/2009 : 10:41:45 PM
No, that we know for sure. Here is what Florida law says:
Florida Statutes, Section 800.04
(3) IGNORANCE OR BELIEF OF VICTIM'S AGE. -- The perpetrator's ignorance of the victim's age, the victim's misrepresentation of his or her age, or the perpetrator's bona fide belief of the victim's age cannot be raised as a defense in a prosecution under this section. |
| FlCpl4NewdFun |
Posted - 08/11/2009 : 8:45:47 PM
Totally agree with Randall50. No way I would ever go to a resort or club that knowingly allowed a registered sex offender join. Actually, I might just make it my mission to let all who would listen know that a particular club was admitting such individuals. Sure all people make mistakes, and continue to do so. But I also know I can tell the difference between an 18 year old and a 14 year old. Unless this man was under 19 at the time I would be highly suspect.
side note: Balto, I agree with your post about adult responsibility and I suspect it was innocent and you didn't mean it in that way but the parenthetical in your post is kinda creepy! |
| Randall50 |
Posted - 08/11/2009 : 3:24:48 PM
As a parent, I would not welcome any RSO at any time, clothed or not, around my children. |
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
 |
|
|
