|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARGARET WENTE asks in the article, "Why are so many big countries and big companies still run by super alpha males and not by us? I wish the answers were cultural conditioning and historical oppression, but I know the answer is testosterone. Darn it. "
Cool! So, all I really need is more testosterone and I can become CEO! No problem. Dr. Willy I will be right there to get started on a regimen of shots!
Gees I think I'm gonna puke. Bigotry is always ugly no matter what the source. Obviously, woman has a major problem. She needs major help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can anyone still fail to see through this two-faced evil?
The author, Margaret Wente, makes the statement "We pay lip service to equal treatment of the sexes, but we still don't practise it. We're still riddled through with unconscious sexism, as seen here." One might expect her to analyze and debunk our "unconscious sexism," but instead she attempts to validate it while raising it to the level of conscious sexism. Note such statements as, "Most 15-year-old boys I know aren't all that fussy. They're grateful to have sex with absolutely anything." Sex with anything? You mean dogs and piles of manure? You are deeply troubled, Ms. Wente.
As for girls, Ms. Wente offers gems such as, "They'd be horrified and ashamed if (their biology teacher) made a pass at them." I've got news for ya, Sweets. I have women-friends who've told me that, when they were girls, they were attracted to older men and would have liked to have had sex with them. I guess in Ms. Wente's universe, females are never attracted to older males.
"the harm she did to the boys is not equivalent to the harm an older man inflicts on girls who are genuinely unwilling." Ah, I understand. When older males have sex with 15-year-old girls, it is always forcible rape. The girls are never willing. It is never statutory rape. Uh huh.
"Ms. Gehring... clearly needs more counselling than (the boys) do." Right.
"You only wish she'd enjoyed her crimes more than she did." Now that one's really priceless. I had no idea I wished she'd enjoyed her crime more than she did. Wow! Ya learn something new about yourself every day.
And I love her snide comment about the men's rights lobby. "For every battered-wife campaign, they want one for battered husbands."
I remember well the days when anti-black racism was more above ground than it is today. Sex crimes against blacks was often justified based on their supposed uncontrolled, sexual licentiousness. Perhaps this typical feminist, Margaret Wente, would like to see us return to that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARGARET WENTE
Isn't this the same bigot who claimed that the world would be better off is there were no men in it, or that terrorism is male and nurturing is female?
Can someone get a picture of her? I want to create a Flash interactive movie that will allow you to throw virtual darts at her photo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have of course heard of institutionalised sexism but I think this article breaks new ground in that we are seeing institutionalised peadophilia.
I can’t imagine a journalist keeping their job after suggesting that male paedophiles were not guilty because these children wanted sex.
The reason that we protect our children from sexual predators is simply because they are not emotionally mature enough to handle the responsibilities of sex.
The suggestion that these boys are more mature than girls of the same age would be laughable if it weren’t so sickening.
Of course this is all academic since Amy was today found not guilty.
I can’t say I’m surprised. I have been conditioned myself to find it hard to believe that a woman could be a child abuser. Not speaking of Amy you understand found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt as she was. Interestingly enough similar allegations were made against her at another school she worked at but those details were part of her history and I’m sure not relevant particularly since charges were not pressed that time. Child protection staff were said to have concerns about her, but the jury never heard that either.
The frightening thing is that I myself find it hard to believe that a woman is capable of such a thing, brain washed as I am I suppose. Maybe that right, maybe I should be more suspicious of allegations against men who knows. I do know that until people think it possible that a woman can be a child abuser more children will be abused.
br, stevenewton.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like a copy so I can perform voodoo on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 04, @11:20PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
I can't speak for teenage boys but I was a 15 year old female 6 years ago and I can assure you that neither myself or my friends were interested in middle aged males.
Although I know there's an awful lot of males who like to kid themselves that young teenage girls are interested in them.
We used to have men in their 30s and 40s making sexual remarks to us when we were 12 and in our school uniforms!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with the acquittal, if the charges truly couldn't be proven. But that doesn't justify Ms. Wente's belief that sex between a woman and a 15-year-old boy is really okay while sex between a man and a 15-year-old girl is rape because the girls "are genuinely unwilling."
The feminist, Wente, states, "You can't just change the genders in this story, because that changes everything." She clearly believes that the sexual violation of boys by women is either a minor matter or perfectly acceptable.
It's also interesting that Ms. Wente assumed the guilt of the accused, Ms. Gehring. Note the statements, "Ms. Gehring has been very bad and must be spanked," and "the harm she did to the boys."
