Sex education; single mother style


20 February 2007

Couple Charged With Having Intercourse In Front of 9-Year-Old Daughter to Teach Her About Sex

Even before reading the story it was easy to guess that it would not be the natural father involved.

A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are headed to trial on charges they had intercourse in front of the woman’s 9-year-old daughter as a way to teach the girl about sex.

Rebecca Arnold, of Woonsocket, and her boyfriend, David Prata, have pleaded not guilty to felony child-neglect charges. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for next month.

When questioned by an investigator from the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex “all the time” in front of the child and that “we don’t believe in hiding anything.”

The joys of single-motherhood; hooked up with a loser and fucking him in front of the children.

This is the epitome of ultra-liberalism and free-love; believing children are just little adults, to be treated as such. At least the kid is with her natural father now. One more reason why kids should be placed with their fathers by default during break-ups.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:05 PM


At 11:26 PM, Davout said…

I am curious to see what leftist-liberals can say to show they are opposed to the idea that children should be exposed to sexual intercourse.

After all, aren’t they the ones who actively promote the idea of sex education for CHILDREN? I would expect them to be applauding the ‘trailblazing’ couple….
There are many of them on Rhode Island. It is probably the second most liberal state in the US after MA.

The Weakest Linc


At 1:07 AM, NHY said…

Admittedly, I did laugh when I read this because its sounds so gosh damn stupid and dumb. Sadly, its true and that makes it all the more alarming.

Even though the child is in the safety of her father now, I’d hate to imagine how this going to effect her in 3 – 4 years, the father has a huge task ahead of him to try and prevent this.


At 12:49 PM, darkbhudda said…

As davout said, where are all the educators who have been calling for sex ed to be taught to 5 year olds? They should be coming out and applauding such responsible parenting.

It’s not the only case in recent memory. It’s also a common element in the childhoods of most serial killers.


At 3:26 PM, Captain Save’aHo said…

Davout said…

“I am curious to see what leftist-liberals can say to show they are opposed to the idea that children should be exposed to sexual intercourse.”

Well Mr Davout (when are you coming ‘out’ of the closet then?) maybe you should try reading this for a bit of enlightenment!!!

State Traumatizes North Adams Girl to “Protect” Her

“While this is very unusual for modern day America, it used to be the norm in most cultures centuries ago, and still is in many places. Families would live together in small spaces, and sex would not be hidden from anyway. Why are we so sure that it causes “psychological damage?” Personally, I’m convinced that hiding is what causes the damage.”

You should learn to respect the natural wisdom of Single Mothers.

So there!


At 3:27 PM, Anonymous said…

If the boyfriend demanded sex from the 9 yr old girl or else he would leave her she would have happily complied.

Morality is elastic to females dependent upon situational cost-benefit analysis.


At 4:01 PM, Stephen said…

Well, there’s your problem right there. It was in Woonsocket. A hateful place devoid of all things warm and wholesome in this world!


At 2:40 AM, arnold ziffel said…

I think we can consider the daughter a lost soul. How will anyone be able to convince her that her mother’s behavior was not normal? Not that the child welfare authorities in Massachusetts will try, of course.


At 4:17 PM, Davout said…

captain save’aho,

I suggest you avoid ad hominem attacks if you ever hope to be taken seriously by those whom you wish to argue with. Also you might want to change your name to avoid the obvious reference to single mothers as whores, particularly if you want to save them from their own choice…unless of course you’re the type of person who runs around cleaning up after thugs and bad boys.

I, for one, see no point in taking any entrenched pro-feminist such as Hugo Schwyzer seriously because none of them have any intention of defending feminism, choosing instead to engage in tortuous circular logic of the feminism = good because feminism=equality and equality=good garden variety. You will notice that none of these sub equations have been PROVEN by any feminist, even though they are ALL critical to the validity of feminism. Instead they prefer to phrase their arguments in facile appeals to emotion capitalizing on the majority public misguided desire to believe that equality is good without any proof.

Your argument along the lines of: ‘It was common once, therefore it is right’ is an outright lie at worst and a logical fallacy at best, categorized under the ‘appeal to tradition’ category.

Your ‘single mothers have natural wisdom’ tripe is quite a laughable lie because if they did, why is it that they are THE source of delinquency, poverty and crime in any Western Nanny state and a major reason why we pay more taxes. Of all the criminals in jail in the US, 70-80% are the product of these angels. Ask yourself who pays extra taxes for the extra cops many of whom will die defending the streets from the bastard children of women who thought they could do it all? I’m pretty sure its not the single women on WELFARE i.e. not dependent on a man but rather on all men and women!

In any case, if you want to expose children to sex, why not remove the notion of statutory rape since all that thar sex ejucation will be giving them a head start? Why not legalize rape because, according to your logic, it is justified since it has been fairly prevalent since antiquity too?

I suggest you use your neurons, assuming Schwyzer hasn’t brainwashed you yet and jump off the feminist bandwagon.


At 9:42 AM, Captain Save’Aho said…

Davout said…

“I suggest you use your neurons,”

Now look whos talking about hod eminem attacks!!!

“assuming Schwyzer hasn’t brainwashed you yet and jump off the feminist bandwagon.”

No one’s brainwashed me buddy!

Hugo Schwyzer makes a lot of sense (when I can understand him that is because I haven’t got a PhD in womens studies…yet) and one of these days I know I’m gonna get laid… SO THERE!!!


At 8:00 PM, Anonymous said…

….and one of these days I know I’m gonna get laid… SO THERE!!!

Being female, you must REEAALLY have a face ugly enough to halt an avalanche dead in its tracks, girlie.


At 3:32 AM, Anonymous said…

A bit from the biological Dad’s perspective.

“The investigator spoke with Prata the next day. “Mr. Prata said that he and [the girl’s] mother believe in a free and open relationship and don’t want to hide anything from [the girl],” the report stated.

“The investigator asked Prata what he meant by a free and open relationship. “If (the girl) wants to learn anything about sex, we teach her,” Prata said.

“The investigator asked Prata if he masturbated on a couch while watching pornographic videos, and if the girl was present when he did that. “Yes,” Prata said. “But I never demanded that she stand or sit in the room to watch.”


%d bloggers like this: