January 31, 2011
— LauraW Quite literally discovered nakey together.
Picture of Professor Strumpet at the link.
The most heartwarming part of this story is her job description.
Bowles,31,was employed at his school as a teacherÂ’s instructional coach. It was her job to trains [sic] teachers on how to maintain a professional distance from students.
Professional distance. Like, say, that provided by a thin film of lubricant.
Posted by: LauraW at
06:22 AM
| Comments (277)
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: lauraw at January 31, 2011 06:25 AM (0RH7A)
Posted by: Matt at January 31, 2011 06:25 AM (ecpMe)
Posted by: ef at January 31, 2011 06:28 AM (FrdE0)
This broad and all the rest of them should have the book thrown at them, "cute" or not.
Posted by: baldilocks at January 31, 2011 06:29 AM (T2/zQ)
Posted by: Mary Kay Latourneau at January 31, 2011 06:32 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2011 06:33 AM (6iP/C)
Posted by: baldilocks at January 31, 2011 10:29 AM (T2/zQ)
Completely agree. Not to mention they should try to root out some of the useless loads that enabled this by suspecting something but not wanting to be judgemental. Fuck that shit; toss them all.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 06:35 AM (olKiY)
I'm just saying...
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2011 06:37 AM (6iP/C)
Seriously, my kids will be homeschooled.
Posted by: tinkerbelle at January 31, 2011 06:37 AM (msfHq)
Posted by: David Axelrod at January 31, 2011 06:37 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 31, 2011 06:37 AM (UlUS4)
Your comment survived the transition to draft BTW. It should remain intact when I cut the post loose in a while.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2011 06:38 AM (6iP/C)
And the real societal cause of this???
Not enough MALE teachers for the Female teachers to have affairs with!
Therefore, I suggest, purely in the interest of the Education system, that you all put me the rest of the way through College, so I can get my teaching credential.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 06:40 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: David Axelrod at January 31, 2011 06:41 AM (AZGON)
With her perky cute factor, at the minimum there's a new career as a pron star in her future.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2011 06:41 AM (6iP/C)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 31, 2011 06:41 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: Cherry π at January 31, 2011 06:42 AM (+sBB4)
Posted by: The Robot Devil at January 31, 2011 06:43 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 31, 2011 06:44 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at January 31, 2011 06:45 AM (vK8Ue)
Posted by: eman at January 31, 2011 06:45 AM (n0WLs)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 31, 2011 06:45 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Dang at January 31, 2011 06:45 AM (TXKVh)
Tinkerbelle,
I agree completely. I know a number of good and decent teachers, but they are a shrinking minority of the whole. Better to save money and study up on the basics. Hell, most teenagers would be ready for college or a real job, academically speaking, by the time they're sixteen.
LauraW,
I'm actually kind of sympathetic to her in that regards. She slept with a sixteen year old, which while an abuse of her power and a betrayal of trust, doesn't imply that she's some kind of child predator. Especially since it appears that she initially thought he was 20.
Posted by: Alex at January 31, 2011 06:45 AM (J2ejK)
Posted by: assclownspotter at January 31, 2011 06:46 AM (mwctc)
In Colorado, a person who is under 15 can legally consent to have sex with someone who is no more than 4 years older. A person under 17 can legally consent to sex with a person who is no more than 10 years older.
Standard age of Consent is 17 here.
Whole law is pretty wacky though...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 06:46 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC at January 31, 2011 06:47 AM (cMr26)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 31, 2011 06:47 AM (AZGON)
Who are these 16 year olds who think that 30 year olds are "hawt?" In my high school, there wasn't a single "hawt" female that I can think of. There was a skanky male teacher who supposedly smoked dope with students and I think may have been boinking some and there was one mildly hawt art teacher (male). But I never heard any rumors about any of them... 'ceptin the pot-smoker.
Posted by: Y-not at January 31, 2011 06:47 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 31, 2011 06:48 AM (CpbrP)
Posted by: mrfixit at January 31, 2011 06:48 AM (X6YMj)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 31, 2011 06:48 AM (eOXTH)
First it was vitriolic rhetoric, now it's suggestive rhetoric. This free speech thing is getting out of hand. Why does Palin keep doing this?
Posted by: George Orwell at January 31, 2011 10:47 AM (AZGON)
Is it already time for the Palin Corrolary Game???
Palin is a MILF.
This Lady, wanted to be a MILF.
Ergo... this is Palin's fault.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 06:49 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 31, 2011 06:49 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 06:49 AM (sYrWB)
Posted by: CUS at January 31, 2011 06:50 AM (wOGfT)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 31, 2011 06:50 AM (AZGON)
Now imagine being sixteen and that person has a position of authority over you.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 31, 2011 06:50 AM (TpXEI)
Posted by: Minnie Rodent at January 31, 2011 06:50 AM (iNfj/)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 31, 2011 06:51 AM (WvXvd)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 31, 2011 06:52 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: mrfixit at January 31, 2011 06:53 AM (X6YMj)
uh...the kid was from her school....unless he was a super senior why would a 20yr old be in high school.....she knew how old he was
Depending on the size of the school, and her actual job, she may have had only limited contact with students. It sounds like she wasn't an actual teacher of children, but was used in an administrative capacity.
Posted by: Alex at January 31, 2011 06:53 AM (J2ejK)
Posted by: eman at January 31, 2011 06:55 AM (n0WLs)
2 - 3 a year? I think it's a lot more than that. I also bet, both in absolute numbers and in percentages, the numbers of teachers boffing their students far outnumbers the priests boffing the alter boys. (No, not excusing: putting in perspective)
If there were any institution other than "public education" which had anywhere near this number of child molesters, it would be shut down faster than an all-you-can-eat sushi bar catering to Sumo wrestlers.
And, yes, my children will be (if possible) home schooled. Failing that, the wife and I already know we can afford private school tuition.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 06:55 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 31, 2011 06:55 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: toby928™ at January 31, 2011 06:56 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 31, 2011 06:56 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: the crowd what hates the Catholic Church at January 31, 2011 06:57 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 06:57 AM (AK0dh)
We had one of these crop up in my area last week.
A female HS gym coach. Didn't say if the students were male or female but I have my suspicions.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2011 06:58 AM (pLTLS)
Ummm... so? She was still on staff at the HS and would have known all the teachers. Since the student wasn't a teacher, she would have known he couldn't (reasonably) be over 18.
Even if the Principal's secretary doesn't recognize a specific student, they'll know that is a student and not a teacher because they do recognize all the teachers.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 06:58 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 31, 2011 06:59 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 07:00 AM (0Hp4r)
"Professional distance" means that she should have charged the kid, I think ... and no kissing. It's part of "realistic sex ed".
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 07:00 AM (AK0dh)
It's always girls who were probably popular in highschool, but haven't been able to maintain the same amout of attention they require in their post highschool careers.
Posted by: Ben at January 31, 2011 07:00 AM (wuv1c)
I don't have to look hard to find that many a week. Hell, the radio station I used to listen to (before I got XM in my new car) would have at least one story a week about teachers a-boppin' the students. That station broadcast out of southern Wisconsin, so there's that.
Posted by: CUS at January 31, 2011 07:00 AM (wOGfT)
Bowles,31,was employed at his school as a teacherÂ’s instructional coach. It was her job to trains [sic] teachers on how to maintain a professional distance from students.
I remember during a school dance the teacher said we students had to maintain a distance of 6 inches at all times. Only now do i understand what that teacher meant.
