Reviewers Recommend
- review by Flash
Director: Ricky Greenwood
Starring: Nina Hartley, Sinn Sage, Charlotte Stokely, Ariel X, Aiden Ashley, Brandi Mae, Ana Foxxx, Cadence Lux, Karla Kush, Kenna James, Whitney Wright.
All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > World News & Nonsense smartbuydisc.ru Page 2 > Another Teacher Gives a kid the best moments of-
AuthorPost

Senior Member


2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 15 2017 : 8:12AM
his life and I'm supposed to care, cuz this is a serious crime lol:

Man I just don't even care about this bwoleshit anymore. The only thing bad was it was her student for 1 year. OK, I get it. That compromises the legitimacy of his education/grading obviously. She should lose her job if they were fucking while he was her student, as is alleged. But whatever, it's not like she can make him pass all his other classes. 1 teacher can have only so much influence. He still has to pass his other classes.
And who knows? Maybe he actually did legitimately learn and study harder because of her? We'll never know the truth of that.
This is supposed to be a great crime, meanwhile young males are being physically exploited all the time by so-called "academic institutions" at expense to a proper education. In fact, the more brain damage these young men endure, the more incentivized they are. The best athletes have lower academic standard to match their brain damage too.
And all the money colleges make off this is obscene.
Why is this okay? Look at all the alarming new reports every year about the toll of CTE, i.e. brain damage, concussions, resulting in memory loss, dementia, and dramatically reduced life expectancy. The average life expectancy of NFL veterans is 53.
53!!
If anything, we need more teachers laying it down on lads to keep them interested in schooling. Teach them to value education more. Fucking is way more productive and healthy than getting crippled, put in a coma, or possibly killed.
Okay, I'll grant the pregnancy was extra stupid, and for that, I have to fire her. But it's still better than this legalized slavery system, in which student athletes don't get paid, and their lives are jeopardized for a 1 in 1,000 chance at going pro, that gets celebrated for all the wrong reasons.

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6976 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 15 2017 : 9:54AM
Football in high schools is a big financial drain at taxpayer expense. We should form committees to find cheaper, more direct ways to cause brain damage.

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6976 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 15 2017 : 9:57AM
We could invest some of the savings in school 'pleasure rooms' where students can be motivated to higher achievement.

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6976 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 15 2017 : 10:03AM
Actual high school staff, including a service dog and a certified therapy dog.
yearbook.jpg

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6976 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 15 2017 : 10:08AM
Problem solved! Nailed it!
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28335 Posts
3/02
Posted - Aug 16 2017 : 2:26PM
I was friends with a student-athlete in college, and there was nothing about him that fit the stereotype. That is to say, he wasn't a chauvinist pig, nor was he a dumb-ass sliding by on his athletic skills. Thus, I would suggest that, outside of the big football/moneymaker programs, there are still young men and women who are taking full advantage of the athletic scholarship in order to pursue careers that have nothing to do with sports.
The more salient point is that a teacher having sex with a pupil is an abuse of power, which is not something any of us should want our kids to consider a good thing.

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 17 2017 : 10:17PM
lol Pieps

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 17 2017 : 10:27PM
There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of student athletes. Of course they can't all be mentally challenged. I'm sure there's a lot who have a higher aptitude than average.
But if athletic ability actually correlated with above average academic proficiency, who would even propose these lower standards for them in the first place? The idea would seem rather unnecessary wouldn't it?

