What's new

Sex, the babysitter and the press

Mark of Zorro

先輩
4 Oct 2012
2,427
316
98
loni-bouchard-01.jpg

Remember this face?

Back in 2011 the news reported that she sexually assaulted a 14 year old boy that she was babysitting when she was 20.

Connecticut Babysitter Accused of Sexually Assaulting 14-Year-Old Boy - ABC News

The press had no qualms about showing her pic to the world, reporting that she abused her authority, preyed on a boy and plied him with alcohol to do it. They also casually implied there might be another 14 year old boy also a victim. Then the press just dropped it.

If you scroll down that story you find this post:

honestyhurts1209
12:15 AM EDT
Aug 17, 2011
okay she did NOT give him alcohol and she didnt have his way with him nor was she a babysitter. Ik both of them, the girl and the victim, and trust me he was the one who made the moves in their relationship. They were a good couple and once your 13 years old you are perfectly aware of sex and all that stuff. She never gave him alcohol. She doesn't drink herself. If you want to know the kid look up Damian Borysewicz on facebook. He's not a little boy. He still texts her best friend to see how she is and stuff. He still cares about her, and the family knew about the relationship. The dating relationship started in January and ended in early April. His mother, Shannon, accused Damian, and his dad along with her own father and grandfather will molesting her kids, when none of them would ever do that. She has been in and out of mental hospitals for a few years. Trust me Loni did not get him drunk, and then had her way with him. The news stations are not reporting the truth. They are ruining her life and thats not fair. Loni can't even live her life, shes depressed and everything.

And I have no reason to doubt this story. I have looked up the names Damian Borysewicz and his mother Shannon Borysewicz and indeed they are from Connecticut.

The mother graduated high school in 1995, so she would have had the boy soon after high school.

Shannon Borysewicz | Class of 1995 | Southington High School | Classmates.com is now part of - Memory Lane

I found both the facebook page of Damian and Lori. I found posts elsewhere corroborating the story especially the contention that the mother, Shannon is nuts. And I just cannot find any reason to doubt it.

You are all welcome to comment on any aspect of this. Many people pointed out early on that its nuts for a 14 year old to have a babysitter for example. (in fact, some have said that was not the case at all). But I am especially interested in what you think about the responsibility of the press in cases like this and also with lawyers commenting like the one in the video.

It seems to me both are only interested in making money off of this and will say anything and damage the public good to any extent for the sake of it. They want hysteria over things like this to prevail and don't care who gets trampled in the process.

Do you guys have any idea the extent of damage that has been done to that woman's reputation and life? Do you guys remotely see any benefit in doing this to her?

Don't you think the treatment of the woman must have harmed the boy, also considering the fact that his name will also wind up known to all and that he had to give police interviews, etc. and disclose his private life and sexuality? And the fact that he had to testify against her for police if not in court?

I see a festering sickness here and its nothing to do with the sex.
 
It's so obvious what your doing Zorro -

As far as i am aware your "age of consent - / why i think it's ok for a grown man to touch up kiddies" thread is not locked.

You refused to actually respond to peoples direct questions in that thread - I imagine it will be the same again in this thread.
 
You refused to actually respond to peoples direct questions in that thread

Its always nice to have people accuse me of not answering questions...you know....while they don't answer a single one....at all.

This is a new thread, new stories, new questions.

Get over it, get with it or just shut the hell up. I mean it. You are putting your @$$ awful close to the flames AGAIN by barging in here without even one single thread related question or answer.
 
Because this topic - ultimately comes down to the fact that you think it is ok for an adult 35 year old man to touch an 11 year old girl.

you failed to respond to the questions put to you - to such an effect that the mods deleted half the thread.
And now you want to create a clone thread.

You site examples of older women with younger boys knowing that society and thus the board will take a more lightweight approach to this, and you are all ready with your "AHA BUT WHAT IF TEH SECKES WERE REVERESED"

Except no-one is falling for it.

You know absolutely NOTHING about children and the mind of a growing young person. that much is clear.

in the words of pink Floyd

"Leave the kids alone"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow. I was not half as bothered by the stupid personal accusations against me for daring to have an opinion as much as I was the refusal to say anything productive or to simply address the thread topic.