Posted by: Ben at January 31, 2011 07:01 AM (wuv1c)
I know a lot of the Morons will joke about this and that's okay, but this crap hurts boys emotionally just as much as the opposite situation hurts girls,
No, it really doesn't. This is part of the lack of parity between the sexes. it mirrors the lack of parity in the different roles each has in sex and the lack of parity in the possible consequences of sex.
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 07:01 AM (AK0dh)
Posted by: t-bird at January 31, 2011 07:03 AM (FcR7P)
The Ninja Nuns always said they had to see light between the dancers. Otherwise--THE YARDSTICK!!!
Posted by: CUS at January 31, 2011 07:03 AM (wOGfT)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 31, 2011 07:04 AM (mHQ7T)
For those truly lecherous individuals with WAY underage kids--guillotine. For the rest, I don't know what is really best. They certainly fuck up two lives (at least).
Posted by: In Exile at January 31, 2011 07:04 AM (8qbfK)
I confess to humping a Debra Lafave look-alike after the Sadie Hawkins dance. Yea, she was a 19 year old freshman, or so she said.
Posted by: Mr. Cotter at January 31, 2011 07:04 AM (ZHsNw)
Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 07:06 AM (p302b)
Her student lover initially said he was 20 years old – but later admitted he was 16.
And? Even if he was 20, why the f. are you sleeping with him in the back of your car? Isn't he a student? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly is this person's job. Sounds like an idiotic position to begin with and a delusional nitwit to fill it. Sorry, I am in a cranky mood. I will not find myself attracted to 20 year olds ever, no matter what they look like.
Posted by: Unruly at January 31, 2011 07:06 AM (LL4jH)
Posted by: In Exile at January 31, 2011 11:04 AM (8qbfK)
Well, in this case... NOT condoning the actions but...
Is it the Action itself which will destroy lives? or will it be the Legal Consequences which will destroy lives...
ie... if this was not against the law... would it have destroyed lives to this extent? or are we making a bad situation evev worse?
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 07:07 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 31, 2011 07:07 AM (mHQ7T)
Back during the Dark Ages when most teachers were ugly ass spinsters with Pocket Rockets, the idea of bumping their humps is enough to make me retch, especially Ms. Finsterwald.
Posted by: Fish the Impaler at January 31, 2011 07:07 AM (ZHsNw)
Posted by: CDR M at January 31, 2011 11:05 AM (5I8G0)
or maybe "Don't stand so close to me" by the Police, wasn't Sting a teacher???
(sorry no linkee, my link-fu sucketh)
Posted by: mrfixit at January 31, 2011 07:08 AM (X6YMj)
I still think that the girls are fare more impacted by this later in life than the boys (provided that they are >15).
Posted by: In Exile at January 31, 2011 07:08 AM (8qbfK)
All of them. When I was 16, and I'm sure I'm not in the minority here, I would have fucked a handfull of sand if I thought there was a female worm in it.
Posted by: Moron with raging hormones at January 31, 2011 07:08 AM (Zi+FQ)
I don't think you've really thought this through. What happens when, as in any relationship, there is a disagreement? You know, a disagreement between a sexually inexperienced teenager with a person in authority, willing to break laws and cheat on their spouse, who has a vested interest in keeping things quiet?
The women doinking teenage boys aren't angels. They're psychos. They are going to behave as psychos when things don't go according to plan.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 31, 2011 07:09 AM (TpXEI)
Posted by: Joejm65 at January 31, 2011 07:09 AM (FaJtc)
Posted by: Matthew at January 31, 2011 07:09 AM (1ha9G)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 07:10 AM (0Hp4r)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 31, 2011 10:50 AM (AZGON)
Learned in grad school, but briefly, I am still heavy in resource stocks, mainly royalty trusts. Iron ore, natural gas, etc. These pay out dividends which are usually not treated as dividends, but as return of capital or sales of business property, for ore, and dividends on gas are net of depletion, so both are taxed more favorably. Look at MSB for ore (GNI is expiring soon), and San Juan (SJT) for gas. You definitely have to buy on dips, though. Additionally, I am still in municipal bonds (but only short term, due to current state default risk). This is tax exempt dividend income, and used in lieu of a money market or whatnot for my emergency fund. All of my rollover IRA money is in international funds - Latin America or Far East, which are still doing very well, but I am prepared to shift if conditions change . I think a long term buy and hold is still applicable to US stocks like PG and XOM.
Best advice I ever got was to only buy something that I felt comfortable holding for at least five years.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 31, 2011 07:11 AM (CpbrP)
Posted by: Holger at January 31, 2011 07:11 AM (YxGud)
Posted by: Courtney at January 31, 2011 07:12 AM (FcR7P)
Ummm... so? She was still on staff at the HS and would have known all the teachers. Since the student wasn't a teacher, she would have known he couldn't (reasonably) be over 18.
If she met him outside of work, then she wouldn't necessarily have reason to suspect. A moderate sized town, with plenty of community activities would give him enough cover, at least initially.
Posted by: Alex at January 31, 2011 07:13 AM (J2ejK)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 07:14 AM (0Hp4r)
Stop saying that teenage boys who have sex with their hot, blonde teachers are permanently damaged . I have a better description for these kids: 'Lucky bastards.'
Posted by: George Carlin at January 31, 2011 07:14 AM (jmf9+)
On balance... it's bad anyway.
Let's say there is some slim possibility that this specific relationship would have ended up okay. Either they end up together happy and fanatically devoted to each other or they have an amicable breakup.
That doesn't change the fact that the majority of these do no such thing. One side starts forcing the other (either the teacher wants out but is threatened with blackmail, or the student wants out and is coerced by the teacher wielding her position of authority).
Then there is the sociological damage to both: in many (not all) cases, the boy is already one who objectifies women (she doesn't turn him into that, she just uses it). Now, that immoral world-view is cemented further in his mind. For her part, it makes her less likely to pursue normal relationships in which she has to actually share the "power" in the relationship because she can always find pseudo-fulfillment via this kind of affair, and therefore why worry about fitting into a normal relationship?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 07:15 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 07:15 AM (p302b)
"Professional distance"? So what is the thickness of a condom, anyway?
Posted by: chemjeff at January 31, 2011 07:15 AM (pqsMB)
Posted by: t-bird at January 31, 2011 07:15 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 07:15 AM (sYrWB)
Yeah.... and think on this...
He's 16, and in Colorado Total age of consent is 17, and if you are 15 you can give consent to someone within 10 years of your age...
Thus, if the Teach had been 26, instead of 31? Pass... UNLESS there was a direct student teacher relationship...
Whole age of consent thing is pretty weird here... and.... hmmm... equal protection argument for age discrimination for HER age under this law??? as its HER age which makes this illegal (the 10 year age gap thing?).
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 07:15 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 31, 2011 07:16 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: The Robot Devil at January 31, 2011 10:43 AM (LdYLm)
It is against the law here for a teacher to boink the students regardless of age. I suspect that a lot of other States have similar laws.
Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2011 07:16 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 31, 2011 07:17 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 31, 2011 07:18 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: havedash at January 31, 2011 07:19 AM (sFD5n)
How about we think this through for a second:
Sex at 16 with his 16 year old girlfriend is morally wrong and (even ignoring that) generally a very bad idea (for a variety of reasons). It should not have legal consequences because we have legally said that 16 year-olds are not responsible for their own choices/actions (can't sign contracts, for instance, or join the military).