Margaret Wente is a vicious, anti-male sexist. No wonder she's so popular and influential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know of a young adult that was raped by his female babysitter and others from the 3rd grade into early high school. Today he is 22 and in counseling for the emotional trauma this caused, and he is having to take anti-depressants to keep from experiencing the desire to kill himself. I pray to God that he is not so far gone that he cannot be saved!
However, according to Margaret Wente, this rape should have been his childhood fantasy. According to Wente he secretly desired the sexual activities because he is male, while a female would genuinely feel this act is rape.
I cannot believe the amount of hatred this supposed credible feminist spews at our children in the name of liberation.
It makes me sick...feminist bigotry rears its ugly head again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The feminist, Wente, states, "You can't just change the genders in this story, because that changes everything." She clearly believes that the sexual violation of boys by women is either a minor matter or perfectly acceptable."
I kind of agree with her. It IS different because of the genders involved. I think we do live in a social construct where the long term consequences of male students sleeping with their female teachers is in fact less destructive than the other way around.
I remember, for example, having a semi-social relationship with a business teacher in high school with whom I was engaged in a few extra-curricular activities. I wouldn't have been too scarred had we had a fling.
While I find the double standards troubling in general, I agree with this one in particular.
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 04, @11:27PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
You do know that most males who have sex with underage girls never even go to court, for one reason or another, don't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the trolls are back. And now they're claiming to be teen-age girls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a certain percentage of minors who will experiment with sex, even with adults, for a variety of reasons. She is too simplistic. There are also a (thankfully)few cases of minors being forced into sexual acts against their will.
Either we decide that sex between adults and minors is bad or it isn't. We either have statuatory rape laws or we don't. Period. Adults who have sex with children should be prosecuted equally or not at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 04, @11:39PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
" There are also a (thankfully)few cases of
minors being forced into sexual acts against
their will. "
I can't believe anyone could make a statement like that.
Visit one of the chat rooms for child sexual abuse survivors one day.
By the way, there's one for males also and you'll find that nearly EVERY one of them was molested by another male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds to me like you're up to the feminists' old tactic of protecting adult women from responsibility when they have inappropriate relationships with under aged boys. Protect females more than males, and always assume that female vulnerabilty should be taken more seriously than male vulnerability. Very paternalistic AND sexist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is not quite true. The boys and men molested / raped by women stay far away from the public chats. The email lists they use are CLOSED and moderated due to feminist inspired hatred of males. BTW: Of the three lists I know of all have women raped by women as members.
Think about it...
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What have public "chats" got to do with my post? I was talking about age of consent laws as pertains to statuatory rape laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's ironic that feminists like Wente are now running the line that females don't want sex whereas males always want it. For years they have pushed the line that the female sex drive is in every respect equal (only superior) to the male one.
It's absurd to suggest that adolescent females never desire physical sexual contact (even when in love), but it's true that adolescent males are much more easily arousable than adolescent females -- that's an extra vulnerability. The existence of a vulnerability does not justify its exploitation.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's true that adolescent males are much more easily arousable than adolescent females -- that's an extra vulnerability. The existence of a vulnerability does not justify its exploitation.
Very, very good point, SD.
And let's not forget that, when it suits their purpose, the mainstream feminists declare that females mature faster than males. This too, if it were true, would make adult sex with a 15-year-old boy worse than adult sex with a 15-year-old girl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 04, @05:43PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent point.
Unfortunately it is one that always disappears when a female has been "victimized." How convenient to alternate between more mature and more vulnerable depending on whichever better suits your situation.
I think I'm going to be ill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACTUALLY arousal rates are the same for men and women. One of the basics of any human sexuality class. Our bodies are much more similar than people think they are when it comes to reaction to stimuli.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid _1796000/1796320.stm
Teacher Amy Gehring, who has been cleared of indecently assaulting two teenage boys, continued to work in schools after police warned she was a "risk".
The 26-year-old Canadian national was cleared at Guildford Crown Court on Monday of all four counts of indecent assault.
It emerged after the trial that police had previously investigated Miss Gehring for alleged assaults at another school in Surrey.
The government said the case raised "extremely serious issues" with regards to supply teachers.
Drunken party
Miss Gehring's solicitor, David Todd, said in a statement outside the court: "It stands to reason that Amy is both pleased and delighted at today's verdict.
"She would like to thank her family and her friends for their continued support.
