"Pretty sad when something all teen males fantasize about happening to them is considered a crime."
This is a typical response to a story linked by Drudge about a mother and daughter who both abused the same teen boy who is now 17 years old (but was 14 when the abuse started):
Read through the comments. Few of them seemed to consider the abuse a crime, just a privilege that a teen male had two women showing him the ways of the world. However, one commenter, Bill L., made a good point:
It is amazing how few people understand the damage that boys who are abused by women can suffer. However, given how little our society cares about the psychological lives of men in general (and thus, most men and boys don't care either), it's amazing these women were arrested at all.
Update: Robert Stacy McCain has more thoughts on this case.
PHOENIX – The daughter of a county supervisor has been arrested on suspicion of sexual misconduct with the same teenage boy that her mother is accused of sexually abusing over a three-year period, police said Thursday.
Rachel Katherine Brock, 21, was arrested Wednesday on three counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count of transmitting obscene material as part of an ongoing investigation surrounding her mother, 48-year-old Susan Brock.
Read through the comments. Few of them seemed to consider the abuse a crime, just a privilege that a teen male had two women showing him the ways of the world. However, one commenter, Bill L., made a good point:
Plenty of 14 year-old girls dream of having an older male lover, and would greatly enjoy the experience. Yet society will condemn a male that takes advantage of that fact. Why should the consequences for a woman who violates a 14 year-old boy be any different? I wonder how most of these macho, "he wanted it" posters would feel if their 14 year-old daughter had relations with a 48 year-old man and his 18 year-old son? Would they crow "she wanted it?" Not likely.
It is amazing how few people understand the damage that boys who are abused by women can suffer. However, given how little our society cares about the psychological lives of men in general (and thus, most men and boys don't care either), it's amazing these women were arrested at all.
Update: Robert Stacy McCain has more thoughts on this case.
Labels: sexual abuse
posted by Helen at 11:31 AM
81 Comments:
Some teens would like to try drugs, too. I guess that makes the adult schoolyard drug pusher a swell guy - just giving them what they want.
I think 14 is a bit young but 15 and 16 year old boys used to fantasize about this and I doubt girls did nearly as much except in the vague non-explicit way of romance novels. Now, of course, 14 year old boys are having sex with 14 year old girls, something I would never have thought of before the "pill" changed everything. Boys and girls are different, an obvious truth that is now nearly a hate crime.
"except in the vague non-explicit way of romance novels."
I'm guessing you haven't actually read many romance novels. They're porn for women. And yes, molesting boys is just as bad as molesting girls.
It's an argument I generally try to avoid. I've know otherwise perfectly reasonable women who would go completely bat-poop crazy if they thought you were threatening their monopoly on victimhood.
"It's an argument I generally try to avoid."
---------------------
That's what most men do, and that's how women get the upper hand.
It's not even a criticism - or in any case it would be hypocritical - because I do the same thing. It's just better to shut your mouth. And pay. And shut your mouth. And pay.
And that's what men do.
I think, though, that a big problem is OTHER MEN enforcing any thoughts - or lack of thoughts - that Pumpkin has. If you dispute anything that Pumpkin says, you better be able to back it up. That's life.
Pumpkin, of course, doesn't have to back anything up. And the younger and prettier she is, the more that applies.
"I think 14 is a bit young but 15 and 16 year old boys used to fantasize about this and I doubt girls did nearly as much except in the vague non-explicit way of romance novels."
------
If I wanted to press the issue, I'd say: How do you know what girls at that age think (if your name is "Michael")?
But frankly it's a big whiff of chivalry. Some people are really, really impressed by chivalrous males.
Sorry, I never fantasized about at 48 year old woman when I was a kid. Heck, I rarely do now.
All to often abuse of males is seen as humorous. And, you always have the dufus men who think any time a guy's getting some it must be OK.
It is mostly male commenters, and not female commenters, who try to portray this abuse as the teenage boy's privilege. There is an informal societal stipuation that a guy's coolness is to be measured solely by the number of times he gets laid, and that a guy who doesn't get laid is necessarily a loser : part of what contributes to the number of high school male dropouts.
Well said, Sandeep.
First off, 14 year old girls get pregnant but 14 year old boys don't.
Second, Sandeep, your "analysis" is nothing more than trying to impose the normal female mammalian breeding strategy (quality over quantity) on men and stigmatizing the normal male mammalian breeding strategy (quantity over quality) as "bad". I suspect that most of the damage that this kid will suffer will come not from the sexual intercourse but rather from society's insistence that he consider it perverse.
he consider it perverse.