Sex with his 31 year old teacher is just as morally wrong, has all the same "bad idea" ingredients with others besides, and she's old enough she can (and therefore should) be held accountable for her actions.
If you want to argue about lowering the age of majority from 18 down to 16, let's hear your reasons. If you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between two people in a relationship on more-or-less equal terms and a student doinking a school official (teacher or otherwise) then you're missing part of the point.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 07:19 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 31, 2011 07:20 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 31, 2011 07:20 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 31, 2011 07:21 AM (AZGON)
several microns?
Here's another ironic story of a similar vein:
Chicago Anti-Violence Speaker Arrested for Smacking Woman
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 31, 2011 07:23 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 11:15 AM (8y9MW)
Ahhh.... the "relationship" argument...
Problem is that, contrary to the popularly endorsed "normal relationship" you speak of.... Many Men, including myself, do not always equate Sex with having a relationship.
Its one of the major differences between men and women...
So Kid could very well Boff the Hotty Teacher... Yell "SCORE", get backslaps and highfives from his buddies... and move on with no consequence.
This has become a big deal, because OTHER people are making it a big deal.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 07:23 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: kansas at January 31, 2011 07:25 AM (mka2b)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 11:19 AM (8y9MW)
Age of consent is 17 here..... and consent is OK if you are 15, or 16, and they are within 10 years of Age...
Thus is she had been 26, instead of 31, no problem with consent or underage EXCEPT for the potential Student/Teacher thing...
But... if she is not even his teacher??? ie not in authority above him??
Now.... if she gave him the Vodka to drink, thats another "charge"...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 07:26 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: havedash at January 31, 2011 07:27 AM (sFD5n)
101 This.
"Thou shall not boink the students".
That goes for the boys as well as the girls -- young boys are emotionally fragile things underneath all that machismo; it isn't right to go messing with them like that. This "woman" essentially used this boy; how is that any different than a man using a young girl -- sexual gratification which involves such selfishness and callousness of another human being is a damn ugly thing, and it's really ugly when you prey upon the young and innocent in order to do it.
Does point to what is wrong with our education system though: the kids are no longer human: they're just objects; objects can be used.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 31, 2011 07:27 AM (5/yRG)
Every time I see an article like this I think "where were these teachers when I was in high school?"
Then I think that they may have been there, but I was too much of a toolbox to get their attention.
Posted by: Blogluddite at January 31, 2011 07:28 AM (XxAYS)
Problem is that, contrary to the popularly endorsed "normal relationship" you speak of.... Many Men, including myself, do not always equate Sex with having a relationship.
Which begs the question, what other kind of relationship is there? C'mon, dude, we all use the line, "But, but, but, of course I love you, and what's more, I love you for your mind!"
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 07:29 AM (sYrWB)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 31, 2011 07:29 AM (0GFWk)
I hope the school district gets hit with a big fat lawsuit and that they have to pay out millions on this.
Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 07:30 AM (p302b)
And what if Hotty Teacher isn't interested in being a trophy scalp? And why would Hotty Teacher doink a kid who will blab about it?
See, Hotty Teacher isn't doinking you, she's doinking somebody she thinks she won't get caught with, for her reasons, not yours. So, perhaps a quiet kid from a turbulent home that nobody would believe.
Well-adjusted women are not going to have sex with a sixteen year old, because no sixteen year old boy has ever been awesomely masculine enough to appeal to an actually hot woman. So whatever her reasons are, they are fucked up, and probably she isn't interested in just sex.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 31, 2011 07:33 AM (TpXEI)
Posted by: AngelEm at January 31, 2011 07:36 AM (18RR9)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 07:37 AM (0Hp4r)
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at January 31, 2011 07:38 AM (tdu5F)
I think when you're talking about age differences, you really DO have to look at the emotional differences between, for example, a 15 year-old and a 30 year-old. There are fifteen years between them; really, that's not far. But the 30 year-old has been out of college for at least six years, probably eight, has been working and paying taxes, and engaging in various amours since THEY were in high school. On the other hand, five years earlier, while the 30 year-old was a fresh-faced 25 year-old college grad, the 15 year-old was only ten and still thought the opposite sex was infested with cooties. There are ACRES of emotional, psychological, and physical differences between a teenager and a grown adult.
When an adult sleeps with a minor, it's nothing but selfishness. It has nothing to do with love. There may very rarely be a case of genuine love between an adult and a teenager (I will NEVER condone any kind of amorous dealings between anyone and a child), but such instances are few and far between, and even when they exist I would still call the adult a selfish fool. They should be able to practice restraint, and should demand that the teenager practice equal restraint. When the younger of the pair has come of age and is no longer under the elder's sphere of influence, then they can do as they please. I may not agree that relationships built around a large age gap are tenable, I also know that it's none of my business and they have as much right to try and succeed/fail as anyone else in the arena of love. They're both adults.
When an older man engages in emotional and/or physical relations with a female student, even when it's consensual, there can be very real emotional and physical scars. The results are different for male students with their female teachers, certainly from a physical perspective, but the teenage years involve a maelstrom of emotions that can be frighteningly powerful. Even if the male student acts and feels like the BMOC because he had sex with Miss Applethwaite, the English teacher, doesn't mean that ten years down the line he's not going to have a hard time thinking about how one of his earliest sexual experiences was with a woman almost old enough to be his mother.
And let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. What if this teacher-type person had been a man? Disregard your feelings about homosexuality and just think of it in terms of sexuality, period. If this had been a 31 year-old male teacher who had consensual sex with a gay 16 year-old boy from school, would you feel outrage? If it had been a 16 year-old lesbian student with this 31 year-old female teacher-type person, would you feel uncomfortable?
If this had been YOUR son or daughter, would you care?
I know I would. You want to talk about Mama Grizzly? Go ahead and take advantage of my flesh and blood. That's when the claws come out
Posted by: MWR at January 31, 2011 07:40 AM (4df7R)
There are other things that we can do
but only if you're tired of getting -- scratched
Honk the horn real good
and you'll wake the neighborhood
and they'll have a marvelous view
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2011 07:41 AM (NmKUg)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 07:41 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 07:43 AM (0Hp4r)
Posted by: MWR at January 31, 2011 07:44 AM (4df7R)
So because you're a misogynistic jerk the rest of us are, too? Umm... no.
See, there are a lot of us who believe that- whether you want it to or not, and whether you think it does or not- having sex with someone makes a "relationship" and the ending (or continuing) of that relationship has consequences.
When you and Brian doink somebody, it could be "just for fun," but that is not (whatever you've been told) the "normal" attitude. That is an animalistic thing, and giving into those desires is giving up the very thing that makes humans different from animals: the ability to delay- or even completely deny- gratification.
Inasmuch as the family unit is the primary building block of society- anything that harms that foundation is bad for society. Guys getting their rocks off with the nearest thing with two legs and possibly functional mammaries is incredibly destructive to the family unit.
Or had you missed the posts about the destruction of the Black family?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 07:44 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 31, 2011 11:33 AM (TpXEI)
But this whole thing comes about because the "boy" is a Victim...