This case has raised extremely serious issues which we will be discussing with teacher supply agencies
Department for Education and Skills
"It must be remembered that this case has hung over her head for well over a year.
"She is certainly looking forward to returning home well away from the public eye."
Miss Gehring, of Hampton, south-west London, was accused of assaulting two brothers, aged 14 and 15, she met while teaching.
The offences were alleged to have begun on 19 November 2000, when Miss Gehring was aged 25 and a biology supply teacher at a Surrey comprehensive.
The jury acquitted Miss Gehring of three charges and the judge ordered a verdict of not guilty on a fourth.
On Wednesday, the jury was told to clear her of a fifth charge of indecent assault against another 15-year-old boy.
She was charged with seducing the boys at a New Year's Eve party while drunk on Malibu.
Letter ignored
Miss Gehring, who was brought up on her family's farm in a rural community in Ottawa, Canada, admitted her behaviour had been "inappropriate" but she vigorously denied any sexual improprieties or encounters with the boys.
She first came to the attention of police when she faced similar accusations at the first comprehensive where she worked after arriving in England in 2000.
No charges were brought following an investigation into the allegations, which were made while Ms Gehring was on a four-week placement at the school.
A police spokesman said: "Surrey Police were already aware of other recent alleged incidents of serious assault at another school in the county which we previously fully investigated.
Case's aftermath
"In that instance due to the unwillingness of one pupil to pursue a prosecution and the other complainant was over 16 at the time of the alleged assault we were unable to proceed further."
"Nevertheless, the Surrey multi-agency senior strategy group, which manages the risk of young people, informed the school and TimePlan of the allegations.
"These letters expressed in the clearest possible terms the nature of the risk posed by Amy Gehring."
The case has led to the sacking of TimePlan's Surrey director, Rob Stonier, and the resignation of Chris King, its director of education.
TimePlan said Mr Stonier had failed to tell Mr King of the warning - or inform the Department for Education and Employment, as it was called before the 2001 general election.
The agency said if Mr King had known about the letter, he would have sacked Miss Gehring immediately.
A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills said: "This case has raised extremely serious issues which we will be discussing with teacher supply agencies.
"We have already had a meeting with Timeplan and will follow their internal inquiry very closely."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have spent so much time in a femmist mind set world that we have lost our touch on reality. We now ascribe virtues to the sexes that when examined can't ever be viewed as logical. I think that part of the problem must be shared with religous guilt and the need for "grown-ups" to view their own teenage years differently than they realy were.
I think that the truth is found in what is never admited. There are sexual teenagers as young as we fear to imagine and there are some who are asexual or fearful as late as their twenties and thirties. This fact is not limited to one gender.
As I am writing this I am comfortable in saying that there are straight highschool foot ball players having sex with each other and less than "Macho" highschool boys having sex with girls to prove their manhood. The reverse also I am sure is true. I also believe that they can switch back and forth from pleasure and fear as the tides of guilt wash over them after the orgasm. If you do not think that the girls are doing this also then you have your head in the sand.
As humans we are a beautiful and complex group and are not hampered by breeding as the only reason for sexual pleasures. We are on the other hand hampered by irrational myths imposed by religion and politics.
Do I believe that these boys were "injured" by haveing sex with an older women? No I don't. Do I believe that they may have emotional scars from this experience? They could, but the scars could be from the myths and not the action. I also believe that the same is true for girls.
I also believe that because of brain developmental changes that take place in our teenage years, boys and girls often make choices that adults would not make. It is the responsibility of adults to understand that how they view a situation is not always the way teenagers do. But I also believe that kids do make sexual choices all the time. The question that makes this difficult is does that make teenagers victims, and when does this victim label end.
It seems that according to our myths, women will always be victims when they are having sex with men. Boys are never victims unless they are having sex with an older man, and as for girls, well refer to the rule about women. As for older women having sex with younger girls, well I guess that just never happens.
Until we can get past the myths that we have created to distance ourselves from the lives that we live, we will never be able to help those that have realy been raped, the male or female victims that were forced to have sex against their will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, there is an incredible amount of variety out there. One prescription does not fit all. There are undoubtedly some situations where ther is no "victim".
But we are a nation of laws. If we make a law that it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor, consensual or not (we set the age wherever we want) then that should apply to all adults undera all situations regardless whether it is woman/boy, man/girl, man/boy, woman/girl.
We either want to have statuatory rape laws or we don't. In some jurisdictions the age of consent is different for boys and girls and also different for man/boy vs man/girl liasons. Typically the age of consent for woman/boy man/girl is lower than in same-sex situations. (I don't know about woman/boy vs. woman/girl).
