The article ‘South Park Monster’ is an 8 page article written for Houston Press by John Nova Lomax in 2002. While it is very informative, I’d like to take it a few points at a time and really look at the story it presents.
“He was 17 and still a freshman when he decided to drop out for good, he told the Houston
That is probably one of the most repeated quotes by Carlos Coy; it even came up during his trial. Finding the actual article it came from was an absolute BITCH. It’s from ’99, by a guy named Craig D. Lindsey. Lomax borrows heavily from this article to write ‘monster’. Here's the real quote:
"I was 17 years old in the ninth grade before I decided to go ahead and leave school," he says. "One more year in high school and I would've went to jail for fucking all those little young bitches, you know."
So this here we have unassailable proof of Coy's prediliction for underage girls, right? Wrong. Let’s take it apart.
Coy was still a freshman when he dropped out at 17 years of age.
Most schools begin enrolling Sept 1st. Carlos Coy’s birthday is not until October, meaning he would have been 15 when he began 9th grade for the first time.
Now I’m guessing that he didn’t actually drop out to avoid being charged for having sex with his classmates; he’d spent two years a freshman, he was probably frustrated, bored, and decided continuing on was pointless. Most of us in that situation would. The quote is a statement (I dropped out) and an observation (eventually, I might have gotten in trouble). He’s not saying “I dropped out so I wouldn’t get into trouble.”
This quote is shocking, not because it reveals some kind of perverse or illegal behavior, but because it draws our attention to the fact that the difference between ‘Puppy Love’ and ‘Sexual Assault of a Minor’ is one day. You hit that 18th birthday and the girl you’ve been kissing after class for years is suddenly off-limits. You can't even touch her over her clothes without opening yourself up to charges. We don't want to admit that the laws are stupid, and arbitrarily criminalize behavior that has been smiled upon up till a certain birthday. We don’t like to think about the fact that a kid can get sent to prison for the rest of his life for having consensual pre-marital nookie on Prom Night.
Coy is not suggesting that he had committed a crime, or done anything other than what every teenage kid who enters high school with a dick and half-decent game has done. He’s pointing out a well known cut-off date that all young men in Texas
http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/2111.htm
Update: Per http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-romeo-and-juliet-law-takes-effect-in-texas-20110901,0,7606735.story
it looks like the three-year spread has been increased to four years as of Sept 1, 2011...Thanks to Wolfe Pack for the information!
http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/Beneman_Affirmative_Defenses_materials.pdf
11 comments:
"You hit that 18th birthday and the girl you’ve been kissing after class for years is suddenly off-limits."
Quick correction. With the three year age difference that Texas law provides, an 18 year old can legally have sex with a 15 year old. So your statement above isn't very accurate, there is some leeway.
As for the "little young bitches" comment, the significance of this is that pedophiles can not help who they are, and they tend to inadvertently reveal subtle aspects of themselves during speech. A pedophile may make references to children in exalted or exaggerated terms and other descriptive labels that seem inappropriate and excessive. The part where he says "little young bitches" is what's telling for me.
Here you go, Eric:
"So, to answer- the age of consent in Texas is 17. An affirmative defense does not bar arrest and prosecution. It is an issue that the defense must raise at trial."
http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/05/texas-age-of-consent-law.html
And by the way, if you're going to copy and paste other people words to support your argument, you really should be providing a link; lucky for you I've read that before, so I found the URL for you. :-)
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/7.html
Here's a bit more of it:
He displays a fascination or unusual interest in children. If an adult has an inordinate amount of interest in pre-pubescent children, it doesn't confirm he is a pedophile, but it should at least arouse suspicion.
He makes frequent references to children in exalted or exaggerated terms such as "pure," "innocent," "God sent," "blissful" and other descriptive labels that seem inappropriate and excessive. Remember that a pedophile cannot help the way he behaves and therefore will inadvertently reveal aspects about himself during speech.
He has hobbies or interests that commonly belong in the realm of a child's world such as toy collecting, building models of cars or planes. His home or room is decorated in a child's theme. And often, that theme will reflect the age bracket of his preferred victim.
He is over 30 years of age, single and has few or no friends his own age. He may also have frequent and unexplained changes of residence. He may be unable or unwilling to discuss why he lost his last job. He may have a military discharge that he cannot explain and a past that he can not easily talk about.
He has systematic and prolonged access to children. Pedophiles, because of the wide age disparity between themselves and their victims, cannot just hang around children. The pedophile has to find a way to legitimize his contact with kids. He usually accomplishes this by obtaining employment in a field where he is forced to deal with children on a daily basis. Jobs like schoolteachers, bus drivers, camp counselors, photographers and sports coaching(14) serve their needs perfectly. They will always volunteer for activities in which they are left alone with children with no parental supervision (Lanning, p. 19).
I didn't have the link on me. Those were notes that I jotted down years ago when debating this topic with someone else. Thanks for posting the link.
You didn't address the argument though. The "little young bitches" comment was an exalted term that subtly revealed an aspect of Carlos. Do you see the significance?
You're very welcome.
I will address that argument if you can show that you know what the definition of 'exalted' is, and explain why you believe calling girls 'little young bitches' jives with that definition.
Did he not seem a little excited when he made that remark? Was the remark not inappropriate and excessive?
*sigh* You fail at showing your knowledge of the definition of 'exalted'.
Dictionary.com:
ex·alt·ed
[ig-zawl-tid]
adjective
1. raised or elevated, as in rank or character; of high station: an exalted personage.
2. noble or elevated; lofty: an exalted style of writing.
3. rapturously excited.
Your turn.
You're almost there; can you support your point that the description 'little young bitches' exalts, honors, or idealizes?
I believe it fits definition three, "rapturously excited", more than the other two.
It fits the third definiton 'more than the other two'? Are you being serious? The remark does not exalt; it might dismiss, it might degrade, but it does not fit the definition you're trying so desperately to shoehorn it into.
Post a Comment