Yeah... she's a pretty screwed up woman... but if being screwed up was enough to get thrown in Prison for, I know a LOOOOTTTTT of women who would be in Jail right now.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 07:45 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 11:44 AM (8y9MW)
Ahhh... the name calling begins... how... predictable.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 07:47 AM (AdK6a)
I propose we start treating teachers the way pop culture treats catholic priests. Every catholic priest is a potential sex offender, and I say every female school teacher is also a potential sex offender. You rarely, sometimes but very rarely, hear about male teachers fucking female students. But every week we hear about some fat whore screwing some 16 year old boy's brains out. Now I know what you're thinking, great for the boy, right? But it's sexual predation! These women are sick in the head. The hell with them. Every teacher goes through a psyche exam fit for an astronaut, I say. We'll take the money from girl's sports to pay for it. Fucking pedophile teachers...and you know she's still gonna get her pension.
Posted by: Robert at January 31, 2011 07:47 AM (4q6A5)
--I don't think you've really thought this through. What happens when, as in any relationship, there is a disagreement? You know, a disagreement between a sexually inexperienced teenager with a person in authority, willing to break laws and cheat on their spouse, who has a vested interest in keeping things quiet?
The problem, here, is a teacher having sex with a student. iot's a purely legal thing (and one of the fact that people in authority shouldn't be boinking their charges, generally. But, any claim that the male student is somehow traumatized by this is ridiculous.
--The women doinking teenage boys aren't angels. They're psychos. They are going to behave as psychos when things don't go according to plan.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 31, 2011 11:09 AM (TpXEI)
They're emotionally damaged, obviously. But if guys refused to have sex with emotionally damaged women, that would really restrict the field. She's not a psycho, just immature and ... a bit too giving. But I'm sure the student appreciated the gift.
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 07:48 AM (AK0dh)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 11:44 AM (8y9MW)
OH, and in your OUTRAGE at my poor attitude... did you bother to notice I was speaking for MYSELF and SOME men like me???
Or are you too busy getting your panties in a wad...
(heck, as long as I'm being accused of being a misogynistic jerk... I may as well enjoy it...)
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 07:50 AM (AdK6a)
You're the one who said you only doinked people for the sex- that you had no interest in a "relationship." If that's not misogyny, I'm really not sure what is.
Women may not need "protection" in the sense they once did, but they should still be honored and (for lack of a better term) revered. Your stance (and Brian's) is about as far from that as you can get without actually calling them "things" or "animals."
You might think through the logical consequences of having the idea that sex for recreation is a good idea.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 07:50 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: drowningpuppies at January 31, 2011 07:51 AM (012vu)
OMG, there should be no difference in thinking cause this is a boy.
Posted by: curious at January 31, 2011 11:30 AM (p302b)
From an emotional point of view, that's absolutely ridiculous. A guy who bangs lots of girls is a casanova. A girl who bangs lots of guys is a skank.
That's the difference between the sexes, and it comes out of the differences in sex to a man or a woman. Men don't get pregnant. Women do. Anyone who thinks that men and women SHOULD view sex the same way is denying basic biology.
People can argue the legality of this, but anyone who claims the boy is traumatized is crazy.
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 07:52 AM (AK0dh)
Outrage is in the mind of the accused, I suppose. I'm simply pointing out the truth of your ideas.
And I wasn't labeling everybody. I was directing my comments directly at you (again, and Brian, who also noted that he things roughly the same way). So I'm not really sure why you're even bringing that point up.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 07:54 AM (8y9MW)
She had a husband and has two children. I think once the future ex-husband kicks her to the curb, the first words out of his mouth to the divorce judge will be primary custody.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at January 31, 2011 07:55 AM (1hM1d)
You're the one who said you only doinked people for the sex- that you had no interest in a "relationship." If that's not misogyny, I'm really not sure what is.
Women may not need "protection" in the sense they once did, but they should still be honored and (for lack of a better term) revered. Your stance (and Brian's) is about as far from that as you can get without actually calling them "things" or "animals."
You might think through the logical consequences of having the idea that sex for recreation is a good idea.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 11:50 AM (8y9MW)
Uh.... 51 years old... been single for the vast majority of it... and had an active Sex life... was a full time single parent from the time my kids were 2 until they moved out this year.
I've been in and out of relationships... but have ALWAYS been very clear about my intentions, and where I was at.... and am almost brutal in my honesty.
I have NEVER forced anyone into anything... especially emotionaly...
Sooo.... if the Women of my life don't have any complaints about my behaviour, or attitude.... I find it interesting that YOU do...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 07:56 AM (AdK6a)
Schools have enough money, they just waste it on crap.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 31, 2011 07:56 AM (4ucxv)
No they're not ridiculous. You are focusing on the sex act and pretending it will happen and, like trout or some other animal in the wild, both will go their separate ways.
Yes, normal intercourse is not likely to traumatize the boy, but then, a thirty year old man engaging in consensual sex with a sixteen year old girl is unlikely to traumatize her as well. It's all the >other< stuff that goes along with the sex which causes the trauma.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 31, 2011 07:56 AM (TpXEI)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 11:54 AM (8y9MW)
So, if I say you are an ASSHOLE.... then I'm not calling you an ASSHOLE?
How... nuanced...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 07:57 AM (AdK6a)
So you're saying that, because men can't get pregnant, there is no reason they shouldn't be as promiscuous as possible? This might surprise you, but Casa Nova is not actually universally revered among men.
Even if you're right about the emotional part (I don't think you are, btw, but I'll grant it for now) there are also important societal and moral considerations, and consequences in both of those spheres from this kind of relationship.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 07:57 AM (8y9MW)
So, the kid gets laid, the rest of the students get out of school early, and the teachers get paid to sit in a seminar, lay back, and count the holes in the ceiling acoustical tiles.
Lad is a shoe-in for Prom King.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2011 07:57 AM (NmKUg)
They are not reporting that he ever lied to her, or that she didn't already know who he was.
Posted by: lauraw at January 31, 2011 07:58 AM (0RH7A)
They were found by a copy from the Loveland, CO Police Department.
Loveland?
How very.....appropriate.
Ahem.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 31, 2011 07:58 AM (sbV1u)
Did you pass reading comprehension?
I never denied calling you a misogynistic jerk. And I still think you are.
If that makes me an "asshole," then I guess I fart in your general direction.
Sooo.... if the Women of my life don't have any complaints about my behaviour, or attitude.... I find it interesting that YOU do...
Yes, it's called a concrete moral structure. Some things are right, and some things are wrong. Casual sex is wrong. That's not that hard.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 08:00 AM (8y9MW)
Schools waste a lot of classroom time on crap, too.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 31, 2011 08:00 AM (4ucxv)
Women may not need "protection" in the sense they once did, but they should still be honored and (for lack of a better term) revered. Your stance (and Brian's) is about as far from that as you can get without actually calling them "things" or "animals."
I utterly and completely agree.
However, the girls aren't buying it anymore. Most of them are screwing with abandon and have completely given up on relationships first. Guys don't have to worry about getting laid, they worry about getting stalked and if they screw the girl--- is there anyway to get her to go away ever? It's a weird reversal of the traditional thinking. THEY are the ones that need to value themselves and they just aren't doing it. Girls can't expect to be valued if they are giving themselves away at every opportunity. I'm constantly stunned at cute girls in private schools from good families giving it up to random guys all the time. It's disturbing and I don't know what caused the shift. And all the guys aren't too nuts about it either.
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 08:01 AM (0Hp4r)
128 From what I've seen of it, this is pretty much the case -- they aren't after the hot jock types; they're after the shy, easily led ones. Because this is about power, sex not so much.
