jerk

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Much as I use horrified ponies to poke fun at your, ahem, graphic summary of the charges for the casual reader, the total nerd in me does feel the need to point out that sexual assault of 15-17 year olds is not technically a result of pedophilia. It's ephebophila. Still creepy, illegal and a huge abuse of power, but not pedophilia.

The reason I got involved with SNAP in the first place was because of a sense of guilt. I and most everyone at the school, including parents knew what was going on and didn't stop it. Probably because it involved juniors and seniors who were not abused by force or coercion but willingly.

To me it would have been the same for my female Spanish teacher to have asked me out for a weekend downtown and then abused me. Doesn't make it right but it's a far cry from child molestation. Had it taken place it would have undoubtedly effected future relationships and that is what the surviving victims are dealing with. And knowing me at the time I would have undoubtedly chosen to be a victim.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The reason I got involved with SNAP in the first place was because of a sense of guilt. I and most everyone at the school, including parents knew what was going on and didn't stop it. Probably because it involved juniors and seniors who were not abused by force or coercion but willingly.

To me it would have been the same for my female Spanish teacher to have asked me out for a weekend downtown and then abused me. Doesn't make it right but it's a far cry from child molestation. Had it taken place it would have undoubtedly effected future relationships and that is what the surviving victims are dealing with. And knowing me at the time I would have undoubtedly chosen to be a victim.

A teacher-student relationship is an abuse of power on the part of the teacher. Coercion comes in many forms, and it's a teacher's responsibility to behave appropriately. No, it's not technically the same as child molestation because the people involved are not pre-pubescent (although the article Danzig linked to mentioned a 13-year-old, which would fall under hebephilia, I think), but it's still abuse.

When I was in college I had a teacher who got involved with one of my classmates. The teacher was in his early 30s and the student in his early 20s, and the student was heavily closeted at the time. They were both legal adults, but it still really screwed up my classmate and the whole atmosphere of the class, because of course, we all knew. It made for a really, really uncomfortable semester and my classmate didn't get over it for a long time.

[Danzig]

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae6...73bea594755091

disgusting, the law, the trials, the actions of the protesters...

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...ir_libido.html

[OldDog]

http://www.thelocal.no/20140123/next-us-ambassador

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

http://www.thelocal.no/20140123/next-us-ambassador

good lord.

yeah, maybe they should re-think him being ambassador?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...ir_libido.html

I'm starting to suspect he's actually a plant for the Democrats.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm starting to suspect he's actually a plant for the Democrats.

It would be nice if both parties could finally agree a woman has absolute, sole power over her individual body and decisions concerning it while also agreeing a woman has absolute and sole responsibility to pay for it, make a lover pay for it or make sure she purchases insurance that does.

Be great for women to not only be responsible for their own health decisions but also their own health expenses.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

It would be nice if both parties could finally agree a woman has absolute, sole power over her individual body and decisions concerning it while also agreeing a woman has absolute and sole responsibility to pay for it, make a lover pay for it or make sure she purchases insurance that does.

Be great for women to not only be responsible for their own health decisions but also their own health expenses.

The hole in this argument is that once a child is born, regardless of whether either or both or neither of the parents wanted it, the child exists as a separate individual (one capable of surviving without being connected by a placenta to the woman). It's a totally different matter.

If a man doesn't want to run the risk of being financially responsible for a child, he can elect to keep his legs crossed, or to employ birth control in a consistent and responsible way. You know, like Obamacare is trying to make possible for women to do.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm starting to suspect he's actually a plant for the Democrats.

he could be! lol

i would like to ask people railing against the bc mandate if they know that the gubmint isn't paying, so tax payers aren't paying, for this coverage?
it's funny, when the government put regulations on...car buyers for example, i don't recall anyone (except maybe car makers) fussing and saying keep the government out of our vehicles.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm starting to suspect he's actually a plant for the Democrats.

R U kiddin..a Fox news host shillin for the dems...no way

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

R U kiddin..a Fox news host shillin for the dems...no way

not shilling...just making the dems look better by comparison.