It is perverse, but not as perverse as your logic. Most of us gave up animalistic breeding strategies years ago as civilization progressed. This had nothing to do with "breeding."
I read the article. I came away from it thinking the fine state of Arizona needs to put these two women in prison for several years. They did something immoral and criminal. I don't really care what any commenter thinks.
I don't really care what any commenter thinks.
We know that. :)
As recently as 150 years ago, 12 year old boys were placed as midshipmen on British warships, and the age of consent almost everywhere was 13 or 14, ie immediately after puberty.
There was no adolescence anywhere in the world until about 100 years ago. So where does all this "damage" come from?
Of course, it is true that virtually no one in our credentialed class believes in evolution or for that matter even in human biology. And the worst deniers are the faculties of the most "prestigious" universities. Like UTenn
and the age of consent almost everywhere was 13 or 14, ie immediately after puberty.
Check the laws (Kentucky law HERE. If you're an adult, i.e. 18 or older, and have sex with one of those persons age 13 or 14, you've committed felony sexual assault.
I linked to Kentucky law. Ohio law is much the same. I sat on a jury where we sent a man to prison for a long time for repeatedly performing oral sex on a girl over several years. No penetration, ever. Why don't you ask her and those who have experienced the same where the "damage" comes from?
Other than a poor attempt at an insult, I'm not sure what you point is about evolution. It's obvious YOU don't believe in it as you think we should still be operating as we did in ancient times. Societies and civilizations evolve much like organisms do. Are you a member of NAMBLA or something?
I would like to be lumped with those who think pop anthropology is best ignored.
I am flummoxed by the imaginations of the chaps commenting. I was at one time in early adolescence and it would not have occurred to me to have sexual thoughts about my mother's contemporaries, nearly all of whom were rather...matronly. As for the post-adolescent daughter, a young women of that age seducing an early adolescent would have been considered a gross character by her own contemporaries, male and female alike, and likely most of the boy's as well. I grew up in a rustbelt city of middling size ca. 1975, not exactly a Victorian venue in time and place.
None of the jocular commenters seem to realize that education in matters sexual comprehends personal discipline and the retention of sensibilites as well as technique. One is a sexual being in a particular social context, which context makes demands on you. Sex, like water, needs to be in pipes and channels to be beneficial.
These women committed offenses that are class D felonies under New York law. Send one to prison for two or three years and the other for about 10 months.
My mistake.
There are indications that these women committed these offenses. The claims of their accuser need careful critical evaluation.
Either there are two MB's or my account has been hacked! And the hacker appears to a very reasonable sort too.
A tactic to expose misandry and raise awareness about extremist feminism :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2011/01/the-time-has-arrived.html
Asymmetrical warfare!
"Either there are two MB's or my account has been hacked!"
---
Funny ... I was thinking the same thing.
But the problem here is that two people can post under the same name. I think there are two Petes for instance.
Respectability for a woman is in how good a deal she makes for herself.
A young girl is not expected to understand the bargain.
A young man has no such constraint to start with.
The difference is in the need for a good deal; and that comes from finding a male that will take care of you, usually.
Though a very high priced prostitute comes out respectable as well.
I'm with Sykes ... We've put some kind of age shield around adolescents that hasn't been there historically.
At 14, I don't remember fantasizing about a 48-yo woman but I did about about a 24-yo woman which is just as illegal. Would I have jumped at the chance with the 24-yo ... you bet I would have!
Also ... here ya go ... the daughter of the mother-daughter pair in this case was 18 when he was 14 ... Guess what ... In TN that's legal!!! There can be a 4-year span!
Talk about sending mixed messages ... legal for one but not for the other.
When I was in junior high, I remember a girl named Loretta who told everyone that she was going to "do" the cute history teacher. Nothing apparently became of it.
But under the theories I've seen above, there would be nothing wrong with it. Because she wants to.
And I don't buy the "making a deal" theory for women today. In fact, I say the ones who made a "deal" should get off their fat asses and work.
So I'm interested in hearing from the people who promote older women manipulating ... er, I mean ... having sex with 13-year-old boys: Do you think it should be the same for young girls? Or do they have to sell the pussy at a higher rate?
The sexual predation of our nation's young men is hardly covered seriously by the national press.
Imagine a trusted institution that was systematically engaging in perverse sex with young men. The Catholic Church you say?
No.
Sadly, it is the National Education Association.