What is being missed here is: why was she out parking? I don't know about you, but by age 30 (hell, younger than that) I was preferring the comfort of my bed for the horizontal tango...I didn't need a car because there was no sneaking around...oh, that's right -- this broad has a family, so she had to sneak around. So it's ok for her to cheat on her family because **cking 16 yo. boys is victimless...I'm sure her own kids are probably just fine with all of this. Oh, and she got the kid liquored up too...hmmm, that means she had to buy booze...why would you buy booze when both parties were obviously concensual? What is usually the reason guys have to get girls liquored up before a parking session? Could it be that she had every intention of treating this boy like guys who get girls really drunk in order to take their clothes off? And we're condoning this? (I personally wouldn't be happy to find out my son had done that to some girl of his own age, but we're talking about a 30 something and a teenager here), and her kids get to know that Mommy likes to bop teenage boys she's gotten drunk.
Wow, no victims at all with this case...there should be more women like this out there for all those teenage boys...hey, maybe you guys (or your sons) can talk your wives and daughters into being just like this...do it for the teenage boys (remember: you were one once yourself, and it's only fair).
Posted by: unknown jane at January 31, 2011 08:01 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: ya2daup at January 31, 2011 08:03 AM (7GfKM)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 08:03 AM (0Hp4r)
Posted by: moi at January 31, 2011 08:04 AM (Ez4Ql)
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 08:04 AM (olKiY)
Completely agree. Not to mention they should try to root out some of the useless loads that enabled this by suspecting something but not wanting to be judgmental. Fuck that shit; toss them all.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 10:35 AM (olKiY)
And still there are those who say that there's no wasted spending to be cut from education budgets whatsoever.
Posted by: ya2daup at January 31, 2011 08:05 AM (7GfKM)
A male student has as much a chance of being traumatized as a female, because many of the female students in these situations are predators. I've seen them go after male teachers, and heard stories from friends who are teachers.
Posted by: Alex at January 31, 2011 08:06 AM (J2ejK)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 31, 2011 11:56 AM (TpXEI)
Society protects girls more than boys. Always has. The attempt, these days, to view girls and boys the same way is totally unnatural and will not end well.
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 08:07 AM (AK0dh)
Who wants to bet this woman drives a Subaru Bareback Outback?
Posted by: MWR at January 31, 2011 11:44 AM (4df7R)
FIFP
Posted by: ya2daup at January 31, 2011 08:08 AM (7GfKM)
The idea that all sexual predators do real time is sadly mistaken. A glance at actual sentences for things even more vile than screwing your teen students would shock and amaze for the lack of seriousness that many of these crimes are viewed with. I know of two band teachers who knew each other, who abused young boys, in the one case middle schoolers and were simply fired.
Posted by: kidney at January 31, 2011 08:08 AM (ENRGu)
Sooo.... if the Women of my life don't have any complaints about my behaviour, or attitude.... I find it interesting that YOU do...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 11:56 AM (AdK6a)
Don't have any complaints? That's why you have an ex-wife or am I missing something? And your nic is pretty hilarious; you sound like an STD mosh pit.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 08:09 AM (olKiY)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 08:09 AM (0Hp4r)
1) TV since the 1960's
2) Mom & (more importantly) Dad letting them watch TV (since the 60's)
Those are really my top two- sex as a form of entertainment or (at most) confirmation of affection (not to mention the lie that "love" is something we feel) has been so pervasive in popular culture for at least the last 50 years that there are middle aged women who never knew any different.
Add on top of that the fact that Mom & Dad think it's "okay" so it must be alright and you get the seeds. Throw in some "self esteem" mumbo-jumbo (the real kind, finding yourself "worthy" and able to view your accomplishments, or lack thereof, through that prism) and you've got today's moral sinkhole. And too many guys have been all to ready to take advantage of it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 08:10 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: unknown jane
That might be a bit of a stretch. Sayth the press, "both were naked and there were bottles of Sprite and vodka in the vehicle, according to the arrest affidavit."
She stated that the boy had only tried one sip of the alcohol, although that one sip was enough to get an additional charge tacked on.
Frankly, throw her in the clink for buying Sprite. Euuch!
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2011 08:10 AM (NmKUg)
Masters Degree in EducationSocial Justice. As far as I can tell from the "master's degree research in education" class I accidentally sat in on instead of a real research methods class, you only need an IQ of room temperature to complete the coursework (...my classmates were jr high home ec teachers, and all they ever talked about was their students having sex. Ostensibly, they were going to "research" that.)
(The link is from Kansas, but it's probably similar in Colorado.)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 31, 2011 08:10 AM (4ucxv)
Posted by: kidney at January 31, 2011 08:11 AM (ENRGu)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 12:00 PM (8y9MW)
Thats your moral view... and funny that I don't call you names for having it...
While myself, who sees casual safe Sex as a victimless passtime, which if done by two consenting adults is NOT wrong... can be called names...
Interesting view for one who advocates Freedom of Thought on almost every thread...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 08:12 AM (AdK6a)
44: Ya know, I'm thinking there's a LOT more of this happening than priests, but for some reason everyone ignores public school teachers boffing the kids, but with the priests it was all pants-on-fire.
Because you can't get money out of the government schools and you can from the Church. That's all there is to it. BTW, seen the latest study noting that a great number of claims of clergy sexual abuse are lies by garbage hunters trying to ride the gravy train? No, you didn't. Follow the money, as a wise man once said. . .
Posted by: Christopher at January 31, 2011 08:13 AM (zF6Iw)
Unlike the Catholic church, a school can raise property taxes nearly indefinitely to pay the settlements.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 31, 2011 08:13 AM (4ucxv)
Don't have any complaints? That's why you have an ex-wife or am I missing something? And your nic is pretty hilarious; you sound like an STD mosh pit.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 12:09 PM (olKiY)
Actually, my Nick on here was my Desert Storm Callsign... back from when I WAS faithfully married...
So... just a bitttt outside....
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 08:14 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 31, 2011 08:14 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: CUS at January 31, 2011 10:50 AM (wOGfT)
You're right. Coulter broke down the numbers in the same book she blew apart the whole "teachers are underpaid" canard.
Posted by: Blackford Oakes at January 31, 2011 08:14 AM (MadRw)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 11:44 AM (8y9MW)
Mom? Mom, is that you?
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 08:15 AM (sYrWB)
Posted by: kidney at January 31, 2011 08:16 AM (ENRGu)
173 I agree but I also include abortion in this. The historic reason for not having random indiscreet sex is gone.
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 08:17 AM (0Hp4r)
Romeo, I think the big difference here is that this did not involve two consenting adults -- there was a big age difference and a big difference in social roles. They were not equals.
Now if two consenting adults of equal rank in society (aka. roughly the same peer group) want to do the dirty nasty for just the physical aspects of it, then that is their business -- have at it with their bad selves actually -- but trying to make this situation out to be that is a bit of a stretch.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 31, 2011 08:18 AM (5/yRG)
Imagine this chick gets pregnant and has the baby. TA DA! You are now a dad at 16.
Posted by: kidney at January 31, 2011 08:18 AM (ENRGu)
Posted by: Buffalobob at January 31, 2011 08:18 AM (GwH6h)
You can think what you want. I've never said you couldn't. I also get to think of you, based on your comments, what I want. Please note I was not calling you a misogynistic jerk as a pejorative, but as an actual descriptor.
The difference, if you will, between calling a Liberal "pinko commie scum" (usually a pejorative) and "idiot" (usually a descriptor).