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 17 2017 : 10:54PM
Also to your last point, IMO I wouldn't care if my son was sleeping with a teacher. Just as long as they didn't get her preggers.
And it seems from this story that the parents of this kid didn't care either, since they let him move in with her. But the dummies got pregnant, and now they want to save some face by blaming "the system."
Anyhow, I don't see how this is a great crime. I wouldn't even call it a felony because how is that going to help them provide for the child by putting the mother behind bars? Also, she should bear 100% of the financial burden to raise that child IMO. As the only legal adult in the relationship, she was most responsible. We could all agree on this I'm sure, although I'd really love to hear a counter-point.
TBH I think the very best thing would have been keeping this as private as possible and dealing with it internally. Broadcasting this story only makes it that much harder to properly and privately provide for the newborn. Now it HAS to become a state burden because the woman is going to lose her job. This is fucking retarded. It would be another issue if the kid (or soon to be man) alleges the teacher was abusing him against his will. And it's not like the statute of limitations is nearing any time soon. He still could allege this at any time even if for no reason other than his mood changing, which would seem to be the woman, now an ex-teacher, in an even more terribly vulnerable position.
I guess what I am saying is the risks and dire consequences of this taboo relationship are already baked in without legal prosecution and ramifications. Just having a baby with only one low-income earning parent is already a big enough burden.
So why make it even worse and spread the burden onto taxpayers?
Then again, perhaps it is we as a society who failed the grade after all. Whenever this happens we should all pay for it. As Hillary liked to remind us, it takes a village to raise an idiot - or something?
 
All-Star Member

Big cats scare me but...
4732 Posts
1/03
Posted - Aug 17 2017 : 11:40PM
Yeah, you didn't watch the video in your own link. You should before throwing your conjectures around.

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 18 2017 : 12:48AM
My flash player is broken so there was no video for me. So I had just read the article. I saw the part where the father says he raised concerns in 2012, but of course he will say that now. I fail to see how a parent can bring a legitimate concern forward and nothing result of it at all concerning the safety/guardianship of their own child as it pertains to this, unless they signed over total legal custody or enough that the court viewed the teacher as better suited, or the concern he raised was simply too vague.
Actually, it brings to mind a pretty horrific story about gross incompetence in child protection services from about 15 years ago. I watched a doc called "Dear Zachary" about a woman who was the prime suspect in an investigation over the murder of her unborn child's father. It is so chilling that I want to believe it can't be true.
Edited by - melvyn on 8/18/2017 1:01:48 AM
 
All-Star Member

Big cats scare me but...
4732 Posts
1/03
Posted - Aug 18 2017 : 1:19AM
The father doesn't have custody of the boy, and the mom was the one complicit in allowing the boy move into the teacher's house. He reported it to the school when he learned about the relationship. When the school wouldn't do anything because the kid didn't cooperate, he went to the police. You were quick to assume negligence or ulteriour motives while glossing over the gravity of child rape.
 
All-Star Member

Big cats scare me but...
4732 Posts
1/03
Posted - Aug 18 2017 : 1:20AM
Oh and the teacher already resigned from the job.

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 18 2017 : 3:11AM
I'm not assuming negligence by saying they didn't seem to care. There was probably good reason for not caring - up until, as I said, the two got stupid and had a baby. But just having suspicion that this would be the end result isn't good enough to compel legal action. The problem is there is no way to predict with certainty that they would have been so careless.
And we still also don't know that the son wasn't better off. If the father lost custody, then someone decided the son was better off with just the mother having custody, and she decided the son was better off by sharing custody with someone else.
But it would have to show some negligence if the mother didn't realize the son was really REALLY into that teacher, and it would show negligence if the father didn't realize the son preferred this. Maybe that's why the court felt the son was better with just the mother having custody, because the father didn't appreciate what the son wanted.
This is very complicated and without knowing their relationships or feelings toward one another. Who's to say relationships within that family would have been improved by interfering and separating the son from the woman he loved on behalf of the father who may not have loved him enough? That could have resulted in catastrophic hostility.
Of course, I have no problem granting that the father may have been the only one with the son's best interest in mind. Maybe he should have been the one given sole custody.
Maybe the system really did fail, not just by letting the son live with his teacher, but by taking the son from the father.
One thing's pretty sure, what I said before, that the best thing the system can do now is make the mother solely financially responsible for providing for that baby for 18 years. She's a woman, so the sentence won't be very long, but at this point, as I asked before, are we really better served by ruining her life? This will only ruin more lives as a consequence, and all at tax players' expense.
I would give her another chance. I would let her teach at my school, expecting her to work as hard if not harder now that she has another mouth to feed.
Why can't we forgive her? Jesus empathized with prostitutes and preached forgiveness. This woman wasn't a prostitute. She actually did look after the boy and provide for him. One could argue she was doing the lord's work.
Another question which I'm not surprised hasn't been investigated: what are this boy's grades looking like? Has she actually helped him in school?
As expected, nobody really cares once they see that headline about teacher-student sex. Once it's established they were having sex, everything else becomes totally irrelevant it seems. We have allowed sex to dehumanize others. That woman can't possibly be humane. She's a sexual predator and a monster now, incapable of having sympathy.
Much of what I say on here is in jest or satirical, and I make no secret that playing devil's advocate on various topics interests me, because I think it benefits everyone to at least entertain an opposing view. At worst, your orthodox view only becomes better informed, and at best, you could potentially see things from a side you never considered before and that's critical in achieving actual societal progress.
Edited by - melvyn on 8/18/2017 3:17:17 AM
 