Thousands of its trusted members have been arrested and charged with the sexual molestation of our young children. This union is nothing more than an organized child rape club.
Here is a running list of hundreds of the NEA's sexual predators running our nation's schools who have been caught sexually terrorizing our children:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39783
"Over a 3 year period".
Yep. Go back and read that again. And again.
The boy wasn't abused. He was enjoying it. He went back for more.
Boys are not girls and girls are not boys and there darn well does need to be a double standard.
48 year old man on a 14 year old girl? Jail time, big time.
48 year old woman on a 14 year old boy who went back for more for 3 years? Now that's fantasy, not abuse.
On the other hand, there is this to consider.
I hope the women paid him.
BobH,
"First off, 14 year old girls get pregnant but 14 year old boys don't."
1) Birth control and abortion.
2) Boys can get older women pregnant.
Don't imagine a 14 year old boy would feel so cool when everyone finds out he has a kid to support by a 48 year old.
Paul,
So if the girl goes back for it over a 3 year period then you are ok with it?
Whether a teenage boy "wants it" more than a teenage girl is beside the point. Legally and morally, it comes down to this: minors have not yet developed the ability to make sound judgments about such things, and therefore warrant protection from those of us old enough to know better. The law should be gender neutral on this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
To Brian Macker:
That's true whether the guy is 14 or 64. I consider that whole situation to be prima facie evidence that the U.S. is a feminazi police state, with most American women (excluding Helen, of course) demanding to be trusted while they vote for politicians who make damn sure that women are well paid and well protected when they lie.
'It is not what you don't know
but what you do know that is not
true, which leads to error.'
It is true that Childhood is a
recent (Victorian ?) invention.
It is also true that societies,
even England in 1850, were much
more tolerant of all manner of
abusive behavior; Connection ?
I suspect that, past the age of
reason (`12) and absent strong
social conditioning, _most_
children would not be harmed
by seduction, as opposed to
physical or psychological rape;
Do the exceptions justify a
general prohibition, with
criminal penalties ?
Two examples:
A college age male, subclass
Jock, at a drunken party, ends
up nude, tied to a bed, and milked dry by a group of Coeds; If this
is a dream come true, why is he
weeping ?
Two teenagers at a party, in a
bedroom, In Flagrante Delicto,
when the girl changes her mind,
the boy takes ~ 1 minute to stop,
and ends up a convicted rapist;
When asked in later years to do
his duty to society, his response
is ?
"Whether a teenage boy "wants it" more than a teenage girl is beside the point. Legally and morally, it comes down to this: minors have not yet developed the ability to make sound judgments about such things, and therefore warrant protection from those of us old enough to know better. The law should be gender neutral on this."
----
Right, that's the way I think about it. Teachers are in a position to exploit the much younger students, whether male or female.
Something else to consider:
Boys as young as 12 (do a Google search) have been forced to pay child support to adult women.
Really.
What normally happens is that his parents pay the (nominal) child support until he is 18, and then the support payments go up because he is able to work and is an "adult".
The usual idea is that minors can't be held to contracts. But not in the case of child support. That boy is going to be held responsible for fucking the 48-year-old never-take-any-responsibility woman.
DADvocate,
New "Hussein" Ham,
You both utilize the "perverse" argument. Certainly a sexual relationship between a 14 and 48 year old could be perverse. It seems to be in this case since both a mother and daughter both had sex with him.
One of you says, "Most of us gave up animalistic breeding strategies years ago as civilization progressed. This had nothing to do with 'breeding.'"
Although I wouldn't say it has absolutely nothing to do with breeding because the desires involved are put there by evolution to serve breeding, I will agree that this case was not an attempt to breed, but only to satisfy those desires.
I like to think deeply about the true reasons why behaviors should be considered immoral or criminal. Your arguments don't satisfy me. In fact they aren't even arguments. You are just assuming that others will find your claims true.
If I told you that I find your intellectual styles perverse, would that satisfy you that you are wrong?
BTW, I do find them perverse. I on the other hand could explain exactly why.
One reason (of several) that I find them perverse is that you don't want to deal with potentially falsifying situations, and therefore have misidentified (or failed to communicate) the actual aspect of these relationships that you find perverse.
For example, I think you'd still find a 48 year old having sex with a 14 year old perverse even if they were NOT following animalistic breeding strategies.
Suppose the 48 year old was a rich beautiful woman, and that the 14 year old asked her to marry him, and they got married, and they had kids and a wonderful life. Is it still "perverse" and should it still be a crime?