Seems to me his only purpose here is to ensure a real discussion never take place. Last I checked that got one defined as a troll.

So sad to see such a mere snippet edited out of this ATTACK.

you failed to respond to the questions put to you - to such an effect that the mods deleted half the thread.

Which fails to explain why you got a temporary ban and I didn't.

You lie. You lie. You lie. You lie. The thread was cleaned up for the same reason you got the temp ban....you lie. You also refuse to participate honestly.

I answered a ton of questions in that thread, and offered to answer more and any that you think I may have missed. I only asked that they be posted one at a time to avoid the previous problems. But you refused. Then you seek to sabotage this thread with your lies.

You know, its a wonder that when I opened multiple Afghanistan related threads you did not throw a fit. Yes, age of consent issues (there are more than one) may be more complicated than one thread can deal with...or can be explained by your aggressive, destructive attitude...or your lies.

Because this topic - ultimately comes down to the fact that you think it is ok for an adult 35 year old man to touch an 11 year old girl.

It beats the United States having the highest rate of crimes against children in the western world. I believe that America has four times the child murder rate of any other western country. Attitudes like yours ensure that this never changes.

You get off on that don't you? You take pleasure knowing that your obstructionism gets kids killed, don't you?

Edit: Why don'tyou drag your lying accusation that I avoid questions back to the other thread and pull out one you think I avoided. Take the Pepsi challenge. I dare you.
 
Last edited:
U.S. child murder rate soars

A link in case I get accused with more lying and false accusations. Four times the child murder rate of any other western nation.

What other country has or needs Amber Alerts and Megan's law? These things began in America not because Americans care. They began because America has a problem. For someone claiming to be British, 7stars sure talks like an American. Accuse, rage, puke bile. Meanwhile, kids get kidnapped, raped and murdered.

And now you want to create a clone thread.

For one simple reason, it is not. The other thread was about the "victims" This one is about the "perpetrators". Not that I even think you have the capacity or the desire to understand 7stars. I am sure you love all the news of arrests, deaths and broken lives, and could only hope for more.
 
Wait, so what's your issue with this, specifically?

This is just another case where under-aged kids are found in a relationship, one of their mothers won't allow it, and claims rape. She's not out of her mind or anything -- Just willing to go to an extreme to break things up. If it was clear that they were together before the age of consent, then no one can really complain about having to deal with all the police and media stuff. It's just how that all works.

On a side note, you really should have expected no less from the media -- It IS a business of having the biggest story, after all.
 
It's just how that all works.

On a side note, you really should have expected no less from the media -- It IS a business of having the biggest story, after all.

Your propensity to just accept injustice like this, and war too, makes me wanna puke.

You seem to be the very embodiment of apathy.

Wait, so what's your issue with this, specifically?

In addition to all I wrote, its bull$#!T, from start to finish. No one was harmed by the sex, but they are harmed by the reaction. Its stupid. There was no good reason to name and shame these young women, destroy their reputations, or declare them a threat. The public good is not served. In fact, its harmed. Its hysteria and promotion of hysteria.

If it was clear that they were together before the age of consent, then no one can really complain

People who are not apathetic can and do complain about injustice. Just because its the law does not make it right or fair....or even beneficial to the people.
 
No you were asked repeatedly to answer 3 simple questions.

You blank refused to do so.

It was you who was afraid of an honest and open debate, instead just trolling with accusations and outrage.

You rage about this topic because you seek to justify your actions towards underage girls.

What you do is a criminal offence - and rightly so.

It destroy's lives and takes away so many things from a child that anyone who suggests that it is ok is either a complete idiot, ignorant or a sick pedophile who should be locked up in prison
 
Your propensity to just accept injustice like this ... makes me wanna puke.

You've seemed pretty indirect in the entire thread so far. I still don't really see why you have a problem with it, specifically. I'm sure we'd have a lot more to talk about once you answer that question. :p


In addition to all I wrote, its bull$#!T, from start to finish. No one was harmed by the sex,

So is this about the age of consent, or...? >.>


...and shame these young women...

Women? You mean to imply that the guy involved didn't have to deal with the same consequences as the girl? I'm not sure I like where this is going..


Just because its the law does not make it right or fair....or even beneficial to the people.

