Pregnant wife shoves chili peppers into mistress’s vagina

[mjr]

Does that count as "hot sex"?

http://nypost.com/2017/07/21/pregnan...tresss-vagina/

Ouch, is the only thing I can think of. But the story doesn't say what kind of peppers...ghost peppers? Habaneros? Jalapenos?

[kibbles]

Hope there is a follow-up story where she is in jail and her child is taken away from her permanently.

[s_stabeler]

I actually disagree that she should necessarily lose her child. Oh, I don't deny that it's worth looking into, but remember that even some of the most dangerous people in history haven't been any more dangerous to their kid than the average parent. (Al Capone comes to mind)

[kibbles]

I think she definitely should. What she did was beyond sick and depraved, amounting to the vilest sexual assault. If she had slapped or punched the mistress, I wouldn't say she was right in doing so but I could have some sort of sympathy for her. Heat of the moment, hurt and betrayal I could understand. This is just a sick kind of depravity. I feel sorry for the mistress and definitely the husband, make no wonder he strayed...

[kibbles]

I'd venture to say I would rather Al Capone raise a child than her, Lololol!!

[s_stabeler]

my point is that having a kid taken away is not a legitimate punishment- yes, even for child abuse- is is exclusively when said parent is either abusive, or there is a sufficiently large risk of abuse.It's not a question of if she "deserves" having her kid taken away- a kid being taken from their parents isn't a moral judgment on their parents outside of being considered to be a threat to said kid.

[kibbles]

I would think though it is a possibility to lose custody if she goes to jail? Also, I could be wrong but I suspect the husband would go for full custody? I assume or hope that there are some serious charges being laid on her and her friends. I didn't see any follow-up story afterwards. JMO of course.

[s_stabeler]

Nope. It's treated like you are unable to exercise them while you are in prison, but you don't actually lose your custody rights.

IF this causes the woman and her husband to divorce, then it's possible the husband will get full custody, but it's not automatic as part of the sentance, and nor would the crime be factored in all that much when determining if she should lose her kids.

[TheHuckster]

Two factors I believe should be included (regardless of whether they are or not)

1.) Is this woman's actions indicative of possibility that she could become physically abusive to her children? On one hand, the crime was violent and rather demented. On the other, it was likely a crime of passion, given the circumstances behind it. I do think one should consider someone who is capable of this kind of brutality toward someone else has some issues which could make for a dangerous household.

2.) If the child is raised by this woman, what kind of influence could the mother have to raise a criminal? I think what typically happens is custody rights are only lost if the parent had included the children in the crime (e.g. they were part of a criminal ring of sorts). I don't think in this case those conditions apply, but I do fear she may have a negative influence on her child's moral and ethical compass. Certainly, just being a bad influence in and of itself is not grounds for loss of custody, but when a crime this heinous has been committed (this is more than an assault, it's sexual assault) I'd hate for that behavior to rub off to the offspring, continuing this cycle.

I agree that custody should never be revoked as a punishment in any case. But, the decision should be all about the child's well-being.

[s_stabeler]

I actually agree with you Huckster, though you do need to be careful about your second point. (while I usually dislike slippery slope arguments, it's worth noting that it's actually quite a short one- for a start, where do you draw the line where a crime is bad enough? bearing in mind that in the US, in some states at least, 3 separate felony convictions is an automatic life sentence regardless of severity. Not to mention the racist's argument that black/jew/muslim parents bring their kids up to be criminals- if you've established that "likely to bring up their kids to be a criminal" is enough, you're giving racists too much leeway to legally harass people.)

as I said in my first post, investigate by all means- but she only loses the kid if she's an actual threat to the kid.

[TheHuckster]

Not to mention the racist's argument that black/jew/muslim parents bring their kids up to be criminals

You follow up the "slippery slope" with a straw man argument.

I'm mostly talking about cases such as those where parents actively involve their children in crime. Not as much where parents do crimes while they have children. In my retail days, I've witnessed cases where children are trained by their parents to shoplift, or even get involved in the shoplifting schemes by being a distraction. That, to me, is a form of child abuse, where you're actively and intentionally leading them to a life of crime in their adult years.

[s_stabeler]

it's not precisely a strawman- racists have in the past argued that whatever group they are prejudiced against bring up their kids to be criminals. That's not a strawman, it's historical fact. Then, I pointed out it wasn't a massive jump, IF you accepted that, to taking the kids of such a group away IF you accept being able to take kids away based on the idea they might infuence the kids to commit crime.

I agree it seems ludicrous on it's face, but consider that gay people who want to adopt kids often have to deal with people claiming they will teach the kid to grow up gay.

I actually agree that when you're actively involving the kid in crime, then that's a different matter. However, you do need to be careful talking about speculative influences.