Likewise, if it is the "animalistic breeding strategies" that are immoral and should be illegal then why is the issue restricted to may december relationships? Why not include all relationships? Isn't any relationship that uses sex for non-breeding purposes, or for "animalistic breeding purposes" also "perverse" on this view.
I don't see how percieved "perversity" in and of itself makes for criminality.
I know why I think relationships with large age gaps are wrong. I know why I think relationships with young children are wrong. It doesn't merely boil down to perversity.
I think law should do more than just ban things. I think that when laws are written that the spirit and not just the letter should be written down. The spirit includes the whys.
It's kind of amusing that the law deems a 12-year-old boy to have more responsibility than a fully adult woman.
And you'll note that these things are ONLY on the responsibility side for males. No one would ever think of taking RIGHTS away from a woman because she is more irresponsible than a 12-year-old child today.
DADvocate,
New "Hussein" Ham,
You both utilize the "perverse" argument. Certainly a sexual relationship between a 14 and 48 year old could be perverse. It seems to be in this case since both a mother and daughter both had sex with him.
One of you says, "Most of us gave up animalistic breeding strategies years ago as civilization progressed. This had nothing to do with 'breeding.'"
Although I wouldn't say it has absolutely nothing to do with breeding because the desires involved are put there by evolution to serve breeding, I will agree that this case was not an attempt to breed, but only to satisfy those desires.
I like to think deeply about the true reasons why behaviors should be considered immoral or criminal. Your arguments don't satisfy me. In fact they aren't even arguments. You are just assuming that others will find your claims true.
If I told you that I find your intellectual styles perverse, would that satisfy you that you are wrong?
BTW, I do find them perverse. I on the other hand could explain exactly why I do.
One reason (of several) that I find them perverse is that you don't want to deal with potentially falsifying situations, and therefore have misidentified (or failed to communicate) the actual aspect of these relationships that you find perverse.
For example, I think you'd still find a 48 year old having sex with a 14 year old perverse even if they were NOT following animalistic breeding strategies.
Suppose the 48 year old was a rich beautiful woman, and that the 14 year old asked her to marry him, and they got married, and they had kids and a wonderful life. Is it still "perverse" and should it still be a crime?
Likewise, if it is the "animalistic breeding strategies" that are immoral and should be illegal then why is the issue restricted to may december relationships? Why not include all relationships? Isn't any relationship that uses sex for non-breeding purposes, or for "animalistic breeding purposes" also "perverse" on this view.
I don't see how percieved "perversity" in and of itself makes for criminality.
I know why I think relationships with large age gaps are wrong. I know why I think relationships with young children are wrong. It doesn't merely boil down to perversity.
I think law should do more than just ban things. I think that when laws are written that the spirit and not just the letter should be written down. The spirit includes the whys.
American Pie (1999) helped popularize the expression MILF, which is "Mothers I'd Like to F***". Thank you pop culture for promoting one more depravity.
Most definitely women and men are treated differently in many ways, and expectations of moral behavior is one. In Milwaukee a philandering man was found out by his wife and girlfriends. They lured him to a hotel, tied him up, and glued his penis to his belly. None of the women were charged with any thing sexually related. None of the women will spend the rest of their lives on a sexual predator list. The male judge chastised the victim for cheating on his wife. The judge did not chastise one of the girlfriends, who had been cheating on her husband.
How much "comedy" on America's Funniest Video consists of some guy being whacked good in the genitals? If any, it is too much.
2nd point:
Aside from the fact that a 12-year-old boy may not have any idea of what he is doing, there's the issue of a position of dominance.
Do the promoters of female teachers screwing young boys also condone male prison guards screwing women? Because it's the same dynamic - a position of authority.
Umm ... how about we just make a rule that adult teachers shouldn't fuck children?
JG,
"It's kind of amusing that the law deems a 12-year-old boy to have more responsibility than a fully adult woman."
To what are you referring? Child support? It's not at all clear.
"To what are you referring? Child support? It's not at all clear."
-----
Well, it doesn't matter since you won me over with your eloquent argument.
Now I think that older female teachers should fuck young boys left and right. In fact, whether the young boy wants to or not. The little baby may cry a bit, but boys have to toughen up to be men.
Men have more standard deviations than women. It is a statistical fact.
And I also think that when old female teachers fuck young children, the husband of the female teacher shouldn't have a damn thing to say about it. It's none of his business - what are we living in here, Saudi Arabia?
The place is sounding like a story conference for a literotica posting. Probably something in the taboo category.