That's okay (from a "freedom" standpoint, anyway). People are free to vote Democrat, too. I'll call them idiots, too (and do, on occasion).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 08:19 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Moron with raging hormones at January 31, 2011 11:08 AM (Zi+FQ)
Exactly. What these stories illustrate is how different young men and women are, feminist cant notwithstanding.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 31, 2011 08:19 AM (ujg0T)
Son: "I'm having trouble with my new teacher. She's...well...all touchy and moist."
Dad: "You want me to take her off your hands?"
Son: "Sure."
Dad: "Oh, I sent your sister's cute little tennis coach a new iPod. From you, of course. I think she's more your kind, and I never see her with anyone. Maybe you'll get something out of that. Now go work out, you'll need it."
Son: "YOU'RE A GREAT DAD!"
Posted by: JEM at January 31, 2011 08:19 AM (o+SC1)
.
Posted by: kidney at January 31, 2011 08:20 AM (ENRGu)
If there ever was a clear expression of dread on a person's face, that one has to be it.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 31, 2011 08:20 AM (nD3Pg)
she got the kid liquored up too...
Posted by: unknown jane
I'm sure she didn't have to "trick" the kid into drinking...
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 31, 2011 08:21 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: JDW at January 31, 2011 08:21 AM (uw+0A)
Posted by: SGT Dan at January 31, 2011 08:21 AM (HBTr7)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 31, 2011 12:18 PM (5/yRG)
OH.... I aggree... two totally different things...
But... is the crime bad enough... is the damage to boy enough... to put this lady in Jail for 20 years???? some murderers get less time...
And to take away any and all contact with her Children?
If she'd been out raping 6 year olds?? Put her in Jail forever...
But consensual Sex with a 16 year old boy? I just have a problem with his "victim" status rising to the point of destroying that many lives...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 08:23 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 31, 2011 08:23 AM (SJ6/3)
Posted by: California Red at January 31, 2011 08:23 AM (7uWb8)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 08:24 AM (0Hp4r)
Well, all we have at this point are press accounts of the police report, and that's what they said. Nothing mentioned about the boy being drunk or insensate.
On top of it all, this "woman" was an authority figure, by way of her title and her age.
Actually, I haven't seen anything about her being a direct authority figure to the boy, although in addition to staff training she did some tutoring of students, so she could have know him through that. At this point, it could be like banging the high school janitor in the broom closet in-between class, and who among us hasn't done that?
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2011 08:25 AM (NmKUg)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 31, 2011 08:25 AM (SJ6/3)
I won't lie, when I was 16 I would have hit it,
Especially when you realize the mug shot pic at the article was this lady at her *worst*. Fun and joke aside, young men and women are different, and "feminist" dogma is debunked with situations like this.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 31, 2011 08:25 AM (ujg0T)
All pinko commie scum are idiots, but not all idiots are pinko commie scum.
kidney--yeah, but you know what I mean. They see a never-ending supply of tax dollars available for crap.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 31, 2011 08:26 AM (4ucxv)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 08:26 AM (4Pleu)
She was my cousin's babysitter before she got the school gig--would have been like banging family. Eeew.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 31, 2011 08:27 AM (4ucxv)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 31, 2011 08:27 AM (SJ6/3)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 12:19 PM (8y9MW)
Interesting... Jerk is a descriptor???
Idiot, which used to have a legal definition, can be used against people as a descriptor of fact, even though you have no proof of that status... and are thus making a potentialy unfounded accusation of a status?
But its NOT calling someone a name?
/head spins....
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 08:27 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 08:28 AM (0Hp4r)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 12:28 PM (0Hp4r)
Party pooper...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 08:30 AM (AdK6a)
196 I'm making the point that usually you don't have really guilt free consensual sex if you're needing booze as part of the foreplay. I'm just going off personal experience: never needed booze to get the job done; did witness people using booze to try and get the job though...they're intentions were usually not very pure.
203 If you are a married woman, 30ish, with a family, who works in education, then you are an authority figure to a 16 yo. (and I'm not buying she didn't know how old he was, just like I'm not really buying the "only had a sip" thing...but maybe I'm all wrong).
Romeo -- I don't know about 20 years, but she does deserve more than a slap on the wrist for this, and has been mentioned: we don't know all the particulars to this case; maybe there's more to it that caused this decision to be made?
Posted by: unknown jane at January 31, 2011 08:32 AM (5/yRG)
Of course, the problem remains that once women gain a measure of independence -- being able to procure birth-control, enter the workplace, etc. -- the birthrate in that place tends to plummet below replacement rate, and the nuclear family unit tends to fracture as the woman (the traditional center of the household) leaves. We still haven't quite figured that one out yet.
I'm only about half convinced that's not a tax increase scheme.
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 08:32 AM (0Hp4r)
--So you're saying that, because men can't get pregnant, there is no reason they shouldn't be as promiscuous as possible? This might surprise you, but Casa Nova is not actually universally revered among men.
No. I'm saying that the physical nature of sex and each gender's role in it makes for a natural organization that is different between males and females.
--Even if you're right about the emotional part (I don't think you are, btw, but I'll grant it for now) there are also important societal and moral considerations, and consequences in both of those spheres from this kind of relationship.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 11:57 AM (8y9MW)
This teacher should be fired and not allowed to teach kids, but that is about the extent of it. She isn't a danger to society. If the boy had been 13 or younger, that's a different story.
Look, I taught university classes and understood full well that it was just wrong to have any relationships with students in my classes (even though they were all of age). Not only was it low for me to take advantage of my position, but it was unfair to others in class if one student is screwing around with the instructor. That part, teacher/student relations, I agree with you on. It's the idea that a 16 year old is traumatized or that males and females should be treated the same in sexual situations that I find odd and totally unnatural.
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 08:32 AM (AK0dh)
I suppose that is theoretically true HeatherRadish, but I doubt that infinite taxation is possible in fact.
Posted by: kidney at January 31, 2011 12:16 PM (ENRGu)
We'll just see about that, buckeroo.
Posted by: Preznint Splutnik at January 31, 2011 08:34 AM (7GfKM)
Posted by: hobbes at January 31, 2011 08:35 AM (du4U/)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 12:17 PM (0Hp4r)
Abortion only handles one part of the sexual environment. It is still only women who can get pregnant. The fact is that women will always be the bottleneck of population - i.e. men are almost insignificant in terms of growing the population, as one man can impregnate 1000 women but each woman can only give birth once a year. If one wants to see the health of a population, one needs to look at its women, not its men. The gender roles with respect to sex, even with abortion, are still not even close to equivalent.
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 08:39 AM (AK0dh)
Glenn Beck hires SE Cupp. (no moron E-cup jokes please)
SE announced this last week.
Sex with a teacher at 16 would have had zero negative effects on me...unless she was really, really hot. Then I'd have developed unreasonable standards.
Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2011 08:43 AM (K2FtY)
Pfew! Gee, Romeo, I'm glad that you got the brunt of Allen's sanctimoneousness.
BTW, I could tell that you were a misogynist the first time that you posted here.
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 08:45 AM (sYrWB)
Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2011 08:46 AM (K2FtY)
Doll the woman up a bit and she could pass for a moronette. So yes, the kid is going to have a sore arm from all the high-fives.
The problem is that from what I can tell, she is married and has two children. So he can ALSO walk around knowing that he was part of a family going to pieces. Also, her husband may be a big dweeb- doesn't matter if he's holding a gun. And he WILL be out to get this kid.