Doctor of the Erotic Arts

goregoregirl.com
11853 Posts
1/09
Posted - Aug 20 2017 : 9:43AM
How about your daughter? From the age of fourteen, while her male lover is in his 30s. Cool with that too?
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
 
Doctor of the Erotic Arts

goregoregirl.com
11853 Posts
1/09
Posted - Aug 21 2017 : 1:49PM
Maybe melvyn's "my topics" tabs aren't updating...
 
All-Star Member

Meh
6023 Posts
10/13
Posted - Aug 21 2017 : 2:08PM
The whole mentality that female teachers sleeping with their male students is a victim-less crime is pretty stupid but I do kind of understand where it arises from. The men who believe it think back to when they were horny 14 year olds and know that they would have jumped at the chance to get with a hot older woman. I myself had a very beautiful chemistry teacher in high school that I fantasized about at the time. If she had approached me I probably would have gone for it. (Although it is interesting that they don't see young women having similar urges as a justification for male teachers sleeping with female students.)
But the thing is, the reason we have age of consent laws is that people under the age of eighteen typically don't have the emotional maturity to know what is best for them long-term. My cousin "consensually" had sex with an older woman who was in a position of authority over him when he was underage and it fucked him up for a long time. He had trouble maintaining healthy relationships as a result for a good portion of his adult life. Children and teens can't foresee the long-term psychological consequences of actions like this even if they are "willing."
 
Doctor of the Erotic Arts

goregoregirl.com
11853 Posts
1/09
Posted - Aug 21 2017 : 4:55PM
^ All well stated.
My friend in high school lost her virginity at 13 or 14. Her boyfriend was 19. We all thought it was so exciting and awesome. Only as adults did we all think ummmm...wait a second... So yes, both boys and girls have sexual urges. Does that mean it's ok for an adult (particularly one in a position of power) to fuck them?
 
All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
17059 Posts
9/07
Posted - Aug 22 2017 : 3:38AM
First thing that came to mind.
So Melvyn are you okay with teachers fucking 14 year old girls at anytime?
Hell if teachers can do it I guess everyone can, are you advocating the removal or extreme lowering of age of consent laws?
How low do you consider acceptable: 13, 12, 10?
 
All-Star Member

flickr.com/jman5245
4289 Posts
5/09
Posted - Aug 25 2018 : 5:55AM

Apparently in Texas, playing beer pong and having sex with a minor is merely an "improper relationship" that only warrants probation.
**Edited to fix link***
Edited by - jman5245 on 8/25/2018 2:44:57 PM

Senior Member

40354 Posts
4/05
Posted - Aug 25 2018 : 11:48AM
^Your link didn't work.
 
Doctor of the Erotic Arts

goregoregirl.com
11853 Posts
1/09
Posted - Aug 25 2018 : 6:41PM
Never did get an answer...
 
All-Star Member

5279 Posts
11/11
Posted - Aug 25 2018 : 9:19PM
^ What if the boy were gay, and it was his 30-year-old priest?

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Aug 25 2018 : 9:34PM
^ Sweet, bring the priest thing into this.
 