BTW there is something seriously wrong with an 18 year old female who has to coerce rather than entice a 14 year old boy. What is wrong with these people?
But guys are romantics. He was probably holding out for love.
johnpaulthepope,
Your argument seems more well thought out. It's about "sound judgements" and the inability of a child to make them. However this does not cover all possibilities. Children have guardians who make their judgments for them. It the past it has been the parent (or guardian) who gets the final say on such relationships.
What if the parent is the one who made the decision here? Please explain why the state gets to make a blanket decision that all such relationships are always bad.
Can you or someone else provide reasons why the state doesn't make exceptions, or provide for special circumstances?
I'm thinking about reasons why and I can come up with all sorts of reasons why I want the state involved, and others why I don't want them involved in this way.
Some are:
1) Parents (or guardians) interests are not identical to child's, and they will not necessarily act in the child's interests. Parents who sell their kids out as prostitutes come to mind. I'm not sure that many historical formal may/december (or february/july) marriages were essentially sexual slavery contracts.
2) Same goes for the state. The states interests are not aligned with those of the child either. Nor the Judges. So when we create laws that allow either the parents or state to make such decisions then I'm also concerned about the outcome.
I don't actually see any way to guarantee that the correct decision will be made. Even the legislature that made the law may not have the interests of the child in mind.
So, I don't think that outlawing parental consent purely on the issue of divergent interests is sufficient. All interests are divergent.
I think we need to explicitly come up with a set of rules of when such things are or are not in the interest of the child, and why, and then apply those.
I feel the law as it is now however is too black and white. I don't see why and 18 year old should be branded a sexual offender for pre-marital sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, or even a 23 year old.
Then again a 23 year old that promises marriage to a 16 year old to bed her is a crime, because fraud is a crime.
Simply stated: both men and women have the right to choose their sex partners, and our constitution does not say that the rights spelled out in the 5th and 14th amendments apply only to those over the age of 18 or, in the case of booze, those over the age of 21.
Giving sex to a kid is less injurious than giving him/her a Snickers bar. Where is the contrary evidence, if any? We do need another Tea Party in Amerika, this time led by teenagers.
"What if the parent is the one who made the decision here?"
-----
I just read about a woman who prostituted her daughter out. Is that kind of what you mean? With the adult making the decision as to who her young daughter fucks?
"Giving sex to a kid is less injurious than giving him/her a Snickers bar."
---
I fully agree, because you can get AIDS from a Snickers bar and you can also be ordered to pay child support based on your income from a Snickers bar. But nothing will ever happen with sex between a dominant teacher and a naive child.
JG,
"Well, it doesn't matter since you won me over with your eloquent argument.
Now I think that older female teachers should fuck young boys left and right."
I don't recall making any such argument.
In fact, I might be amenable to the idea that it should be illegal for any adult to have sex with another adult of the same age without a written contract. That is with a good argument.
I might for instance want the state to get involved in cases where one adult deceives another adult to have sex on the basis of some fraudulent promise.
I also have lots of intellectual problems with the current rules regarding one night stands that result in pregnancies. I see the female/male differences but don't understand why the male should have to provide child support if the female decides to keep it. Especially since if she wishes to abort on the grounds that having a child will "ruin her life" then why can't the male shirk his responsibility for his actions in this regard?
Since there are obvious reasons why we shouldn't have males forcing aboritions on females (it's and intrusive procedure) one way to resolve the issue is to allow the male to walk away.
Now this isn't a problem if the female is rich enough to raise a child on her own, but that is the exception.
In fact, even those females who do seem to have sufficient means don't really because they aren't paying all the taxes required to fully socialize their child. The cost of schooling for instance may be in large part paid by other taxpayers.
Which leads me to thing that maybe the taxpayers (and therefore the state) may have an interest in preventing extramarital sex in situations we don't intrude today.
BTW, I find your attempts to win people over to your thinking perverse. Kinda perverse to expect someone to agree with you when you haven't even communicated your thoughts.
So again, "To what are you referring? Child support? It's not at all clear."
Think not thing.
"So again, "To what are you referring? Child support?" "
--
Yup.
JG,
"And I also think that when old female teachers fuck young children, the husband of the female teacher shouldn't have a damn thing to say about it."
Since you seem to be the only one arguing this point and no one else has given any good reasons for such a rule would you please support your reasoning here.
Why are you hiding behind your initials when you are making such mainstream arguments? You can't be scared of social stigma.