Posted by: Sock Puppy at January 31, 2011 08:47 AM (0LZTz)
BTW, I could tell that you were a misogynist the first time that you posted here.
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 12:45 PM (sYrWB)
Hey! Look who's back.
You know how you can tell a beta-male?
They accuse other men of being misogynists.
Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2011 08:49 AM (K2FtY)
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 08:53 AM (sYrWB)
Posted by: gar at January 31, 2011 08:53 AM (6ffcS)
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 08:55 AM (AK0dh)
Posted by: rusticbroad at January 31, 2011 08:56 AM (FjF3P)
Thanks, Gloria, Andrea and Catherine!
Posted by: brian at January 31, 2011 08:56 AM (y05cf)
Posted by: baldilocks at January 31, 2011 10:29 AM (T2/zQ)
Correct. It should be the years of rejection and general disdain that causes callousness toward women.
Posted by: Large McBighuge at January 31, 2011 08:56 AM (MIwwh)
Posted by: gar at January 31, 2011 08:58 AM (6ffcS)
Well, that's what caused my callousness.
Posted by: brian at January 31, 2011 09:00 AM (y05cf)
Pfew! Gee, Romeo, I'm glad that you got the brunt of Allen's sanctimoneousness.
BTW, I could tell that you were a misogynist the first time that you posted here.
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 12:45 PM (sYrWB)
I don't know if having the dipshit that believed Will Folks and basically called Nikki Haley a dirty slut is someone to decide whether someone is a missogynist or not. Unless you subscribe to the belief of "takes one to know one"
Posted by: buzzion at January 31, 2011 09:01 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Sock Puppy
Kinda got a chubby Denise Crosby thing going, without the hard edges.
Seen worse.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2011 09:02 AM (NmKUg)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 31, 2011 09:02 AM (SJ6/3)
I know a lot of the Morons will joke about this and that's okay, but this crap hurts boys emotionally just as much as the opposite situation hurts girls, if not in the same way. It produces a callousness toward women in these boys. "
Much as I like Juliette "baldilocks" Ochieng (sp?), not so much.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 31, 2011 09:03 AM (ujg0T)
Society protects girls more than boys. Always has. The attempt, these days, to view girls and boys the same way is totally unnatural and will not end well.
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 12:07 PM (AK0dh)
What if it's a thirty year old man doinking a sixteen year old boy? Is
that acceptable? Since boys don't need protection from thirty year olds and all...
This has nothing to do with the gender of the victim. Unfortunately, the 'attaboy' behavior here has everything to do with the gender of perpetrator and her attractiveness.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 31, 2011 09:03 AM (TpXEI)
Posted by: gar at January 31, 2011 09:06 AM (6ffcS)
Posted by: Iblis at January 31, 2011 09:06 AM (9221z)
Buzzion, you weirdo, Romeo knows that I was joking. If you had been following the discussion, you would have known it, too.
You're very sick; still obsessing after me for all of these months. Get a life, you creepy loser.
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 09:06 AM (sYrWB)
What if it's a thirty year old man doinking a sixteen year old boy? Is that acceptable? Since boys don't need protection from thirty year olds and all...
Ah, but in a homosexual situation, the 16 year old boy "becomes the girl" in effect.
Which is also why changing the definition of marriage is problematic....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 31, 2011 09:07 AM (ujg0T)
Lovers don't have to be equals. What a silly argument. And I don't see how much of a difference it would have made if he was 18. Would we still be calling him a "boy" if the age of consent in his state was 21? Personally, I don't think you become an adult until you are working and living on your own.
Posted by: gar at January 31, 2011 01:06 PM (6ffcS)
Um in certain aspects they do. Like they have to be equals under the law pertaining to age of consent. I wouldn't have a speeding ticket doing 65 in a 55 either if the speed limit was 65 in my state.
Posted by: buzzion at January 31, 2011 09:12 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: buzzion at January 31, 2011 09:13 AM (oVQFe)
More of your senseless blathering. I'm sure that your creepy comments make perfect sense to you, schmuck. But they won't make any sense to any rational person.
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 09:15 AM (sYrWB)
Okay, a thirty year old transexual teacher having sex with a 16 year old boy.
Or a thirty year old female teacher having sex with a 16 year old girl.
Maybe it's better to just not let teachers have sex with 16 year olds, and to prosecute them all the same, and to accept that some perpetrator/victim combinations can cause really bad trauma to the victim.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 31, 2011 09:16 AM (TpXEI)
Posted by: gar at January 31, 2011 09:18 AM (6ffcS)
Posted by: buzzion at January 31, 2011 09:19 AM (oVQFe)
Scared stiff?
Posted by: toby928™ at January 31, 2011 09:19 AM (GTbGH)
If the boy was raped, the perp should be locked up. Being raped* by a woman wouldn't be painful. Coercive yes, but not painful and it wouldn't cause nearly as much as psychological trauma. It was consensual, I'd say lock him up too but knowing how fucked up the gay community is, I don't think the victim would think it was a big deal if he identified as gay.
*Woman on Man rape exists in South Africa and it is surprisingly coercive but he women have to attack in packs.
Posted by: gar at January 31, 2011 01:18 PM (6ffcS)
The boy was raped. There is no way for you to avoid calling it rape.
Posted by: buzzion at January 31, 2011 09:20 AM (oVQFe)
Okay, a thirty year old transexual teacher having sex with a 16 year old boy.
Or a thirty year old female teacher having sex with a 16 year old girl.
Maybe it's better to just not let teachers have sex with 16 year olds, and to prosecute them all the same, and to accept that some perpetrator/victim combinations can cause really bad trauma to the victim.
No disagreement there. I'm just saying the *impact* will be different depending upon the participants...
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 31, 2011 09:23 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 09:23 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: gar at January 31, 2011 09:23 AM (6ffcS)
Maybe they were on there way to a Obama rally?
Posted by: Kemp at January 31, 2011 09:24 AM (JpFM9)
Posted by: gar at January 31, 2011 09:27 AM (6ffcS)
Their reporters are still in Alaska, because of the vitriol.
Posted by: toby928™ at January 31, 2011 09:27 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Tantor at January 31, 2011 09:28 AM (blNMI)
BTW, I could tell that you were a misogynist the first time that you posted here.
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 12:45 PM (sYrWB)
And Miscogony, by definition, is the HATRED of women...
Problem is that I adore women... enough to be upfront and tell them the truth..
But for that... and being an Unrepetent MAN, who does not think like certain other Males... one who belives that Men and Women ARE different, and Via La Difference! I'm called names which are an insult in our society...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 09:30 AM (AdK6a)
Mountain View High School instructor Courtney Bowles, 31, bought the booze, picked up the unnamed boy and parked her blue Subaru in North Lake Park about 10:40 p.m. Friday, the report says.
OK, the bold gives it away, obviously she is bi. No straight people drive Lesbarus.
Posted by: Kemp at January 31, 2011 09:30 AM (JpFM9)
In social aspects they don't. And if 18 or 21 is the magic number, then why isn't it universal instead of changing from state to state? What makes the teens in Iowa so different from the teens in Idaho that they need different age limits for each state?
Posted by: gar at January 31, 2011 01:23 PM (6ffcS)
I'm not talking socially. I'm talking legally. It essentially is an arbitrary number decided by the law that says "In this situation you are equals." Age of consent, speed limit. Is there really much different between the interstates in Idaho or Iowa that they can have different speed limits?