I do not find this fair within the same jusridiction (state) however, within our federalist system it is justifiable to have different rules state to state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But we are a nation of laws. If we make a law that it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor, consensual or not
(we set the age wherever we want) then that should apply to all adults undera all situations regardless whether it is
woman/boy, man/girl, man/boy, woman/girl.
Good point. The degree of harm to be expected by the various permutations of the participants is irrelevant to any individual's guilt: if they did the crime then they should be convicted. It is the sentence which should reflect (in part) the actual harm their actions caused (not the amount of harm stereotypically expected).
Of course age of consent laws don't prima facie protect the rights of the minor, they take away their right to consensual sex. If state A sets the AOC at 16 and neighboring state B at 17; then either state B is failing to protect 16 year olds adequately or state A is oppressing them.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SD___
Age of consent laws do not take away the rigts of minors to have consensual sex with other minors. The laws are written to restrict ADULTS not minors.
Also, most age of consent laws have factored in age differentials, usually of 3-5 years so that persons above the age of consent (usually 16) can legally have consensual sex with persons 3-5 years their junior. That in effect makes consensual sex legal between a 18 year old and a 15 year old (3 year differential) or between a 20 year old and a 15 year old (5 year differntial). Persons under the age of consent are NOT legally restricted from having consensual sex with persons at or near their own age, but I believe most states have an absolute age of consent even there (usually 12 years old).
It varies slightly by state but I believe all states have some laws similar to the above.
With same-sex sex, the age of consent laws differ from opposite-sex sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne posted:
Age of consent laws do not take away the rigts of minors to have consensual sex with other minors.
Not true in general. Some laws would criminalize both or sometimes only the male when both parties are under the AOC.
The laws are written to restrict ADULTS not minors
Eh? If a minor wants to have sex with an adult then the law restricts the minor's freedom. By your reasoning a law that made it illegal for anyone to sell food to you would not be a trespass on your rights, only those of potential food sellers.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
____Age of consent laws do not take away the rigts of minors to have consensual sex with other minors. lorianne
____Not true in general. Some laws would criminalize both or sometimes only the male when both parties are under the AOC. sd
I am not familiar with such laws. We've recently gone through a big debate and change on AOC in my state (from 14 to 16) and I did a fair bit of research into it. Could you tell me which states have such laws as you describe? I am aware that there are laws by which it is illegal for anyone to have sex with a person under (usually) 12. Is this what you mean? I'm not aware of any state with laws criminalizing sex between minors of similar age, above 12 but below AOC.
Since most states have set AOC at 16 and the lower limit at 12 and under ... we're basically talking about 13,14,15 year olds having consensual sex with each other. As far as I know this is not a criminal offense in any state. In addition, the age differential included in most states does not criminalize consensual sex between a person above AOC and one below within a prescribed age differetial (in some states it's 3 and some it's 5 years). If they allow that, it wouldn't make sense to criminalize sex between two persons of the same age but under AOC.
____The laws are written to restrict ADULTS not minors. Lorianne
____Eh? If a minor wants to have sex with an adult then the law restricts the minor's freedom. sd
Semantics. It is not illegal for the minor to have sex with an adult. It is illegal for the adult to have sex with a minor. It is the adult who is criminally responsible, not the minor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"women and girls having sex never happens?" What about Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka? Karla was the sexual deviant and mastermind behind Canada's most notorious sex crime! Plus, she'll be out in a few years to hunt down more little girls on the street and school yards. Maybe even your daughter! It's immaterial that she cut a secret deal with the Crown and got a sweetheart sentence in exchange for giving (lies) testimony against her husband. What else was a poor girl to do? Every female chauvinist organization on the continent told the world that this poor girl was, naturally, a victim. Irregardless that the hidden sex tapes protrayed her as at least a willing, and equal partner, if not the leader of the pair.
Today is a dark day for men and boys everywhere. I sincerely hope the Amy's acquittal is going to be appealed. I cannot express my sorrow and outrage at the fact that women go free and men go to jail. If Amy HAD been Tony and been acquitted.....whoo boy! The protests in the streets across Britain today would still be going on!
What's even worse. London, Ontario has another "Amy" just waiting to stand trial. Why bother? I'm sure she'll get off with her "I'm a girl, I'm not responsible for my actions, get out of jail free card." It truly is a dark day for children everywhere. Especially boys!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sincerely hope the Amy's acquittal is going to be appealed.