All-Star Member

Non Prevalebunt!
12326 Posts
1/05
Posted - Aug 27 2018 : 1:52PM
With a great delay I stumbled upon this thread and I have to disagree , or better , you should rephrase that as "at this time in history namely in our western era those under the age of eighteen typically are..."
It's not a biological problem , it's cultural , in hour hyperprotective society we grow kids that are still emotionally immature at a biological age where they ancestors already had siblings and were raising families and they should because their average lifespan was around 30 years if life expectance , barely enough to raise a daughter to womanhood but certainly not enough if they were yet to mate at 18.
In nature men and women are sexually mature (meant as iable to procreate) roughly at 13 of age and what's more due to the new hormonal imbalance in their blood they are greatly pushed to mate, possibly the only thought they have.
As a culture we tend to suppress those impulses and force them to abstain throughout their puberty instead of giving them the cultural instrument to go across it on their own. They will do in any case but, as you put it, without the emotional maturity they need
Our society is alot more complex than the tribal units humanity lived throughout the largest part of their history when our biology was selected to be and our lifespan is so greatly increased that we can afford to begin to seek stability and bonds to creat a family at an age our ancestors were likely already dead.
Still the immaturity of our teenagers goes beyond their sexual intersts and is cultural not biological.
Still even though I understand the biological issua of most teenagers (I've been one of those myself after all!) I have to admit that I was aroused by many women beyond my age (an reach of course) I know for a fact that almost every girl in my class when in highschool , and very possibly the whole school, had an interest to our trainer at the gym a young handsome 30 years old man.
I knew for a fact because she was a friend that one of my classmates had an affair with one of the professors , she was 18 though but still and he was married too , lucky her she chose well who inform , none of the few of us who knew ever talked about it . It ended with him divorced and them married , still are.
EDIT
Removed too many personal informations
Edited by - LCF on 8/29/2018 1:54:18 AM
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
 
All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
17059 Posts
9/07
Posted - Sep 7 2018 : 4:42AM
That is a bit of a strawman argument. No on here said that a 13 or 14 year old shouldn't have sexual desires and even act on them, this issue is having sex with someone way outside your emotional age range.
Human beings are just biological animals, our consciousness adds all kinds of complexities to our behaviour. In the animal kingdom rape and murder within their own species is not uncommon, should that make it acceptable for humans? Certainly in the past, across most if not all cultures, young girls were married off to older men, but those same societies practiced slavery too
It is easy to talk in generalities or anecdotes of the exceptions but society doesn't operate that way for a reason. We balance out rights and harms and hopefully come to a decision that reduce the latter without intruding too much on the former. I don't see the restriction of adults to not fuck young boys and girls a unreasonable prohibiton compared to the great harm it generally wreaks. Let the kids fuck other kids and the adults fuck other adults, there is hardly some deficit in partners for adults or kids for that matter.

Edited by - BlackSix on 9/7/2018 4:44:34 AM

 
All-Star Member

flickr.com/jman5245
4289 Posts
5/09
Posted - Oct 19 2018 : 8:19AM

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Jul 14 2019 : 7:13PM

Appalling take. I'm disappointed in Blaire.
1) She's not a pedophile. That's not what pedophile means. People really need to understand these words before condemning others to the chopping block. There are people in those comments saying she should be executed. Over what amounts to lies.
2) It indulges this delusion that the boy had zero responsibility, that he was "innocent." No 13 yo boy is innocent. The average 13 yo boy has already done several things far worse than mutually, willingly engaged in sex.
3) It perpetuates our hysterical Puritan roots regarding sex with draconian sentencing, as if this inappropriate relationship is tantamount to murder. This is why actual rape victims are reluctant to come forward and even report their actual severe traumatic violations visited on them. It is believed that up to 90% of rapes go unreported. And we can expect for nothing to change so long as we always react to sexually-related matters with:
4) Hysteria, hysteria, and yet more hysteria! It's just sex. When willingly engaged in by both un-related partners, I think we can lower the DEFCON alert. Is it appropriate given the student/teacher dynamic? No. She should lose her job. But 20 years is ridiculous. She probably may not have to serve half of that, but it's still overkill. You'd think someone had died.

