After my post yesterday about Obama's appointment of Kevin Jennings as his "Safe Schools Czar" in which I presented both the allegation that Jennings had condoned the rape of a 15 year old boy by a man he met in a bus station bathroom, as well as the GLBT defense of Jennings, I received the following comment.
I am posting it as a stand alone statement, rather than just as a comment to the earlier post because I'm not sure I am reading this right. Is "Greengrass" saying that when a man has sex with a boy beneath the age of consent (defined as rape), that it is not rape so long as the boy "liked it"?
Here is the comment. You tell me what is going on here.
Comment by "Greengrass"
By Jenning's account, after his discussion with the 15 yo the kid had a smile on his face for the rest of high school. Probably because he was getting laid by men and loving it.
We, as a society, need to grow a brain and recognize (what we all already do recognize in our personal lives!) that everybody is different. Some people are ready. Some people are not. Some people are in danger. Some people are not. These blanket edicts against adolescent sexuality are ridiculously contrary to nature, and cut off our ability to talk like rational people, and act rationally.
Instead we get metapolitical game playing like we have here, with speculations about some ADVICE given 20 years ago becoming the defining moment of a public figure's life. This is not an "honest" or "respectful" way of going about our political thinking.
Being honest and respectful would mean asking what this particular boy needed in his life at that particular moment. If it was support for being who he was, against the contrary opinions of his parents and of conservative America (who like nothing more than to think about gay sex and gag), more power to him.
I've heard nobody give anything except a blanket "but it's child rape!" argument.
It wasn't rape if he liked it. EVERY MAN UNDERSTANDS THIS.
Comments