But I wasn't wasn't talking about whether or not I agree with the law, and to be totally honest, I'm not sure it's in the best of either of our interests to even touch on it. Before stomping around and raging about a law, shouldn't we focus on the people who broke it and why (you know, since that's the real root of the issue)?

Why should I have any sympathy for people who whine about the consequences after they make the conscious decision to break laws? Sure, not all laws make much sense, and not all of them are effective, but that isn't an excuse to go around breaking them. After all, your stance against it is only one opinion in an endless sea of them.
 
No you were asked repeatedly to answer 3 simple questions.

Blah blah blah.

No idea what you are talking about. Before this drives you insane, or you pop a blood vessel or something, simply go back to the thread, cut and paste the one you want answered most, I will answer, then do the same for the next, and the next.

If that is too hard, then there is something seriously wrong with you. More likely though that you are just being a jerk.

You can either follow these simple instructions, or quit your petulant whining like you are six years old.

What you do is a criminal offence - and rightly so.

Having an opinion is a criminal offense now????
 
You've seemed pretty indirect in the entire thread so far. I still don't really see why you have a problem with it, specifically. I'm sure we'd have a lot more to talk about once you answer that question. :p

what? What is "it"? What is indirect about having a problem with the press naming and shaming these young women? Or getting so many details of the first wrong?

I am not being indirect at all. I have multiple reasons for my feelings and I may not have listed them all because there are so many BUT, if I did that, in this thread or any other, I would need to write you a book.




So is this about the age of consent, or...? >.>

Its about many things, including the AOC. As I wrote in the OP, I am willing to talk about any aspect of these cases, and there are many aspects.



Women? You mean to imply that the guy involved didn't have to deal with the same consequences as the girl? I'm not sure I like where this is going..

What guy? What consequences?




But I wasn't wasn't talking about whether or not I agree with the law, and to be totally honest, I'm not sure it's in the best of either of our interests to even touch on it. Before stomping around and raging about a law, shouldn't we focus on the people who broke it and why (you know, since that's the real root of the issue)?

Touch what?

If the law is dumb, its dumb. If the press and courts are unjust, they are unjust.

Why did they break the law? You tell me. I don't know. They may have all been in love. Is that a crime too?



Why should I have any sympathy for people who whine about the consequences after they make the conscious decision to break laws?

Why should you have any sympathy for anybody? I mean damn, do you? Whether this or war, you just throw your hands in the air, and say "Oh well! Stuff happens!"


Sure, not all laws make much sense, and not all of them are effective, but that isn't an excuse to go around breaking them. After all, your stance against it is only one opinion in an endless sea of them.

Yes it IS a good excuse for breaking the law! There are lots of laws on the books that are now ignored for people breaking them so much. Its a critical step in the constant struggle for freedom.

For example, cops won't even bother arresting someone found with a couple marijuana joints in America.
 
what? What is "it"? What is indirect about having a problem with the press naming and shaming these young women? Or getting so many details of the first wrong?

I am not being indirect at all. I have multiple reasons for my feelings and I may not have listed them all because there are so many BUT, if I did that, in this thread or any other, I would need to write you a book.

You don't need to write me a book. Just give me a bulleted list of the reasons you're so angry and I'll be satisfied. The only thing I really understand about your position is that it somehow has to do with women in general and not just the one involved in this case and it somehow doesn't involve the kid she was with, even though the story was just as much about his relationship with her as it was about her relationship with him.


Its about many things, including the AOC. As I wrote in the OP, I am willing to talk about any aspect of these cases, and there are many aspects.

In that case, I'm just going to avoid talking about the AOC altogether since I'm sure we both know how that'll end up.


What guy? What consequences?

Was there not a guy involved in this relationship, or did I just imagine reading about him?


If the law is dumb, its dumb. If the press and courts are unjust, they are unjust.

Why did they break the law? You tell me. I don't know. They may have all been in love. Is that a crime too?

I really don't know where you intend to go with this.


Why should you have any sympathy for anybody? I mean damn, do you?

Of course I do. Just not for the people who are asking for problems, and then have complaints about it after.


Whether this or war, you just throw your hands in the air, and say "Oh well! Stuff happens!"

How so?


Yes it IS a good excuse for breaking the law!

No, it's not.