Unless the cause of liberty has regressed further in the UK than I had imagined, jury acquitals cannot be appealed. Amy got lucky; whether the experience of the trial will scare her into behaving herself or the outcome will embolden her, only time (and her future students) will tell.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 04, @09:37PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the cause of liberty has regressed further in the UK than I had imagined, jury acquitals cannot be appealed. Amy got lucky; whether the experience of the trial will scare her into behaving herself or the outcome will embolden her, only time (and her future students) will tell.
I believe that the judge threw out the fifth case.
Also, the judge seems highly prejudicial...
if you look at this link you'll find that the judge kept saying that the boys were somewhat suspect. Then again, he said that "...because of their age that did not matter. "
Draw your own conclusions...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @03:56AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
I think there's a huge difference between being raped by a female and raped by a male, regardless of whether the victim is female or male.
A female perpetrator can usually only coerce, a male can coerce and physically force.
There's also the issue of penetration. I don't care what some sexual abuse counsellors say, being penetrated is more of a violation. There's a few other things that only apply when the sex offender is male that are rarely mentioned but I can't discuss them here for fear of censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women can use physical force as well, dumbass. They are also shielded by society's unwillingness to believe they would ever do such a terrible thing. Whether penetration is 'more of a violation' is a moot point. It's a typical feminist ploy to say something men do is worse and use this as an excuse for ignoring all wrongdoing by women - it's part of the faux morality of the feminist mindset. I don't think it's for you or anyone else to decide in advance that sexual abuse by a woman is not as bad as sexual abuse by a man.
As for these things you can't discuss for fear of censorship, you must be thinking of some other website. I've made postings about anal sex (a very tedious discussion) and used the word 'fuck' on more than one occasion. We're all adults here, and we can all speak our minds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just wait until this woman becomes pregnant with one of the boy's kids. This predator will then try to collect child support and most likely be successful. Now someone tell me that the boy is not raped of his childhood. We propabably won't even see this reported; the media wrote write a single article about it. We live in a great society!
'An ostrich with it's head in the sand still looks like dinner to a predator!'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous writes, "A female perpetrator can usually only coerce, a male can coerce and physically force. "
Try telling an 11 year old boy that has been held down by a female babersitter during a rape that he was not forced.
You are without a doubt bigoted and hate males.
How dare you suggest that women do not use force to rape males! How dare you suggest that it is less of a moral or legal offence just because the child was male!
It is overwhelming female bigotry like this that kept him in that situation for over 10 years. That is why they remain silent. That is why they will not ask for help! Damn you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How dare you suggest that it is less of a moral or legal offence just because the child was male! It's pretty remarkable how open so many women are today in their belief that the sexual violation of males is of little or no import.
Protect females more than males, and always assume that female vulnerabilty should be taken more seriously than male vulnerability. Very paternalistic AND sexist. It's a very sick and sorry state of affairs that this is standard procedure. I would describe it, however, as "Very maternalistic AND sexist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A poorly thought out article re: statutory rape of boys:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlet s.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/common/FullStory.html&cf=tg am/common/FullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config& date=20020202&dateOffset=&hub=columnists&title=Col umnists&cache_key=columnistsNational¤t_row=4 &start_row=4&num_rows=1
> As for you, dear reader, confess: You secretly
> believe those boys might have had an okay time,
> don't you?
No secret. I simply believe it matters little. But if you need know, I believe they may have thought they had an "OK" time, but probably wouldn't characterize it as "great."
> Would you have agreed to have sex with your biology
> teacher? If you're a guy, the answer is probably yes.
No.
> Most 15-year-old boys I know aren't all that fussy.
> They're grateful to have sex with absolutely anything.
News: Crotchety old female teachers are not the stuff of fantasy for grown men, nor boys. If you thought otherwise, perhaps that was just wishful thinking?
> Girls, on the other hand, are apt to regard the
> biology teacher as a hopeless geek, unless he's young
> and handsome, in which case they get a crush on him
> and embroider his initials in their notebooks all
> semester.
Yes. And the boys generally go for the young, hot substitute teachers, not the old hags. And so?
By the way, it's not a crime to be a hopeless geek.
> But that's love. They'd be horrified and ashamed
> if he made a pass at them.
She's never seen a young boy blush? Or a young girl who
wanted to "snog" a handsome young teacher? Obviously, this person is out of touch with today's youth.