Oh my, I didn't realize people were so interested in being enlightened by my wisdom, on account of I almost never check "my topics" but here's a blast from the past:

It's far from ideal. I'd rather they not. Somehow you guys twisted "I wouldn't care" to "I care a whole lot." IDK how yall managed to do that, cuz it makes no sense and holds no water. It is the exact opposite of reality.

Why should it be my business? I never said it was "cool" for the son either. I said I wouldn't care, as long as she doesn't get pregnant, and even better if I never find out it was going on. I guess you guys were looking for some gotcha with an obvious and remedial point like that.
How am I supposed to react? Ambivalent about one, but hysterically enraged by the other? I think less of the adults in either situation. They have most of the responsibility. But it has never meant that the teens are innocent. And for the record, I'd rather not know about my son's sexual activity either. This is all very creepy and intrusive, don't you guys think?

All you have to know is if the individuals are of age to be sexually active to assume they probably will eventually be having sex. In both of these cases, it should have been assumed. The worst thing is the irresponsibility in the former case resulting in pregnancy. But it's still at least better than pregnancy between two minors, neither of whom could support a child of their own. Like I said, it's bad enough it costs the primary earner their job, but maybe that's why it shouldn't. If a new life is part of the equation, we should be forcing the adult who is primarily responsible to earn as much as they can, in order to best support the child. Unless the fear is teachers are going to just keep having more and more kids with students? Seems pretty irrational given the costs.

This helps bolster my main theme: we of the more sexually liberated, if not libertine, sensibility, like to think we're open-minded, free spirited, and up with love, but cases like this expose the resounding hypocrisy.

You guys suddenly seem very conservative and overly concerned by stuff that is out of your control. Yet I'm willing to wager almost all of you are hunky dory with abortion on demand at any point. OK. So why does ANY of this matter? The worst cast scenario is someone under-age is facing parenthood. So abort that shit. It's just cells, right?

I'd really hope I never have a child that becomes a mommy or daddy when they've just passed puberty. I'd like to think I raised my kids to know better, to be smarter, but it's not the end of the world. No one should die for it. And killing the adult who had a child with one of my teen children isn't going to help. It's just going to make everything worse. That's probably why in virtually every case of this nature, nobody is murdered in retaliation. But a lot of internet tough guys (and gals) act extra enraged over such crimes.

Do you know how many teens are killed in drunk driving accidents every year? I wonder how many never got a chance to even have sex before their lives were cut short. Life happens, and these laws about sex are kinda retarded, or at least hysterical. As long as it's not the teens who have to be punished, forced to raise a child, or subjected to disease introduced by the adults - I'm just trying to figure what the absolute worse case scenarios are that remain? How about the public shaming? Hmm... about that... maybe we can make a difference by stopping the perpetuation of this? You're only exacerbating matters.


But why do I have to explain all this very obvious stuff to you guys?

Why don't any of you answer the question? What are you going to do about it if one of your teen kids gets pregnant? Kill them? Kill their adult partners? Force them to get an abortion? Force them to carry the child? Pretend your children were innocent angels so you can Ttry and sue 3rd parties for millions of dollars like the mother of the boy in this latest case? Even though you were just as responsible as they were?

Stop being insane and irrational and hypocritical. And spare me the sanctimonious nonsense.

That teacher should not be getting 20 years, even if she will probably not even serve half of that. She shouldn't get 10 years, or even 5 years for that matter.
Have any of you even spent 1 year in prison? It sickens me to observe folks just waving their hand so flippantly while prescribing decades of punishment and alienation to others for near victimless, if not 100% victimless, crimes.

You mean to tell me you honestly believe it sits well with you that had these parties waited just 3 or 4 years, instead of looking at 20 years, they'd be looking at 0? How does 4 years = 20 years? What about let the punishment fit the crime?