This may come as a huge shock to you, but simply breaking a law doesn't make you an activist. Do laws get broken with activism? Sure. Should they be? Sure. Is this case activism though? No, it's not.


There are lots of laws on the books that are now ignored for people breaking them so much. Its a critical step in the constant struggle for freedom.

So our weak government is reluctant to enforce it's laws. That doesn't mean we're any better off. What if hate crimes stopped being met with punishment because the amount being committed was too much to handle?

I've said it already, I think that there's a calling for many laws to be broken when people try to take a stand against things that they feel are oppressive, but these kids aren't activists or advocates for anything. This wouldn't even be a story if the mother didn't intend to exploit our country's weak laws to force them to do something about it.
 
You don't need to write me a book.

Yes I do! This topic, all its ins and outs and my feelings about it are all very complicated and require detailed explanations. Why? Because you will misinterpret what I say in a silly way if not. Well, you will if I don't.

The only thing I really understand about your position is that it somehow has to do with women in general and not just the one involved in this case and it somehow doesn't involve the kid she was with, even though the story was just as much about his relationship with her as it was about her relationship with him.

Another great reason to scrape you off my shoes like some dog $#!T. You skipped all that was in the OP. You want a bulleted list but you can't read the OP? what?

Buzz off.
 
Yes I do! This topic, all its ins and outs and my feelings about it are all very complicated and require detailed explanations. Why? Because you will misinterpret what I say in a silly way if not. Well, you will if I don't.

I read it, and you were really indirect.


Another great reason to scrape you off my shoes like some dog $#!T. You skipped all that was in the OP. You want a bulleted list but you can't read the OP? what?


There's no need to be emotional about it. I read it, but I simply don't understand which parts you specifically take issue with.
>specifically.


Buzz off.

You've only responded to two parts of my questions and arguments. How can you really try and tell me that you're not just picking and choosing where and when you want to defend your stance? You're always saying that you never ignore anything and here you go dismissing a load of completely valid discussion.
 
You've only responded to two parts of my questions and arguments.

After you fail to comprehend the OP??? You think an awful lot of yourself.

I have a problem with the press getting the story wrong, and doing it in the way most likely to "sex up" the article. They smeared that young woman basically.

The whole thing is designed to create and take advantage of the pedo hysteria. I am against that.

The younger party was harmed by the negative legal and social reaction, NOT the sex. I am against that.

I am against reporting people as "threats to the community" when they clearly are not.

Now, do you need this in suppository form?

Aren't they enough to debate for now, without going into literally every aspect of my beliefs?? Having you of all people accuse me of debating improperly...I should probably just laugh.
 
After you fail to comprehend the OP??? You think an awful lot of yourself.

The amount of reluctance in your posts really baffles me from time to time, my friend. After all, aren't you here trying to get us to understand and agree with you?


I have a problem with the press getting the story wrong, and doing it in the way most likely to "sex up" the article. They smeared that young woman basically.
The whole thing is designed to create and take advantage of the pedo hysteria. I am against that.
The younger party was harmed by the negative legal and social reaction, NOT the sex. I am against that.
I am against reporting people as "threats to the community" when they clearly are not.

See, was that so hard? :p (Really, re-read your OP -- It doesn't outline those so well)

I agree with you on the media using their power to reach large audiences and using it to tell lies being a bad thing, but do you really expect any less from them? It's a business of entertainment, propaganda, spreading rumors like wildfire, and a constant contest to outdo other media companies. I'm not so sure that laws, specifically, can do anything about the media being filled to the rim with scoundrels and filthy liars, so I don't really think it'd make sense to even discuss that point. After all, that'd be like trying to systematically outlaw greediness. This is the main reason why I don't really care for the media at all. They'll never stop producing, people will never stop watching, and there's nothing that can be done to make them stop.

As for someone being harmed by the legal aspect vs the offense -- Why are you against her being in trouble with the law? (Not your problem with the law itself, but the fact that she broke it) I think that there should be legal consequences for people who exploit the laws to force action upon others (like claiming rape when it clearly wasn't), but not until our system is fine-tuned to the point that it's no longer necessary to those who are extreme enough to do it. The only reason people come out screaming rape is that it's the only way to get this country to enforce it's laws sometimes.

Also, I don't think this was pedo hysteria.
 
