As I was surfing around on YouTube, I stumbled across this news report from Coweta County, Georgia. I have seen some sensationalism in the press and the media in my lifetime, but this one story was ridiculous. The majority of YouTubers who posted in its comments section were even more ridiculous in that they typed the usual Chris-Hansen-style clichés whenever someone gets arrested for having consensual relations with an adolescent girl no matter how close in age difference she and the accused are.
It is no secret to many that the Georgia sex laws don't differentiate between non-comformists like Don Johnson and child-raping savages like Donald James Smith. All you have to do is read about the Marcus Dwayne Dixon case from earlier in the century, and you will be both shocked and outraged that he was convicted of aggravated child molestation for having consensual relations with a 15-year-old girl who was only three years younger than him at the time. He didn't kidnap some toddler off a playground to engage in unspeakable crimes against the child.
Genarlow Wilson wasn't even of legal age when the Georgia authorities slapped him with an aggravated child molestation conviction back in 2005, even though the girl he had consensual relations with was only two years younger than him. How much more ridiculous can the statutory-age-of-consent laws in that state get?
Now a 19-year-old man is finding himself cornered back into the wall as a result of an overly ambitious criminal justice system's determination to make him out to be the child molester of the millenium in their jurisdiction. His name is Samuel Stewart.
It turns out that the alleged victim is an adolescent girl in middle school who is not as young as the reporting news agency initially misled the public to believe. Also, Mr. Stewart never forced her into anything she didn't want to do. Here is the video below.
A Mild Lolita-Style Liaison Is Being Misconstrued In The Media As Child Molestation
Interestingly enough, as Mr. Stewart was being arrested, he stated, "Am I really going to jail over false accusations?" It gets me thinking that perhaps this gentleman knew that someone was getting ready to railroad him.
Now, I would never ever encourage any 12-year-old girl or 13-year-old girl to have sexual intercourse with anyone of any age. However, here is a situation where this young girl sneaked out of her house at night to go meet up with this young man at his residence. She had to have known what was going to happen during their tryst. Pre-teenage girls in the deep South do not live sheltered lives despite what anyone may believe or what Nancy Grace may say.
What really baffles me about these kinds of pre-teenage girls is that you always see some girl that young on the Internet whining that her 13- or 14-year-old boyfriend got her pregnant and then either bailed on her or began abusing her in some way. However, I cannot figure out how it is that these middle-school-aged girls never seem to get pregnant whenever they have a secret liaison with a young man over the age of 18.
Not all 18- and 19-year-old men remember to use condoms. The irony of it all is that self-appointed experts on these matters will always accuse older men of causing a spike in both teenage and pre-teenage pregnancies and insist that underage boys have nothing to do with it.
Okay. I'm well aware that most parents don't want their 12-year-old daughters having a sexual relationship with a 19-year-old man. That's perfectly understandable, because that is the kind of culture we live in. After all, the United States of America was colonized by the Puritans rather than the French.
Also, whether Mr. Stewart receives the same support from the court of public opinion that Mr. Dixon did remains to be seen. I completely get it that Mr. Stewart and his alleged victim are 7 years apart in age difference whereas Mr. Dixon and his alleged victim were only three years apart in age difference.
The most noticeable similarity that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Dixon do have is that neither one of them forced or brutalized their respective underage accusers into having sexual intercourse. Neither one of them are hardened sex criminals.
In any event, the snide remarks that appear in the comments section for this same video only go to show you how intellectually bankrupt most of these self-proclaimed child advocates are. They're also hypocrites, I might add.
A number of these self-righteous do-gooders and self-proclaimed child advocates insisted that Mr. Stewart was a pedophile. Okay. Mr. Stewart was well aware of the alleged victim's age before he got intimately involved with her. Therefore, I cannot treat this case as an Alisha-Dean affair.
Nonetheless, I do specifically recall reading in the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ("DSM-5") that men in their late teens (17 to 19 years of age) cannot be diagnosed with pedophilia for having a sexual attraction to a 12- or 13-year-old girl regardless of her Tanner Stage.
Then again, I must remember that the United States of America has a 14-percent illiteracy rate. Therefore, comments sections to news clips like these are bound to receive posts from dunces who have no idea what they're talking about.
These dunces probably have never read the DSM-5 before in their lives. They should be informed that when Elon Musk engaged in the same such foolishness, he found himself staring a multi-million-dollar defamation lawsuit in the face.
Now that these dunces believe that a 19-year-old young man who has sexual relations with a middle-school girl has to be a child molester no matter how sexually active that girl was before he met her, I have one question for them. Does it mean that they are going to stop putting Corey Feldman up on a pedestal as their spokesperson?
