Jamie Lynn Spears (16) is pregnent (1 Viewer)

[Todd Hochard]

Gadzooks! Syntax error. Aye Carumba.

Interesting take on the publicity stunt. Hmm...

 

[BrianB]

The tabloids would run the stories regardless. It's a pretty safe bet that the reason the Spears are talking to the press about the pregnancy right now is that they were going to run the story anyway.

 

[Holadem]

A relevant article: Sex education found to help teenagers delay sex | Health | Reuters

--
H

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Certainly they do, they just don't get followed around by paparazzi. (And boob jobs are one of civilization's crowning achievements BTW). And it doesn't take a lot of money to get drunk and run your car into a tree several times in one year.

 

[Kirk Gunn]

While I abhor following this story, I have a 13 yr old daughter, so obviously have a keen interest in the developments.

Looks like Nick may not be sweeping this under the rug...

Nick Mulling Post-Spears Pregnancy Show

 

[MarkMel]

I think that Nick is doing that so that they can run the next season of Zoey with a 'clear' conscience. No need to throw all the production and ad dollars down the trash.

Total political play.

 

[Mark Hawley]

Maybe she's just trying to outdo her sister. When Britney was first came on the scene at age 16 she was just jailbait.

Now Jamie's reached that same age and now managed to be both jailbait and a MILF!

 

[Christ Reynolds]

Jamie Lynn speaks out.

CJ

 

[Kirk Gunn]

Now CJ, that's just wrong... In a Will Ferrell/"Pearl" kind of way

"where's my rent money ?"

 

[zillion01]

With that said, Britney is looking horrible

 

[Chris]

Actually, in kind of a stunning twist, British tabs and others are reporting this 19 year old kid isn't the dad.. and that she was sleeping with an exec on the show who is considerably older then she is.. if that is true.. :frowning:

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I don't trust the British tabloids. That said, if it's true criminal charges should be filed.

 

[TravisR]

Me neither but sadly, the American media has dropped to nearly the same unreliable depths.

 

[ZacharyTait]

I don't mean to drag politics into this, but here goes: And yet, our wonderful government insists on giving money for sex education if it is abstinence only.

Can a mod correct the spelling in the thread title? It is driving me nuts.

 

[WillG]

Why? If a 19 year old engaging in sex with a 16 year old apparently isn't grounds for charges why should any other age matter?

 

[TravisR]

C'mon, there's a world of difference between a 19 year old dating a 16 year old and someone that's presumably at least in his 30s dating a 16 year old. IF it's true, that guy is a scumbag. He didn't seduce her or trick her into anything but if you're a grown man and you start a relationship with a 16 year old, you need to have your head checked. Besides that it's illegal and disgusting, the possible consequences (looking like an animal and destroying your career) dictate that you keep it in your pants no matter what.

It's all a moot point since the guy will never be prosecuted but IF it's true, it's real creepy and gross.

 

[Brandon_T]

Her boyfriend as it turns out isn't 19, but 18 and 24 days within the legal "limit" of sex for someone 16 years of age. It would be quite interesting if the new stories of an exec being the father are true.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Please, there are many 16 year old High School Juniors and many 19 year old High School Seniors. Let's make sure we call the police if they start dating...

 

[WillG]

I think some of you are missing my point.

If someone who's legally an adult has sex with someone who's legally a minor you would think there wouldn't be any difference in the eyes of the law between a 19 year old and a 49 year old. I guess what I mean is where should the line be drawn.


What if a 18 year old high school senior beds a 14 year old high school freshman. Wouldn't that be considered a bit creepy. But it's close to the same age difference of 16 and 19

Personally, I think it's pretty strange that this incident has barely raised any question in the media concerning this. Maybe the paticular law in that state makes it okay. I'm not sure.

 

[Chris]

I agree for the large part. Most states have Romeo & Juliet laws which say that if there is less then 3 years age difference, they aren't prosecuted as a sex offender. That makes sense.

I won't name names, but I personally know someone who ran into this issue. He was 19 (Sr. in HS) his GF was 16 (Sophomore), they were dating for some while (about 6 months if I remember right) her father caught them having sex in his car after prom.

Result? He got prosecuted and pled no contest, which didn't seem like a big deal at the time, paid a small fine, no jail, etc. etc. etc.

EXCEPT now he's a registered sex offender and everywhere he goes he has to register with the county authorities that he had sex with a minor and was convicted.. I spoke to him a year ago and he says that while he can explain when people ask (in a kind of funny twist, the two are married now and have been for about a decade now) most people don't ask, but they think they "know" what went on, because the sex-offender list doesn't tell people the specifics of what happened except for "Sex act with a minor"

So, yeah, there has to be some re-thinking on how that kind of prosection goes down.

BUT, if it is a significantly older person (like say, 35 / 16) then the age difference is stark, because at that point, the 35 year old should have known much better then to ever be involved.