The reason that boy's mother is pretending he was innocent, and had his innocence stolen by that evil woman is because the mother wants millions of dollars. Bitch please. All the scarring and trauma to come from that case is on account of you all forcing him to be a rape victim for life. You are humiliating him by turning him into an utterly powerless, feeble infant that got "violated" as if he was wailing newborn raped in front of the world. You are the ones violating him right now. You are dragging her over the coals along with him, and you don't even realize it. He probably naturally felt terrible that the woman who gave him his best moments in his life is now having her own life ruined by having this all made public, and now he will feel even more "Scarred" and "traumatized" by the fact that she's sentenced to 20 years.

So you have effectively humiliated the boy by making him a rape victim, as well as destroyed that woman's life, all because they willingly engaged in mutually beneficial acts you were not party to, because you are just bitter and envious, and perhaps as ugly on the outside as on the inside. That teacher didn't rape the boy. His parents did.

I think most of this draconian contempt and savage condemnation stems from personal frustrations you guys have never dealt with in your own lives. I've been through much worse than any of these cases purport, and I've never harbored half as much venom for my own attackers as you guys have for these people you know almost nothing about. So all I am left to wonder is why are you all so hateful?

As I said before, that boy was not mostly responsible for the relationship. The adult was. But just because she was mostly responsible and not he, does not mean that he was not responsible at all, in any capacity. He was. He didn't have to fuck her repeatedly. He did it because he wanted to. That's why I said I already don't care so much about such cases. While you guys pretend these boys were helplessly raped against their will, as if such scenarios are even remotely comparable. They are about as diametrically opposed as theoretically possible. And you've conflated them. Christ on a cracker. The scales of justice have rarely been so lopsided. I will never dilute and trivialize the term "rape" the way you guys so casually bandy it about. I will never equate willing acts with unwilling. You fall back on semantics all you want with "consent" which varies from state to state, but it doesn't change willingness. You say "but those boys never consented!" only because technically they cannot consent, but you know if some piece of paper provided for it, does that mean you'd have to accept it as the final word on ethics? That's why willingness matters. You will never convince anyone, not even yourself, that willingness does not matter. How insane would you have to be to treat one incident involving willing partners with mutual interest and neither of whom claim to be wronged, as if it is the same as another incident involving an unwilling victim of violence against his or her will? These are polar opposites.

Edited by - melvyn on 7/14/2019 7:55:47 PM


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Jul 14 2019 : 7:49PM
OK, and if you had sex with your very beautiful chemistry teacher in high school that you fantasized about, would you be happy to see her sentenced to 20 years in prison? Do you call that justice?

I do not for a moment believe you or any other boy by the time they can get an erection is "innocent." That's just a complete farce. All boys have gotten into fights, been punched, punched others, stolen shit, lied to cover their own ass, and even lied to throw someone else under the bus. All things done with the specific intent to hurt or deprive others.

We've all done much worse than had sex with a pretty older lady.

What aggravates me so much about these cases is when you condemn the women, you also unwittingly condemn the boys who know deep down they had responsibility in the matter. And the more harshly you condemn these women, the more naive your denial/delusion is about the boy, which ostensibly serves as "protection" of the boys not from these "dangerous" women, but protecting boys from themselves. You're not helping them. You're hurting them by denying their volition, their will, their desires, their dreams, and as unusual and improbable as it is, even their capacity for love. You've effectively robbed them of a right to make love! This is the height of Puritan sexual hysteria and stigma. You've confabulated myths about witches and succubi, revising reality to reflect cherubic innocence robbed by demonic whores. This is all very Dark Ages, fire and brimstone fear mongering.

People go on about enabling. What about disabling? Some may never get another chance. So when they do, don't make it worse by humiliating them, by infantilizing them, by trivializing their natural needs, by dragging them over coals, publicly pillorying them.

You don't have to meet them with dude-bro fanfare. You don't have to high-5 and celebrate them. I'm not saying you literally must commend these teachers either. But you don't need to so absolutely condemn them to the inner most rings of hell.

There is very little doubt in my mind that all the hysteria is what makes this stuff so unbearable. Inappropriate is one thing. But people are overreacting by screaming rape, which may as well be screaming bloody murder. That this type of thing destroys a reputation and ends a career, depriving one of their primary means of making a living, should be plenty sufficient.