> Despite the prosecutor's best efforts, the portrait
> of poor Ms. Gehring as a vicious pedophile began to
> fall apart when her victims took the stand. They
> testified that her various seductions (mostly during
> boozy student parties where everyone was drunk and
> throwing up) were not all that difficult. "We just
> started snogging. I thought, 'What am I doing? '" one
> of them recalled. Five minutes later, it was over.
I suppose you would be chuckling to yourself just so, if your 14 year-old daughter, drunk and vomiting, talked of "snogging" the young, handsome high school teacher in the bathroom at a party, and said, "I though, 'What am I doing?'" and five minutes later, it was over.
I suppose you'd be equally elated to hear about your son "snorting" coke supplied by his high school teacher and feeling "so high that he didn't know what he was doing." My point is, it doesn't matter whether the kid appears to be enjoying himself. Sex and drugs feel good. That's why they can be so destructive, if not applied properly.
He's a kid. Kids enjoy doing stupid things. Adults are supposed to know better.
> Ms. Gehring, who clearly needs more counseling than they
> do, will fare less well. You only wish she'd enjoyed her
> crimes more than she did. "Did we have sex?" she messaged
> one boy the morning after they either did, or didn't.
> She'd been so drunk she couldn't remember.
Either that, or she knew she'd done wrong, and was considering denying it. Anyways, if I get drunk and have sex with a 14 year old girl, and can't remember it in the morning, is that an excuse?
> The asymmetry of the sexes dooms us to be equal but
> unalterably different. Blame evolution. Men's chromosomes
> instruct them to cast their seed around. Ours instruct us
> to find good fathers for our future children.
That may have been true during the stone ages, but nowadays the government saddles men with child support payments for decades following these types of events, so guys can't really afford to do this anymore. They can face financial ruin, inability to pay for education, jail time for failure to pay, etc… And unfortunately, young boys are probably the least capable of understanding this.
If society is going to saddle men with these responsibilities, they have to protect underage men who are incapable of making the most responsible decisions in life. If you're suggesting we go back to the olden days, when men could knock up women, then take off and never be found again, then by all means, vote for that bill.
And even if it weren't true, young men having sex with adults can result in STDs, exacerbation on mental illness such as depression resulting in suicide, truancy, running away from home, undermining of parental authority, etc.., etc.., etc..
> Ms. Gehring has been very bad and must be spanked. She
> needs lots and lots of therapy.
She can get her therapy in jail, where she belongs.
> But the harm she did to the boys is not equivalent to the
> harm an older man inflicts on girls who are genuinely
> unwilling.
Now HERE we finally get to the crux of the argument. If a girl is genuinely unwilling, then that is forced rape, which is a much more serious proposition than statutory rape of a "willing" minor. Obviously, the crimes should be treated differently.
Forced rape, after all, is illegal, even if the person is an adult.
But what critics are really comparing here, is not the statutory rape of a "willing" male, with the forcible rape of an "unwilling" female, but the statutory rape of a "willing" male, with the statutory rape of a "willing" female (i.e. the girl who has the crush on the handsome young teacher that you alluded to above).
There is no reason to treat these crimes differently, unless you inherently believe that a little boy's consent is valid, whereas a little girl's consent is not.
Oh and by the way, in most cases of statutory rape of young girls, there is no difficulty in determining whether there was forced rape or statutory rape under "consent" of the minor, because in most cases the minor girl will tell you as much, that at the time they had sex, she wanted to have it with the older guy.
The fact that these boys seem so willing to they take part in risky behaviors should be no consolation. In fact, it should be making the political pundits and parents in this country even more concerned for their well being, since it is obvious that many of these boys could easily be led off the wrong track in life by an inappropriately close sexual relationship with an adult.
It's difficult enough in this day and age for parents to maintain authority and parental influence over their children, PARTICULARLY the male ones. You wouldn't want an adult undermining the manner in which you raise your children, whether it be through sex, through innapropriate relationships, or by dealing them drugs.
Send her to jail. She belongs there. There are a lot of bad habits kids could learn from her that could get them in a lot of trouble with the law. If they don’t get her pregnant, they may get drunk with some little girl their own age, and get them pregnant, for example.
This is a bad women who needs to be dealt with severely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I think there's a huge difference between being
> raped by a female and raped by a male,
> regardless of whether the victim is female or
> male. A female perpetrator can usually only
> coerce, a male can coerce and physically force.
> There's also the issue of penetration. I don't
> care what some sexual abuse counsellors say,
> being penetrated is more of a violation.
Scientific research does not support this notion.
