« Son stumbles on videotapes of mom having sex with dogs | Main | Drivers spot man in nothing but a thong, wig and fake breasts »
Did sexcapader get off easy because she's a woman?
A prosecutor says Irene Gomez, 39, who had two children with an underage boy, was the beneficiary of gender bias, garnering a far less severe punishment than would a man in the same situation. If it were a man, "we'd be talking about a prison sentence here," and not mere probation. (Daily Camera)
June 30, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
Reminds me of good ole Mary Kay Letourneau, except she actually went to prison! 20 years probation is a long time to toe the line...
Posted by: Reno | Jun 30, 2008 11:56:18 AM
Now that she has to register as a sex offender, do ya think that someone is going to come after her with a baseball bat if she talks to another kid?
Posted by: lawdog | Jun 30, 2008 11:58:33 AM
no high five for that kid.
we can compare her to a moped
both fun to ride until your friends see you doing it.
Posted by: AngrySockMonkey | Jun 30, 2008 12:03:53 PM
How the hell old are their kids? how old was she when she started having sex with him when he was 13?
when they wrote:
"Gomez has three children in addition to the two she had with the young man." did they mean she has 3 children INCLUDING the 2 with him or did they mean she has 5 children including the 2 with him????
Posted by: cherie | Jun 30, 2008 12:04:32 PM
Cherie, I think that would be 5 total.
Posted by: kevy | Jun 30, 2008 12:09:03 PM
The boy is now no longer a minor. So let's call him 18.
That would make the kids 5 and 2.
She is 39 now, so presumably was 34 when he knocked her up.
Obviously these calculations depends on how old he is *now*. If he were 21, the kids would be 8 and 5.
Posted by: nellagain | Jun 30, 2008 12:32:54 PM
We are hard-wired to think of girls being 'victimized' but boys having their 'first conquest' when it comes to statutory rape.
I believe that statutory rape is in the news a lot lately because the media and culture have sexualized adolesence to a very unhealthy degree.
And add to that the fact that we don't want to 'grow up' anymore. There used to be a time when there was an obvious divide between youth and adulthood. That line has blurred as mothers sport 'tramp stamps' and fathers brag about their Prince Alberts.
Posted by: John Meeks | Jun 30, 2008 12:48:16 PM
OK, this sentence cracked me up... 'the victim... was not mature enough to make a rational decision when he had sex with Gomez.'
Obviously, she wasn't able to make a rational decision when she had sex with him either! She oughta be in jail.
Posted by: SkyGrrl | Jun 30, 2008 12:49:34 PM
I don't know, I heard men are easier to get off than women :-P
Posted by: twerp | Jun 30, 2008 12:50:19 PM
A good portion of Americans are outraged by non-puritanical instances of sexual activity.
Outrage sells newspapers and draw mouse-clicks.
That's all there is to it.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Jun 30, 2008 12:57:08 PM
There are no victims when it is a woman and a teenage boy. So lets stop thinking that somehow a young man was being raped or forced into this situation.
After all 18 is just an arbitrary number that some social organization came up with to describe an adult. Before they settled on that number, and infact still in many parts of the world this would not be a crime. It would in fact be normal behavior then and is considered normal in many parts of the world now.
So lets simply say that the 39 year old had a lucky run with a youthful dead beat dad and the boy had a thing with a woman who actually knew how to and was willing to show him.
Oh and Twerp, you leave me lmao
Posted by: zimbabalouie | Jun 30, 2008 12:59:57 PM
Right Zim, everyone *knows* that 13 year old boys make excellent husbands and fathers.
Try thinking about it this way, would you like to be contractually obligated for 20 years to *anything* you would have agreed to do at age 13?
Posted by: nellagain | Jun 30, 2008 1:03:31 PM
The 13-year-old boy was obviously not mentally capable of having sex. He didn't even bother with birth control. AND, when he was 16, he still didn't stop to pick up a pack of Trojans. He already had one kid!
And where were his parents? Let alone the first time, the first time he knocked up a grown woman would have raised some red flags and brought up the need for some (non-sexual) adult supervision!
Posted by: John Meeks | Jun 30, 2008 1:16:54 PM
nell...bravo! bravo! good point...
Posted by: cherie | Jun 30, 2008 2:04:28 PM
Sterilization.
Posted by: Farmer Bob and the City | Jun 30, 2008 4:35:05 PM
"... he was a minor at the time of the crime, was not mature enough to make a rational decision when he had sex..."
I'm going to have to disagree. From 13 to 39, the rational decision of every human male on this planet is going to be "Yes, I'm gonna hit that."
Posted by: Farmer Bob and the City | Jun 30, 2008 4:38:38 PM
I'd hit it.
Posted by: youknowme | Jun 30, 2008 7:41:39 PM
This is the best part...
"20 years of intensive supervised probation".
WTF does that mean?
I am really getting fed up with all these stories. Let's be blunt. If the pink is put in front of most males age 10 or above and gets a reaction, that male want to enter the pink. If I am wrong, please help educate me.
Posted by: Bluntfacts | Jun 30, 2008 9:19:02 PM
A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD BOY NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE A RATIONAL DECISION ABOUT SEX? SO WHAT? I HAVE KNOWN 40 YEARS OLDS WHO COULD NOT DO THE SAME.
Posted by: ULTRA | Jul 1, 2008 4:18:35 AM
To answer the question posed for this thread: obviously, YES. There definitely is a double standard, and it's definitely wrong. Just another example of our f**ked-up legal system at work.
Posted by: thetruth | Jul 1, 2008 7:47:53 AM
I am really getting fed up with all these stories. Let's be blunt. If the pink is put in front of most males age 10 or above and gets a reaction, that male want to enter the pink. If I am wrong, please help educate me.
The problem is that it's one-sided when in reality both want it. Girls are just as randy as the guys.
Posted by: Naga Please! | Jul 1, 2008 1:49:24 PM
If you want to get away with anything in our legal system, you must be sexy: an attractive woman or a New York Billionaire. An ex-football player or a pop star will do too, if you got money.
Posted by: Charles Brobst | Jul 1, 2008 3:33:11 PM
11 years to life for a man bonking a 17 year old girl, as opposed to probation for a woman bonking a 13-year old boy. That's the issue.
Posted by: | Jul 1, 2008 5:26:49 PM
We have laws against sex with minors not because they don't want it...
But because it harms the mentally...
Children are not developed enough to understand it mentally...
If this was the 1700s and children were as mature as they were back than... it would be diffrent...
But now days children actually develop at a much lower rate... and some people never fully mature.
Woman... and Men both have a natural instinct to have sexual intercourse....
Bird and Bee's 101...
Humans are animals.
As any animal Humans have the natural instinct to reproduce. To increase this natural instinct it is pleasurable not in just humans but for all animals.
Including the female and male sex's of the species.
Posted by: TheTruth | Jul 2, 2008 9:18:29 PM
I see a lot of people off the subject that matters.
The "sex" is not what is the problem here. Like most Americans people go off on tangents about things they "feel" and "think" should be or should not be okay.
Here is the crux of the problem for those that cannot think.
It is illegal currently.
Men are disproportionately discriminated against in reverse roles.
The female involved did not get an appropriate sentence for a sex offender/predator.
That. Is the problem.
Don't agree with the law this one or ANY law? Tell your law makers. Work your way up locally and then to the top of the food chain. Don't mess with the Prez. He means nothing. Your mayors, senators, aldermen, etc... these people... these are the people that make your laws.
Posted by: Ankharan | Jul 3, 2008 4:25:50 AM