Again, have you been to prison? It is very hard to imagine anyone needing more than 2 or 3 years to rethink the behavior that put them there. And how many more think-pieces about our prison-industrial do we need before some of you realize maybe this is one of those things we don't need to throw the book at people for and continue to overcrowd our prisons? We already have the highest per-capita incarcerated rate. But now yall act like we need our prisons to make room for more...

For rapists whose victims were actually violated against their will? Definitely lock them up.

But for those generous dreamboats that you fantasize about giving you the best time of your life? Eh, not so much. I'm not that much of a sanctimonious hypocrite to call for their heads to roll. We need some semblance of proportion. Losing their job, 6 months in prison, extended probation, house arrest, ankle bracelet, therapy/rehab, etc. - there's far more reasonable and productive measures to help people.

But please answer the question if you think your high school sex-fantasy teacher should have gotten 20 years if it came to light that you had sex with her.


Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6976 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jul 14 2019 : 8:14PM
All people of any type are not innocent. They are still entitled to the protection of the law.

We don't need the sort of purity tests that say that if you are not perfect, it's okay to rape or murder you.

Predators target the 'weakest' -- the underage, the addicts, prostitutes, mentally challenged, homeless, those without a family, 'wrong side of the tracks', etc., because they can be slandered as witnesses in court. That's not okay.

 
All-Star Member

Non Prevalebunt!
12326 Posts
1/05
Posted - Jul 15 2019 : 1:23AM
I only referred to the "Emotional Immaturity" of people in their puberty , I didn't say I approve , I also put a real life reference occurred while i was in high school , there was another the little sister of a classmate of mine at sixteen had a boyfrienda of 24 .It wasn't hidden it was official and yet apparently nobody cared (also 16 was the age of consent) . Back then my thoughts were like " My God that guy must be desperate for sex to be with someone that young, probably can't relate with his own age women"
At that time I was 18 and I didn't find that improper, though in my view a 16 yo girl was too young already , I wouldn't date any . I remember that summer one of those , I was visiting my cousin and she was a friend of hers very cute and attractive at that . We were at a park , at one point my 16 yo cousin and her 17 yo boyfriend left to reach a place more intimate to have sex, his place, we stayed back , we both knew where they went and why , so she begun to make many extremely clear references about her place , she wanted me to take a look at it, her parents were away, she repeated this a few times. Believe it or not I didn't even grasped her reference , she was completely out of target , so out that in my view whatever she said couldn't be sexually related, iI reacted like she were many years younger and I got what she was saying literally, I thought she wanted to just show me her house , so i resisted and refused to go, she literally didn't know how to reach me until I said I wasn't interested , literally so , she stood up from the bench and went away shocked, I couldn't understand why, a few minutes later my cousin was back and asked me about her, It was only while telling her what happened that I realized the truth , I felt like an idiot, but still as I said she wasn't in my radar , hence the misunderstanding

Edited by - LCF on 7/15/2019 1:27:26 AM


Senior Member

5491 Posts
6/04
Posted - Jul 15 2019 : 10:35PM
Technically, you are correct. We do live in a society in which people misuse words all the time in a way that undermines their actual meaning. We hear people throw around words like "racist," "misogynist," "rape," etc., nowadays just for gratuitous dramatic effect, which unfortunately only trivializes what these words actually mean. Pedophile is another one of those words. By its literal definition, a pedophile is an adult who is sexually atttacted to young children, as in prepubescent. It is not someone who is sexually attracted to someone who has the physical sexual characteristics of an adult, but happens to be under the age of 18, or some other arbitrary age mandated by a particular state. The creepy guy who lurks around the pre-school playground looking to get his jollies is a pedophile by its literal definition; the adult man who sex with a sexually developed 16 year-old is only a "pedophile" by its legal, not literal, definition. The legal definition is arbitrary and varies by state or country (i.e., a pedophile in California may not be a pedophile in Pennsylvania), while the literal definition is objective.