A meta-analysis of child sexual abuse studies
that assessed how several of factors of abuse
(duration, force, frequency, incest, penetration)
correlate with negative impact found that
penetration had no statistically significant
effect on the negative impact of abuse.
[ Rind, B; Bauserman, R; & Tromovitch, P. (1998)
An Examination of Assumed Properties of Child
Sexual Abuse Based on Nonclinical Samples. ]
> The asymmetry of the sexes dooms us to be equal
> but unalterably different. Blame evolution.
> Men's chromosomes instruct them to cast their
> seed around. Ours instruct us to find good
> fathers for our future children.
Females are programmed to be promiscuous and seek
reproductive opportunities. Although they "settle
down" with a resourceful mate, they constantly
look for opportunities to cheat on their mate with
other males. Social gender roles may restrict their
opportunities, but these go against their biological
instincts. Primate research demonstrates this:
:Chimpanzees share more than 99 percent of human genes,
:use simple tools and form complex societies.
:
:Now a team of UCSD scientists has found another
:intriguing parallel with humans: Some female chimps
:sneak away for furtive sexual liaisons that produce
:infants.
:
:The discovery is startling because longtime observations
:of chimps in West Africa had suggested females are
:faithful to the troop of males they bond with for life.
:
:But using genetic testing of hair to determine paternity,
:the researchers learned that fewer than half the young
:tested in a troop in the Ivory Coast's Tai National Park
:had fathers from within the group.
:
:"It's not an accident," Pascal Gagneux, a UCSD evolutionary
:biologist, said of the numbers. "The females' sneaking off
:is likely causing it, and it is happening all the time."
:
:The females receive food, support and protection from
:their troop while searching for other desirable mates
:outside the troop to father their offspring.
:
:"It really increases her shopping opportunities,"
:Gagneux said.
:
:The study demonstrates that, far from being passive
:objects of male desire and strategies, the female primates
:are smart, active and even duplicitous in seeking out
:reproductive opportunities, experts say.
:
:Of 13 chimps tested in the troop, only six had fathers
:within the group. All the mothers were from within the
:group. The five-year genetic study, paired with field
:observations, was undertaken by Gagneux, UCSD's
:David Woodruff and primatologist Christophe Boesch of
:the Basel Zoological Institute. It was published
:in the journal Nature.
Research on the children of humans bear this out: studies
show that between 10 and 30% of first born children are not
related to their allegedly biological father. These are
not new findings, they date back 50 years ago when women
were supposedly chaste, loyal and sexually repressed.
> As for you, dear reader, confess:
> You secretly believe those boys might
> have had an okay time, don't you?
Yes. I think they had the same good time
as girls who experience illegal but consensual
sex (a.k.a. "statutory rape")
> Girls, on the other hand, are apt to regard the
> biology teacher as a hopeless geek, unless he's young
> and handsome, in which case they get a crush on him
> and embroider his initials in their notebooks all
> semester. But that's love. They'd be horrified and ashamed
> if he made a pass at them.
Scientific research does not support this statement.
For instance, [ Gebhard et al., 1965 ] examined the
reaction of children aged 12-15 to sexual proposals
by adults. It found that 70.3% of boys, and 69% of
girls consented to sex. 30% of girls and 16.5% of
boys resisted, and the rest were passive. This means
that a similar majority of both boys and girls
are willing to have sex with adults. Although girls
were twice as likely to refuse, it seems silly to
construct a gender dichotomy based on such a small
difference.
> But the harm she did to the boys is not equivalent to the
> harm an older man inflicts on girls who are genuinely
> unwilling.
Who ever claimed that it is? The comparison is the crime
of statutory rape, which, by definition, is consensual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> Although girls were twice as likely to refuse,
>> it seems silly to construct a gender
>> dichotomy based on such a small difference.
> You can't really say that.
I think I can. If the vast majority of girls had
refused, that would be different. However, a
2:1 ratio is too small, in my opinion, for
generalizing about boys and girls the way the
author and many other people are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>With all due respect, a similar majority of "A"
>and "B" means pricicesly that A is as equally
>likely as B.
What's your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought one cannot extrapolate on data outside of its presented context correctly.
What you did was isolate a particular portion of the data and then treat it as if it was 100 % of the data.
That is called playing with the numbers.
Mathematically yes the girls who declined did so twice as often as the boys who declined.
You would have to accumulate a much larger number of decliners of both genders.