Or is it just that you're upset that you can't tap any of those cheerleaders at the high school basketball game?
Posted by: buzzion at January 31, 2011 09:30 AM (oVQFe)
No disagreement there. I'm just saying the *impact* will be different depending upon the participants...
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 31, 2011 01:23 PM (ujg0T)
This I agree with; as in all things human, different people will react to different things in different ways. And it won't always be apparent immediately just what the impact will be for a given individual. But to act as if this is a victimless crime is just daft imo. The purported adult was in the wrong here and any attempt to make the 16 year old to not be a victim, even if he was already a fucking hound, is an obtuse way of thinking.
100% chance the teacher's union goes to bat for this scrunt.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 09:34 AM (olKiY)
But to act as if this is a victimless crime is just daft imo. The purported adult was in the wrong here and any attempt to make the 16 year old to not be a victim, even if he was already a fucking hound, is an obtuse way of thinking.
Kudos to Monty for spelling out how the male participants, and the broader society, are harmed.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 31, 2011 09:43 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: JCELEPHANT at January 31, 2011 09:44 AM (RRXXo)
Bzzt. Sanctimony requires that I don't hold myself to the same moral standard. At worst, you can only get me for "moralizing," and I don't mind that one bit.
I used to, by the way. I used to be a "don't judge" type who thought "free will, they can make their own choices, they know themselves best..." then I watched all (yep, all) my friends from High School self destruct within two years of HS graduation.
Why didn't I? Moral rules from which I did not deviate. So, you'll excuse me if I believe morals are a concrete thing about which one can be right or wrong, not some abstract thing about which people can simply have "opposing views."
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 01:30 PM (AdK6a)
You're absolutely right. Men and Women are different. That doesn't change the gravity of sexual relationships or the care one should take in having them. It also doesn't change the fact that "hookups" are inherently misogynistic. Since the only real threat of consequence (short of legal proceedings) is to the woman, any man looking for casual sex is using a woman like he would an inanimate object.
You don't have to avoid something to hate it. Indeed, hate is often worst when it is hidden by what one thinks is affection.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 09:48 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 01:48 PM (8y9MW)
Hmmmm.... so in your view, a Woman, who wants to "hook up", Hates Women?
Because that is what Miscogynistic means...
You keepa using that word.... I don't think it means what you think it means...
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 10:00 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 01:48 PM (8y9MW)
No, Allen, they're very animated. But if they were inanimate, that would be okay, too.
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 10:09 AM (sYrWB)
Or something like that. It could, actually, be just that. Or, from the woman, it could be misanthropy (though that's used much more generally to mean "hatred of people" instead of "hatred of men"). However, since what we were talking about here was the behavior of men seeking to hook up (and, your behavior specifically), I felt safe enough using the word which described my evaluation of your behavior (and, based on your defense thereof, character).
Posted by: Brian at January 31, 2011 02:09 PM (sYrWB)
The prosecution rests, your honor.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 10:15 AM (8y9MW)
#230 Correct. It should be the years of rejection and general disdain that causes callousness toward women.
That's pretty much what did it to me.
Posted by: SGT Dan at January 31, 2011 10:21 AM (GgXZc)
The prosecution rests, your honor.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 02:15 PM (8y9MW)
Ah... so anyone, man or woman, who does not aggree with your puritanical value system about SAFE sex... hates women...
/looks around for the Fonzie and the Shark Tank....
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 31, 2011 10:27 AM (AdK6a)
Yeah, about that...
I took some courses at my local U with an eye towards getting certified when I was fresh out of College and there were some current teachers in the courses with me getting their CE credits.
The combination of the content of the courses and the character of my someday "peers" turned me off of working in public education forever.
A room full of apathetic or hostile teenage gangbangers not too hot on Pre-Algebra or Geometry? I can work with that (and have!).
I knew I would inevitably lose my shit someday in the faculty lounge though...
(And this, in my early 20's, "all people are basically decent and mean to do well" phase!)
All platitudes about "underpaid, dedicated, only in it because they lurve the children so" (Shaddup! I've had more than my share when I was a kid. I know they're real.) aside, the "adults" populating most of our schools on any given day are, by and large, the most abysmally ignorant, spiritually defective bunch of clock-punchers as you are ever likely to encounter, as a group.
I blame the Ed schools.
Take some, too dim for real academics, but well intentioned and bright enough kids and stuff their heads full of nonsense and this is what you get!
Meh.
I content myself with hand-holding through Calculus and whatnot, the occasional stray that seeks to gain the credentials needed to teach 2ndary Math through our local Hippy College. (Yeah, it happens. Freaks those patchouli soaked enviro-nuts, right the fuck out but 'Hey! We are pretending to be an academic institution and not just a cargo cult aren't we? Says so on our brochures!')
They won't let me oversee any more theses though...
They know better now, after my first two "mentees".
Dangerous, dangerous ideas being promulgated but who you gonna call?
(Seriously, they don't have anyone in their entire organization, on either campus, competent enough to pick up the phone and answer a question about an Algebra assignment. Tells me something. That right there.)
Pay is ridiculous. But I don't "mentor" future Math teachers for the Benjamins and we all know that.
I do it for REVENGE!!!!!
Posted by: Deety at January 31, 2011 10:33 AM (Jb3+B)
Pretty well, yes. Oh, I don't doubt there are exceptions, but I imagine they're statistically insignificant.
And who said anything about safe sex? I'm talking about a moral truth, here.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 31, 2011 10:39 AM (8y9MW)
Personally, I don't think these incidents are more prevalent today than in the past. The biggest difference is that, today, when a teacher boffs a student in Colorado, Dave in Texas hears about it immediately. In the old communications era, we would never hear of these things because they were local and there was no internet to spread them. The same goes for child abduction. It seems worse now because we hear about every one of them through the news or the internet. In the past, we only knew of the ones happening locally.
Posted by: Steve L. at January 31, 2011 11:21 AM (Gkhxf)
Posted by: RM at January 31, 2011 11:47 AM (GkYyh)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 11:00 AM (0Hp4r)
As long as she's not his HS teacher, no. (Not quite getting the question.)
Posted by: baldilocks at January 31, 2011 03:10 PM (T2/zQ)
No, it really doesn't. This is part of the lack of parity between the sexes. it mirrors the lack of parity in the different roles each has in sex and the lack of parity in the possible consequences of sex.
Posted by: Charles Krauthammer's 3rd, And Last, Brain Cell at January 31, 2011 11:01 AM (AK0dh)
Maybe it doesn't *feel* painful to the boy when he becomes a man, but it will to the women who try to love him. He'll have trouble trusting the good ones, which, in the long run, hurt him.
Posted by: baldilocks at January 31, 2011 03:13 PM (T2/zQ)
Posted by: Joejm65 at January 31, 2011 11:09 AM (FaJtc)
I think that's mega bullshit too. Good thing no one said that but you.
Posted by: baldilocks at January 31, 2011 03:17 PM (T2/zQ)
Inasmuch as the family unit is the primary building block of society- anything that harms that foundation is bad for society. Guys getting their rocks off with the nearest thing with two legs and possibly functional mammaries is incredibly destructive to the family unit.
Or had you missed the posts about the destruction of the Black family?
+1000
Posted by: baldilocks at January 31, 2011 03:25 PM (T2/zQ)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.4959 seconds, 405 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Captain Hate at January 31, 2011 06:24 AM (olKiY)