Having said that, however, our society now labels anyone, particularly men, having sex with anyone under the legal age as a "pedophile." Hence, R. Kelly and Jeff Epstein are alleged pedophiles by the legal definition. Since that's the case, you are right that this woman may not be a pedophile by its literal definition. But since she was a 28 year-old woman having sex with a 13 year-old boy, which is below the age of consent in any state, she is indeed a pedophile by the legal definition, and should receive the same punishment that an adult male convicted of her crime would receive.

 
All-Star Member

Non Prevalebunt!
12326 Posts
1/05
Posted - Jul 16 2019 : 9:28AM
Just to add some gasolineto the fire here, if I recall well King Henry VIII latest wife was 16 ...

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6976 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jul 16 2019 : 12:16PM
16 is the legal age of consent in England and many European countries.
 
All-Star Member

Non Prevalebunt!
12326 Posts
1/05
Posted - Jul 16 2019 : 1:31PM
^
I was playing with someone who could find excuse to not blame any man involved into anything regarding abuse on women, who apparently has no problem into blaming a woman : Ehy , it's the law, you know.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1629 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jul 16 2019 : 2:58PM
The administrators and moderators of this message board have taken a very conservative stance when it comes to children. We aren't allowed to post pictures of children, which I think is a good rule. Yet at the same time, someone starts this thread cheering pedophilia, and worse, advocating for even more of it (!!!), and this thread is allowed to continue?
I think Mr. F had a good story from his own experience that shows that this is a crime that can really damage a young person, regardless of who they are:
In addition, when people say they think it's ok because the student was a guy, and guys are better equipped to handle these sort of things, would they think that it's ok for an adult male to have sex with an underage boy? What if it were their own 14 year old son?

Also, let's now overlook the whole "Yeah, teachers may be fucking kids, but at least it's not as bad as letting them play football!" rubbish rationalization.


Senior Member

Starfucked bitch
5978 Posts
3/07
Posted - Jul 16 2019 : 10:42PM
Wait. we really got a user defending someone fucking a minor simply because they're a woman? this is what ADT is about now? fuck that. Any adult, male or female, having sex with a minor, IS RAPE NO MATTER WHAT THE GODDAMN KID THINKS. A Child cannot consent to a damn sexual relationship no matter what the damn sex. and yes, I will die on this fucking hill.

 
All-Star Member

Non Prevalebunt!
12326 Posts
1/05
Posted - Jul 17 2019 : 9:16AM
^ and ^^
I thought everybody here was challenging that view

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6976 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jul 17 2019 : 11:20AM
Everybody?

I don't think so.

 
Doctor of the Erotic Arts

goregoregirl.com
11853 Posts
1/09
Posted - Jul 18 2019 : 11:02AM
Can someone give me the digest version of Melvyn? I legitimately tried to read those posts and gave up about four lines in, both times. My understanding based on those four lines and a cursory browse of the remainder is: "I never said that but I am also kind of saying that" and "teenage boys are sexual so this is not a crime worth punishing." Is that about right?

Responses of four sentences and under appreciated.

 
All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
17059 Posts
9/07
Posted - Jul 19 2019 : 3:47AM
Apparently he believe that any boy who can get an erection is no longer 'innocent.' Somehow he is ignorant of the fact that babies and toddlers get erections. Being that he is, apparently, a man I'm a bit stumped how he would not know that.

Edited by - BlackSix on 7/19/2019 3:48:20 AM

 
Doctor of the Erotic Arts

goregoregirl.com
11853 Posts
1/09
Posted - Jul 19 2019 : 12:43PM
Interesting. Yes, little children can get erections. Likewise, plenty of men incapable of erections are predators and/or sexual agents. It's sad when men trivialize male sexuality.
 
Golden Age Classic

13495 Posts
5/01
Posted - Jul 19 2019 : 5:38PM
To this date, no one, including you, has bothered to notify us of this thread. Thank you for taking the time to bitch about us without bothering to tell us about the issue to begin with. This is the same as bitching when a cop doesn't show up after no one calls them.



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone