Yes, this is tongue in cheek. :rolleyes:

The radio folks were discussing her book about parenting, and that it had been delayed by the Christian book publisher Thomas Nelson, Inc. now that her 16 year old daughter has gotten pregnant. The gist of the comments was that Lynne Spears should be thanked by all parents, for setting the bar so low that it is almost impossible to do a worse job of raising kids.

We have all seen what a mess Britney really is, once she is without all the PR folks and assistants and agents surrounding her 24/7 protecting her from the eye of the public. Now, 16 year old Jamie Lynn (who once proudly called heself a role model for other young girls during an interview) is discovered to have been living in an apartment with a boyfriend who is either 2 or 3 years older than her, and obviously engaged in sexual activity while a minor, without any parental supervision.

While there are hundreds of questions that may be asked about this situation, I have two:

1. Where was Lynne Spears the past two-three years that Jamie Lynn was involved with this "boyfriend"?

2. What are the laws in California (which I believe is the state Jamie Lynn has been living in) that govern child abuse and pedophelia? If the boyfriend is 19, or even 18, now then he was involved in sexual activity with a child until she turned 16, and that normally results in an arrest.

This is one really fooked-up family.

On the one hand, I had to laugh at an early article that interviewed mother and daughter, where the two (and other commentors) talked about how they were shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that this would happen. It was so unexpected, they said. Please raise your hands if you thought Britney's little sister getting pregnant is shocking. Now move closer to the running helicopter.

On the other, little Britney had the ability (I can't bring myself to say talent) and discipline to make herself a multi-millionaire before flushing herself down the toilet. That should count for something. And hell, kids have sex. They've always had sex and always will have sex, and it doesn't much matter who the parents are. I wasn't aware that she was living with the guy, though, and if that's the case, momma should be beaten with her publishing contract.

The whole parenting book angle on this is golden.

Latest bit of news is that the publisher now wants to go forward with the book for it's corrective value. :rolleyes:

Comedic value ?

I hope it's a pop-up book.

In response to the laws and such... If her mother does not press charges the state of California can do nothing. And in most situations a 2-3 year age difference is accepted as not illegal.

A 2-3 year age difference will most certainly not protect the older of the two from charges of illegal conduct. It might not get prosecuted or may be pled down, but it's still viewed as illegal conduct. Whether or not it should be illegal is a separate question.

A 2-3 year age difference will most certainly not protect the older of the two from charges of illegal conduct. It might not get prosecuted or may be pled down, but it's still viewed as illegal conduct. Whether or not it should be illegal is a separate question.

They also have to prove if they had sex in California or her home state, which apparently has different laws regarding age of consent and such.

State by state laws for consenting age:

http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm

According to Jamie Lynn, she and her "boyfriend" met at Church when she was 13. There have been conflicting reports as to whether he is 18 or 19 now, making him 15 or 16 when they met. Either way, she was oviously under the age of consent when sexual relations began; and, he being a legal adult and she being a minor, why is he not being prosecuted for statutory rape?

And would Mother not be an accessory? She obviously was not paying much attention to her minor daughter's living arrangements, when most would deem it appropriate for the custodial parent to at least have the child IN CUSTODY! At the very least, she should be publically chastised for the manner in which she pimped her daughters out to the Hollywood star-making machine in return for whatever vicarious attention she achieved.

Who says they had to have had sex when they started dating? I rarely put out on the first date.

Because of the 2-3 year difference and the conflict in regards to which state they had sex in.

Also, if her parents do not complain about it, there is no legal grounds to prosecute him. There has to be a complaint. The reason most people do get in trouble is because when the parents of the younger girl find out, they prosecute immediately.

I know this for a fact because at the age of 17 I had sex with a 30 year old woman, and my parents found out and being the asses they were at the time wanted to prosecute. I told them that I would lie on the stand, and therefore they were told they would not be able to push it any further because they cannot complain about something I say didn't happen.

In her case, true she is pregnant and there is the evidence, however if there is no complaint from her parents there is no case.

Because of the 2-3 year difference and the conflict in regards to which state they had sex in.

Also, if her parents do not complain about it, there is no legal grounds to prosecute him. There has to be a complaint. The reason most people do get in trouble is because when the parents of the younger girl find out, they prosecute immediately.

I know this for a fact because at the age of 17 I had sex with a 30 year old woman, and my parents found out and being the asses they were at the time wanted to prosecute. I told them that I would lie on the stand, and therefore they were told they would not be able to push it any further because they cannot complain about something I say didn't happen.

In her case, true she is pregnant and there is the evidence, however if there is no complaint from her parents there is no case.


And I also know "for a fact" that there have been cases brought by prosecutors without the parents having any say at all. The prosecutor is charged withy enforcing the law, and if a legal adult is having sexual relations with a minor, regardless of the parent's consent, charges can be and often are brought. And, the parent can be charged as well.

And as far as having sex when they first started dating, nobody has said they did. But it is clear that they were having sex before she turned 16.

And I also know "for a fact" that there have been cases brought by prosecutors without the parents having any say at all. The prosecutor is charged withy enforcing the law, and if a legal adult is having sexual relations with a minor, regardless of the parent's consent, charges can be and often are brought. And, the parent can be charged as well.

Yes, if there is evidence, but also if there is a big enough age difference.

If this was the case of a 30 year old man impregnating a 16 year old girl it would happen no matter who she was.

However almost every state has a buffer zone of 2-3 years. Along with the fact that mom is fine with it, there is no case. Has nothing to do with her being who she is.