I take that back. I think you are ashamed of the types of arguments you are giving here. For example, this straw man fallacy. I think you know that what you are doing is wrong and decided to do it anyway. Which is ironic for someone who is trying to impose their moral reasoning on others.
JG,
BTW, the STD issue is precisely the type of reasoning that should go into this. However, it only applies in certain circumstances.
I do think it applies in the case of a Islamic marriage to multiple wives. Not because the man and women cannot be faithful to the polygamous marriage but because they are not likely to be, and the odds increase with the number of wives. Meeting the emotional demands of multiple women is challenging.
There are many reasons why a child wife is likely to be exposed to an STD in such a "marriage". It's clear that a man who would marry multiple wives doesn't put exclusiveness high on his list of priorities for one thing.
A reasonable person can come to the conclusion that any of the wives are more likely to be exposed to an STD in a polygamous marriage.
This is the kind of reasoning I want to see instead of "God says no", or "It's perverse". Expecially since in some religions god says yes, and perverse things like suicide bombing are considered the highest honor.
I always want the down to earth reasoning.
Then again you are likely to be exposed to an STD in a one night stand. Presumably an adult is responsible enough to weigh the risks. However true responsibility requires that the decision maker bear the full consequences. If the consequences fall on someone else then I think they should have a say.
Since AIDS treatments are expensive and the costs fall on others against their wills then I think they have an interest in the decision.
One way to eliminate this interest is to stop forcing others to pay for other peoples mistakes.
I would however argue that under certain circumstances other people cannot help themselves not to help someone in an emergency. So it seems to me that given certain behaviors and circumstance others always have an interest.
I'll only expand if someone is interested.
Whether or not the boy enjoyed it is only partially relevant at best. One can easily think of many undesirable, unacceptable activities a boy would enjoy. Children routinely make bad choices which is why they are limited in commitments they can legally make.
The perversity is psychological. The exercise of power and control over another, through sexual seduction in this case. There is a long list of potential harm from this activity, much of which has been covered here already.
Brian Macker pretends to be logical while doing nothing more than confounding and being contrary. Plus, resorting to the much less than logical personal attacks on JG. All the more reason to use initials and pseudonyms so as not to have to worry as much about psychos tracking you down.
"In fact, I might be amenable to the idea that it should be illegal for any adult to have sex with another adult of the same age without a written contract. That is with a good argument." Julian Assange might think that was a good idea. During a intimate relations, the woman at any time can say "no", and whatever is happening needs to end. Put your clothes on and go home.
In Wisconsin the statue of limitations for priest abuse goes until the victim is 35 years old. But for teachers the statute of limitations is one (1) year after the victim turns 18. That is grossly unfair. The statute of limitations should be the same in both cases. While a families association with a church is voluntary, students are required by law to attend school. And, by the way, not all clergy abuse are Catholic Priests. But the Catholic Church is perceived to have deeper pockets, and has stayed around. Plenty of Protestant clergy have been involved in abuse, but their congregations can simply fold and disappear. Who you gonna sue then?
Plenty of Protestant clergy have been involved in abuse...
Indeed. From what I've read the rates of Catholic priest abuse and Protestant clergy abuse are about the same.
@Brian Macker --
JG,
"And I also think that when old female teachers fuck young children, the husband of the female teacher shouldn't have a damn thing to say about it."
That was sarcasm. You missed it.
I would however argue that under certain circumstances other people cannot help themselves not to help someone in an emergency. So it seems to me that given certain behaviors and circumstance others always have an interest.
I'll only expand if someone is interested.
No, thank you. That was convoluted enough.
"And I also think that when old female teachers fuck young children, the husband of the female teacher shouldn't have a damn thing to say about it."
That was sarcasm. You missed it.
Really? If a man's wife decides, against his wishes, to have an abortion, she can. So why does she need his permission to do anything? Including getting serviced by somebody else?
"So why does she need his permission to do anything? Including getting serviced by somebody else?"
.-.-.
This may be seen as a bizarre answer to that, but it really isn't:
Don't leave yourself exposed by any type of social agreement.
If she gets serviced by someone else and you don't think that's right, move on to the next piece of pink taco.
To put it a bit crudely.
If you are married to her and she behaves that way, you are absolutely stuck. You can move on, but you usually have to give her lots of money, and maybe lots of money every month.
So what do you conclude from that?
And if anyone argues that a man should stick with a woman who is getting serviced by someone else due to ... love or commitments. Oh ... My ... God. Can you be any more of a wimp. She is not committed to you. What do you need to get that across to you?
