Writes John Derbyshire:
O’Reilly implodes; Is Bill O’Reilly finally imploding? I am still a regular viewer of the Factor, but I find that more and more often I turn it off after ten minutes or so to do something more rewarding.
For one thing, there’s his bullying and grandstanding about child molesters. Now, I not a big fan of child molesters, having two kids of my own. The real monsters, though, are a minuscule minority of those who would be swept up by the kinds of laws O’Reilly is arguing for. The majority would be harmless, clueless, sad types who had yielded to, or been led on to, the momentary of some petty fumbling, then been ready to commit suicide when they realized what they had done. People like that need to be chastised and set straight, but they don’t need the magnum sentences they’d get under Sandra’s law, or whatever the hell thing it is O’Reilly is bellowing for.
Even weirder is O’Reilly’s conviction that the seduction of 14-year-old boys by pretty 25-year-old teachers is just as bad –precisely the same! deserves the identical sentence!- as the contrary thing with a 14-year-old girl and a 25-year-old male teacher. This is sex equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes, as I’ve argued in a previous diary. I’d expect this kind of junk jurisprudence from some glaring feminist, but why am I getting it from O’Reilly? (johnderbyshire.com/opinion/diaries/2006-04)
Actually, the view that the two acts are precisely the same and deserve the identical sentence informs the laws of all 50 states and has done so for decades and has long been espoused by virtually all of our ruling-elites and governing-classes, left and right and center: politicians, the media, SVU detectives, prosecutors, Judges, etc. What JD describes as “weird” is now a sacred and inviolate dogma, and for the elites and a plurality of people they’ve poisoned and propagandized, to confute this absurdity is comparable to denying the holocaust or defending slavery and segregation.
It should also be noted that in most of these intrigues, the woman isn’t even guilty of seduction. Either the “victim” is the aggressor and initiator or their sexual union could be described as a mutual coming together.
And though adult women allowing biological men under statutory age to penetrate them in de facto consensual relationships is not “as bad” or precisely the same as adult men penetrating and often impregnating underage adolescent girls, I also oppose draconian and “magnum” sentences for adult men who have love affairs or mere dalliances with young women under statutory age if they are first-offenders with no history of violent or other mala in se criminality.