You end up with a paradox. the study showed that boys and girls accepted at pretty much the same rate. Then you tell us that they declined at a different rate. This cannot be correct so instead of rationalising about the other number and bending annomalies into a pardox you have to look at the other numbers in a different way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes let's get the fact straight. Females are the constant in primate troupes. They stay within the troupe, it is the males who migrate from troupe to troupe, not the females. Chimpanzee and baboon and ape societies are matriarchal, in the sense that the females bond together and remain in the troupe (loyal is too anthropomorphic a word). Males stay in the troup until adolescentes, then they leave to join other troupes. This in a natural deterance to inbreeding. In addition, adult males within the troupe vy for dominance in a highly hierarchal system. Alpha males who "lose their alpha status under challenge, either accept the lower status (and reduced mating opportunities) or they move on to another troupe and vy for a higher ranking there. The females DO NOT go roaming outside the troupe to find mates. The potential mates join their troupe where the females have their own heirarchal system. The males vy for the sexual favors of the alpha females with other males. Primates routinely pass up sex when offered by a lower ranking female. Females on the other hand, if they cannot attract the higher ranking males, will settle for mating with lower ranking males.
It is not valid to anthropomorphise animal societal oragnizations or behaviours. This is the system which nature has worked out for the survival of the species. Neither the males or females should be "value engineered" with human foibles as being devious or duplicitous loyal disloyal ... etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A rape is a rape regardless of the gender of the victim or the rapist.
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Females are the constant in primate troupes.
>They stay within the troupe, it is the males who
>migrate from troupe to troupe, not the females.
That's a strawman. Nobody said that the females
"migrate".
>The females DO NOT go roaming
>outside the troupe to find mates.
The females DO sneak off outside the troop
to mate with other males, and then come back
to their troop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject: What if the schoolmistress were a man
By MARGARET WENTE
Saturday, February 2, 2002 – Page A17
Does gender matter in the trial of Amy Gehring
Year 1969 - I knew of a few "hey they remind me of my parents" relationships between teacher and student and teacher and teacher - and nobody really cared all that much.
One case, in particular, she (student) was annoyed that he(teacher) had given her a "C" on her English paper. Seems he told her how to do it properly, but she ignored his advice and did what she wanted to do anyway. She ended up laughing about it and said she deserved the "C" but it felt good to put "all that shit in the paper and then read to the class" Everyone knew about them, and we were all happy for them and happy about them.
Times have changed though and there is a real ugliness and hatred in the land. That is what happens when you create a privileged class in society - it does not matter whether it is children or women - when you create a class that is privileged far above others you get hatred.
also
If this young teacher had become pregnant. The father would have been liable for child support payments for many many years.
-----------------------------------------
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
http://www.AmateurAtLarge.com
dwc@amateuratlarge.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd just like to bring up the genfem idea of penetration as evil and damaging. That's why our little trolly-girl said what she did- she thinks penetration=control=power=evil.
And I personally had the hots for a 40 y/o chemistry teacher. Every damn night I would imagine doing the nasty with him, even though he was married and later (during physics) turned out to be an insensitive, prejudiced jackass. He told me that my grades were so bad, he shouldn't have sent my college recommendation!! And he wouldn't help me with my lab write-ups b/c I was the "smart girl".
But for the most part my teenage years were asexual- I didn't get my first HEFTY dose of hormones until I was 18 or so. Thank God I have a B/F now!
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have to love it when feminists get their hand in creating a definition for a crime that allows for the utter exclusion of women.
The key element in any rape is the use of power. power comes in many forms, physical, mental, social (ie position) etc. If a person uses any form of these to manipulate or control a situation or person for the purposes of sex then it is likly rape has occured. (note: statuatory rape should be rape reguardless of the genders involved.)
Feminists choose to ignore women who rape (or do anything wrong) because their whole arguement and social movement relys on the idea that men are the root of all social ills.
I had a little run in with a femnazi in class this weekend because I attempted to bring up male issues during a presentation about men in film. Her whole arguement revolved around this idea of men being responsible for the harm they have caused. I am quickly learning the way feminists like this use vague and general terms to define the actions of others. Any attempt to make them clarify the issue and they will point at abstract ideas and concepts to divert attention away from the facts about an issue. Some pact replies I have heard for avoiding a questions about femininst theories: "Oh how typical of a man to question something in order to avoid taking responsibilty"; "White men are blind to their privilage."; "White men, especially in class, always try to dominate the conversation."
remember the first edict of feminism: You can question to clarify but never question to challenge!
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