If you marry a woman like that and complain later that she does whatever she wants, because you will have to pay and pay and pay in a divorce, you are a moron. You shouldn't have married her in the first place.
JG,
"That was sarcasm. You missed it. "
No I got the sarcasm. You didn't get my dry humor however.
"No, thank you. That was convoluted enough."
Don't think very deeply do you? There are actual examples of this principle in action with regards to mountain climbing and during the gold rush.
They would inspect gold miners provisions out of concern that they didn't have enough supplies to make it through the winter and would therefore become a burden on others.
Likewise, they won't let just anyone climb mount Everest.
The world is complicated. Not all that complicated but you do need to think deeper that one layer, or even two.
Brian Macker,
You are attributing statements made by Oligonicella to me.
Whatever your feelings about the subject, please get it right as to who is saying what. Otherwise, you look like a stupid person.
"The perversity is psychological. The exercise of power and control over another, through sexual seduction in this case."
You weren't talking merely about this case. You were talking in general. The exercise of power and control is not necessarily a motivating factor. Nor is seduction always necessarily about perversion.
You haven't made your case.
"Brian Macker pretends to be logical while doing nothing more than confounding and being contrary."
Without a specific example this is a unfounded claim.
"Plus, resorting to the much less than logical personal attacks on JG."
Support this claim. I provided specific reasons why JG wasn't being reasonable.
I asked him/her/it a simple question that turns out had the simple answer "Child support", and yet JG took that as an opportunity to make the "less than logical personal attack" of claiming I was for married teachers fucking young children, and doing so "whether they want it or not".
Laughable that you are trying to pin JGs crime on me. I guess you are a fan of Alansky's methods.
Keep in mind these posts are contemporaneous and moderated, and therefore I don't see every post JG makes before I ask a question.
"All the more reason to use initials and pseudonyms so as not to have to worry as much about psychos tracking you down."
Yeah, like there is any reason for concern in that regard.
Obviously based on this comment you are not one who is concerned about personal attacks. So why pretend you are?
You aren't a proper judge of logical, or reasonable from what I've read.
I had sex at seven because of truly perverted jerks. So I have a first hand understanding of exactly the reasons why such behavior is bad and when it should be illegal.
You two aren't helping by your over the top no-tolerance to the point of irrationality berating of others.
There is no reason to ruin peoples lives so you can have your black and white rules based on so amorphous an idea as "perversion".
As I said, I find both your commenting behaviors perverse. Especially perverse to charge me with personal attacks when both of you are the main perpetrators.
How about you point out a personal attack, and showing specifically why your comment is intellectually perverse doesn't count as a personal attack.
Perverse reasoning is perverse. It's not like I said you were ugly and therefore your comment doesn't count. I was addressing the comment.
You can address by specifically showing why your reasoning isn't perverse, but that would only mean I was in error, not making a personal attack.
JG,
"Whatever your feelings about the subject, please get it right as to who is saying what. Otherwise, you look like a stupid person."
No, to a reasonable person, I look fallible. So your judgment fails you again.
The way you worded it gives the feel that you are concerned about me. Which is obviously not true as the whole point is 1) To claim I am stupid. 2) To try to get me riled. Which like your sarcasm is a reflection on yourself not me.
Care to take back your claim that I favor teachers forcing sex on young children?
Is this the best you can do?
Perhaps you should change your alias and start making reasonable claims. Simultaneously, you can continue your trolling with your old handle if you wish. Only helps my case because it makes those who wish to be irrational about this look unreasonable.
I'm not concerned about appearing fallible if you aren't. I think everyone is aware that I'm fallible without even meeting me.
Nor am I claiming to speak for any infallible being either. Unlike some people would on this topic.
BTW, rape is not always about violence, power, and control. Sometimes it's just about sex. Yet it is still wrong because the person being raped didn't want to have sex. The violence, power, control is in fact about getting sex from someone who doesn't want to participate. Just like with bank robbers, who don't go to the bank for the pleasure of beating people up.
If rapists purely wanted power and control then they'd become politicians, policemen, or join a SMBD club. Actually, if sex weren't part of the motivation as some claim then logically I'd have to scratch SMBD from the above list.
If it's about violence. Why stick your penis in when you can just stab them with a knife?
The above quite rational argument should really incense irrationalists on this subject.
Milwaukee,
"Really? If a man's wife decides, against his wishes, to have an abortion, she can. So why does she need his permission to do anything? Including getting serviced by somebody else?"