The amount of reluctance in your posts really baffles me from time to time, my friend. After all, aren't you here trying to get us to understand and agree with you?

Reluctance??? To try and keep a train of thought going so that I don't have to write you an encyclopedia???

See, was that so hard? :p (Really, re-read your OP -- It doesn't outline those so well)

Screw your "was that so hard". You need to learn how to read. There are those and more that trouble me and they are in the OP.

As for the rest of your post, I have seriously had too much of your crap.
 
Reluctance??? To try and keep a train of thought going so that I don't have to write you an encyclopedia???

I've never asked you to write anything excessive. Actually, what you've already written in the OP is an encyclopedia compared to what I asked you to clearly outline. You're reluctant a lot of the time to explain anything you believe. A lot of the time when I try to discuss things with you (You know, see above) it just turns into "Nyah! You're so blind and dumb! I shouldn't have to write anything more than just the OP! If you don't instantly agree with me, you're just blind!, and you end up completely ignoring my discussion, and the topic at hand. (Again, see above).


Screw your "was that so hard". You need to learn how to read. There are those and more that trouble me and they are in the OP.

As for the rest of your post, I have seriously had too much of your crap.

Could you quote the parts in the OP where you specifically outlined everything you said a couple posts ago? Perhaps in doing so, you'll help me correct my poor reading skills. I'm not trying to annoy you -- Your stance about each topic in the OP was actually pretty vague, believe it or not.

By the way, we're way off topic, yet again. (Note who brought us here) I didn't post that so we could spend hours angrily slamming our fists into our keyboards over my inability to read or your reluctance to stay on topic. If you'd just drop your emotional distress over being called out on being indirect and hatred for me, maybe we'd make some progress and actually get to the discussion I tried having with you (which you have just blatantly ignored, despite saying you never ignore anything).
 
You're reluctant a lot of the time to explain anything you believe.

Like hell. There are several threads detailing my beliefs if you find any relation to these pieces of news. I have laid down beliefs that have gotten me hounded and insulted personalyl and for some, labeled permanently tainting everything I say. I am not reluctant about $#!T. I have been EXTREMELY forthcoming even the in face of abuse. I just began this thread with new aspects of those beliefs and some indirectly related beliefs as well, while 7stars, and you too apparently, hunt around for ulterior motives for all the sentiments I have expressed.

I really do believe the press should be more accountable than this, and also held more in check. It is done in France and I approve.

Could you quote the parts in the OP where you specifically outlined everything you said a couple posts ago?

No. Ask your momma. Its all there. I have wasted too much time on you already.
 
Well maybe you would like to tell me what the topic is then?

Or perhaps you could just grace us with your opinion of these stories?
 
Well maybe you would like to tell me what the topic is then?

Or perhaps you could just grace us with your opinion of these stories?

This would be a nice start:

I have a problem with the press getting the story wrong, and doing it in the way most likely to "sex up" the article. They smeared that young woman basically.

The whole thing is designed to create and take advantage of the pedo hysteria. I am against that.

The younger party was harmed by the negative legal and social reaction, NOT the sex. I am against that.

I am against reporting people as "threats to the community" when they clearly are not.

I agree with you on the media using their power to reach large audiences and using it to tell lies being a bad thing, but do you really expect any less from them? It's a business of entertainment, propaganda, spreading rumors like wildfire, and a constant contest to outdo other media companies. I'm not so sure that laws, specifically, can do anything about the media being filled to the rim with scoundrels and filthy liars, so I don't really think it'd make sense to even discuss that point. After all, that'd be like trying to systematically outlaw greediness. This is the main reason why I don't really care for the media at all. They'll never stop producing, people will never stop watching, and there's nothing that can be done to make them stop.

As for someone being harmed by the legal aspect vs the offense -- Why are you against her being in trouble with the law? (Not your problem with the law itself, but the fact that she broke it) I think that there should be legal consequences for people who exploit the laws to force action upon others (like claiming rape when it clearly wasn't), but not until our system is fine-tuned to the point that it's no longer necessary to those who are extreme enough to do it. The only reason people come out screaming rape is that it's the only way to get this country to enforce it's laws sometimes.

Also, I don't think this was pedo hysteria.
 
Back
Top Bottom