When Corey Feldman was 18 years old back in the 1980s, he was having a sizzling romance with then-14-year-old Drew Barrymore. Would they now consider Corey Feldman to be a kiddie diddler? No. They'll always make an exception for that jerk no matter how much dirty laundry surfaces to light about him.
In the comments section of the above-described YouTube video, these same dunces ranted on about how our nation needed statutory-age-of-consent laws that were as tough as they currently were, because the "human brain does not completely mature until 25 years of age." I feel like screaming and puking every time I hear or read that same lame argument, because a number of experts have debunked it.
Pop science is usually junk science. This garbage about the human brain not maturing until 25 years of age is a strong example of it. Cassandra Levesque cited this same faulty argument in support of her reasons for seeking to outlaw teenage marriage in her state jurisdiction, and she is not yet 25 years of age.
Such an argument would tend to indicate that Ms. Levesque is unfit to serve as a state representative. However, nobody sees her tendering her resignation to the New Hampshire state legislature. Like so many other self-proclaimed child advocates, she likes to have her cake and eat it too.
These same dunces in the above-described comments section would get hateful and ugly with anyone who even slightly contradicted them on this same matter. Then they would engage in name-calling tactics, accusing other YouTubers of being "pedophile enablers," "pedophile lovers," and just plain "pedophiles."
When people behave as deplorably as they do, you know that they're losing their debate with you. These people are so dead set on never being wrong about anything that they get frustrated whenever anyone refuses to see things their way. YouTube seems to be a magnet for these imbeciles.
These same dunces brought up the "grooming" argument as per usual. Okay. If they really believe that they have a legitimate basis to bring up this so-called argument every time an 18- or 19-year-old man has a tryst with a middle schooler, then there should be a legal definition written in stone that specifies what "grooming" really is inasmuch as there appears to be a lack of consensus over what it really means.
Moreover, if the "grooming" point is going to be used in carnal-knowledge cases involving adolescent minors to ascertain culpability on the part of the defendant, then the law should be changed to require that it become a burden-of-proof for the prosecution to establish in criminal cases of that nature.
Of course, you know and I know that most of these self-proclaimed child advocates and other self-righteous do-gooders like them would never agree to allow lawmakers to ratify a bill that would require prosecutors to prove that "grooming" took place between an adult and an adolescent minor below the statutory age of consent, before a conviction could be secured in each case.
These little minds simply love having a strict-liability system wherein culpability gets purely based upon the math in such criminal matters, so to speak. These people want to have their cake and eat it too.
All these social-justice warriors simply love the idea of getting lawmakers to set 12 years old as the age of adult responsibility for even the pettiest of crimes. However, whenever anyone brings up the subject of lowering the statutory age of consent to a number any less than 18 years old, they don't want to hear about it.
Juvenile-justice-related laws clearly reek of double standards here in the land of milk and honey. It, therefore, cannot be overlooked that these self-proclaimed child advocates don't really care about teenagers or pre-teenagers.
At the end of the day, Mr. Stewart is no worse of a person than a 13- or 14-year-old boy who has gotten a 12-year-old girlfriend pregnant and has unleashed chaos in her life. In fact, Mr. Stewart may not even be that bad. Moreover, his 12-year-old accuser is not going to be the next Kathy Shelton either.
The alleged 12-year-old victim is probably a sexually obsessed girl who became bored messing around with boys her own age and wanted to find out what it was like to go older. In that event, I would hardly call her a child-molestation victim. I don't wish to speculate, but we don't live in innocent times anymore and haven't done so for a very long time.
If Mr. Stewart were a 13- or 14-year-old boy who had gotten his 12-year-old accuser pregnant and had turned sour on her, the first thing that most of these self-proclaimed child advocates would be saying is, "Why is it always the boy's fault?!" However, because Mr. Stewart is 19 years old, they appear to latch onto the opinion that Mr. Stewart has no rights at all.
Any intelligent, reasonable American knows that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Mr. Stewart is likely not going to be punished as harshly as he would if he were 45 years of age. The prosecutor may not even prove his guilt at all, and he will walk free.
This one dumb YouTuber who goes by the user name of AFloridaSon kept insisting in the above-described comments section that Mr. Stewart would be on his way to death row in Florida if he had been arrested there. Duhhhh. He is describing a trigger law that is unenforceable until the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") overturns Kennedy vs. Louisiana, if they actually decide to do so.
I've stopped getting agitated whenever social-justice warriors come out of the woodwork and start demonizing a suspect in a carnal-knowledge case involving an adolescent minor insofar as they depict him to be the next Jack the Ripper. Communicating with these people and trying to enlighten them is as useless as attempting to carry on a conversation with a flock of pidgeons. These people are dead between the ears.
The mainstream media could also do a better job at reporting these incidents in the professional manner they should be reported rather than behaving like tabloid journalists from Hollywood.
This Article Is Copyright-Protected.