Good question. Although some people here who like to make charges of stupidity, and others who would think you unable to get sarcasm, will make the mistake of thinking you are for infidelity and not against abortions.
Well, they'll probably get it but decide to charge you with being an adulterer who stalks people down to their homes based on internet comments, because they are intellectually dishonest, and don't care to argue fairly.
Brian - I was referring to your tortured sentence.
Gotta admit, though. You're true to your byline - you bloviate.
First off, 14 year old girls get pregnant but 14 year old boys don't.
14 year old boys get women pregnant, Bob, or were you shooting blanks at that age? A 48 year old man is also typically in far better shape to support a 14 year old girl he got pregnant than a 14 year old boy is to support a child he fathered with a 48 year old (or her 21 year old daughter).
Not that either is right, but let's face a simple fact: it is less socially destructive when the older party is a man because men tend to have more earning power to support a child in these cases.
I still don't see any evidence that sex is bad for fourteen year old boys and causes terrible traumas later in life. That assertion makes no sense and is supported by nothing and would not be believed by the overwhelming majority of the people who have ever lived. The only reason feminists insist on this "equality" is that they know to do otherwise would endanger their arguments about consent. Boys and girls are quite, quite different. That fact, too, is anathema to feminists. Our secular religion has to have many victims to sacrifice.
Let's get back to my insistence on data, statistics and qualified support to any theory. How do we know or not know that 14 year old boys are traumatically affected by sex? I don't really car what the overwhelming majority of people believe or don't believe. Either 14 year old boys are affected or they aren't. Popular opinion of the majority of adults doesn't matter.
"I still don't see any evidence that sex is bad for fourteen year old boys and causes terrible traumas later in life."
----
Do you see any evidence that it hurts 14-year-old girls?
And girls are supposedly more mature at that age than boys.
So let all the teachers have at it, I guess.
First off, 14 year old girls get pregnant but 14 year old boys don't.
Not really true any more. The legal landscape has turned nature on its head. A teen-age girl who get pregnant has lots of options (she may end the pregnancy, give up the child for adoption, or keep the child and raise it). So pregnancy and childbirth a encumbrances to the girl's future only if she so chooses. But a teen-age boy who impregnates a girl or woman may be sued for child support once he's old enough. This is even the case if the woman was an adult and the sex was statutory rape -- the boy can STILL be liable for a lifetime of child support. Obviously cases like that are very rare, but in an important sense the future of 14-year-old boys is now much more vulnerable to an unintended pregnancy than 14-year-old girls because the boy may end up with 20+ years of child support payments whereas the girl can choose abortion or adoption and have no further legal or financial obligation.
As a side note, there have been cases in which a woman flat-out raped a man and he was ordered to pay her child support and payments for medical insurance.
One example:
S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
A guy went to a party at a woman's house. He drank too much and passed out. His brother put him into a bed. Several people testified in the court case that the guy had, in fact, passed out.
In the morning, he woke up with only his shirt on. Two months after the party, a woman who was at the party bragged that she had intended to go to a sperm bank to get pregnant, but he "saved her a trip". She apparently had sex with him while he was passed out. A doctor testified that it was possible, because erection and ejaculation are involuntary body functions. The man had no memory of it, and certainly didn't intend to have sex.
The mother then gave birth and (on top of everything else) sued him for child support. She won.
The guy not only had to pay child support, he had to pay arrears of around $9000 (and he was apparently not a big earner), put her on his medical insurance and pay half of the bills that weren't covered by insurance.
And, by the way, there were of course no repercussions at all for her sexual actions while he was unconscious.
When there are a few bad cops, and the good cops don't squelch them, turn them out and send them to jail, those good cops aren't so good. Women, how can we keep a straight face when arguing with Mohammedans that our women aren't whores and dogs? Once upon a time, women would scorn the sluts. Now it is taken as a woman's prerogative to sleep with whomever she pleases. Phyllis Schlafly would call this woman out, but otherwise, the silence is deafening.
Phyllis Schlafly also pointed out that Obama's biggest block of supporters was the Black community. The second biggest was unwed mothers.
Bill L. nailed it. Do people not think a girl who has sex with/is statutorily raped by a man might be high-fiving her friends? She certainly might be. That doesn't mean it's not a crime, and that's exactly how we should be treating it when the sexes are reversed.
Robert: "Boys and girls are quite, quite different. That fact, too, is anathema to feminists."
Anathema to feminists or not, it's certainly not a fact. We're talking about minors here. That's all you need to worry about.
Post a Comment
<< Home