patrick.net

Bigsby says

I do, however, think those 2 women failed in their responsibilities as teachers and should not be allowed to teach again. As for locking them away...

Look, what they did was wrong and illegal... but so is jaywalking.

Rin says

Can I have a teacher who looks like Olivia Wilde?

What do you want her to teach?

indigenous says

justme says

If the Democrats started to apply some intelligence to their massively flawed gender politics

Splain please?

Do I have to? I hope you are asking an honest question.... There have been plenty of threads on pat.net, especially the last 6-12 months, illustrating how feminism has demonized and unjustly punished men and relegated them to 2nd class citizenship under the law.

To quote myself:

"Where have you been the last 50 years? Are you aware that that ever since the age of Television started in the 1950s, men as a group have been demonized and accused of being collectively responsible for every kind of misdeed imaginable, whether misdeeds actually happened or not, and whether or not they were guilty of anything. False accusations of child abuse, child molestation, domestic violence, rape and murder of women have been staples of feminist propaganda for 50 years now."

I'll add:

As part of and result of the above propaganda campaign, men are given unequal treatment in the family court system, they are robbed of their children, robbed of their earnings, being subject to paternity fraud (forced by law to pay child support for their (ex-)wives children that are not the man's biological offspring), jailed based on false accusations, given much longer jail sentences than women for exactly the same crime, being falsely accused of every misdeed from sexual harassment to rape AND falsely convicted. Did you read the thread about the "YES-MEANS-NO" law and the kangaroo court system instituted to adjucate "sexual assault" in California universities?

90% of this evil bullshit is either pushed or enabled by the Democratic party. Mind you, I am not giving the Republican party a free pass. The Republican bosses LOVE how working class women are busy fighting their own men, and how working class men respond by seeking refuge with the Republicans, against their own economic self-interest. Not that the Republican top 1% really give a shit, they prefer working class men paying unjust child support rather than having to pay higher taxes themselves.

Whew. Is that enough? Please read up on and understand men's rights and issues. The Democrats have it completely wrong on this topic, and the Republicans are exploiting it for all it's worth.

Peter P says

Rin says

Can I have a teacher who looks like Olivia Wilde?

What do you want her to teach?

Psychology, as in Freudian dream analysis :-)

Rin says

Psychology, as in Freudian dream analysis :-)

Not something more transcendental like the second coming of man? ;-)

justme says

The Democrats have it completely wrong on this topic, and the Republicans are exploiting it for all it's worth.

Ok, just wasn't sure what your angle was, all I can say is yup.

Gloria Steinem's legacy.

The whole thing about unequal pay is purely stat manipulation by rabble rousers.

The real problem is that the majority does not think about the 3rd party.

First just look for things that do not add up, people will then react to what is being said without a second thought, (mutts), or they will have long winded plausible reasons why this or that.

The point it that when things don't add, it is ALWAYS a who question not a why question.

E.G.

War (13 yr in current one) 3rd party = defense contractors

Women's equality = not sure if Democrats or someone higher up

Minimum wage = SEIU

Democrats = Lawyers and unions

Republican = defense contractors

ACA = Big Pharma and insurance companies

Drugs being illegal = Prison guard unions et.al.

Monopoly Suits = the biggest company's competitors

The Civil War = Protectionists(north) putting huge tariffs on South

Excess money supply in the 1920s = the US practicing mercantilism

justme says

We both live in California. The age of consent here is 18. It would be much more sensible if it was 16, but whatever the law is, it should be applied equally to men and women.

I don't live in California. I have a home there. And an age of consent of 18 strikes me as extremely puritanical. The vast majority of countries in Europe are 16 (or under). Only 4 are above that.

justme says

It's what the law says. What I am saying is that the law should not be ignored when it comes to male victims, while men are thrown into jail for a lifetime for engaging in exactly the the same act with a willing 16-year old female.

Who's ignoring it? I'm making the point that I don't consider it rape irrespective of whether it's a man or a woman.

Bigsby says

And an age of consent of 18 strikes me as extremely puritanical.

It is not even puritanical, it is all about restricting the supply. Or exploting the elasticity of the demand. Or some such. Ask Paul Krugman, he could probably put better words on it.

justme says

Ask Paul Krugman, he could probably put better words on it.

My eyes rolled so hard they nearly got stuck.

justme says

Ask Paul Krugman

Are you fucking serious?

justme says

Bigsby says

And an age of consent of 18 strikes me as extremely puritanical.

It is not even puritanical, it is all about restricting the supply. Or exploting the elasticity of the demand. Or some such. Ask Paul Krugman, he could probably put better words on it.

What? It's just one of a number of questionable laws in a country that still appears to have a strong puritanical thread running through it.

Bigsby says

And an age of consent of 18 strikes me as extremely puritanical.

Parents here don't want to take personal responsibility. They always look to elected lawmakers for help.

Peter P says

Bigsby says

And an age of consent of 18 strikes me as extremely puritanical.

Parents here don't want to take personal responsibility. They always look to elected lawmakers for help.

The thing is that '18' is a legal demarcation of being an adult. Heaven forbid that they raise the age of boinking to that of drinking. I couldn't imagine w/o a boink till 21.

Rin says

Heaven forbid that they raise the age of boinking to that of drinking.

The legal drinking age is 18 in many countries.

To me the issue isn't about the age of consent. Teenagers are not old enough to play adult games. There is something very wrong with experienced people who target the minimally experienced. They should be able to "wow" people within their own adult peer group. Otherwise, it's not a level playing field emotionally or intellectually. The kid (no matter how physically mature) is no match for the adult. Just because some adults are so insecure that they prefer to have such an obvious advantage doesn't make it right. Someone has to be the responsible party, and in our world that falls on the adult in the scenario. That said....

The bigger issue, IMHO, and the one that should draw greater focus is when you have a person lie about his/her age. For example, two young girls get fake IDs and go to a bar. They pretend to be 21. They have ID that says they are 21. Other bar goers assume that those girls wouldn't be there if they weren't 21. A couple of guys approach those girls and things happen. Things go sideways and guys get charged with statutory rape.

Physically speaking, there isn't really a lot of difference between a sixteen-year-old girl and an eighteen-year-old girl (or a twenty-one-year-old girl, for that matter). For many, you cannot tell a person's precise age simply by looking at her. You have to take her at her word. And therein lies the problem.

Men have been charged even though the girl went to great lengths to mislead everyone about her age. At what point is she responsible for fraud... or entrapment? Why should a person's life be ruined because he was tricked by a girl seeking to thwart authority?

Rin says

The thing is that '18' is a legal demarcation of being an adult. Heaven forbid that they raise the age of boinking to that of drinking. I couldn't imagine w/o a boink till 21.

And that is yet another example. An age of 21 for legal drinking? That is plain bloody stupid. You are apparently old enough at 17 to join your army and kill people but not old enough for a beer and a bit of horizontal action. Go figure.

turtledove says

There is something very wrong with experienced people who target the minimally experienced.

But sometimes it's the minimally experienced who are attracted to experienced people.

Peter P says

Parents here don't want to take personal responsibility. They always look to elected lawmakers for help

I can see that this law can be overbearing in terms of imposing a jail time. But that does not mean a school should allow this. A relationship like this creates a huge conflict of interest.

In addition, I doubt any parent would want to send his/her kids to a school like that. So if a private school teacher does this to her/his students irrespective of the age of consent, he/she would be fired immediately. That should be applicable to public schools as well. The teachers should not face jail time. But they should be fired.

gsr says

A relationship like this creates a huge conflict of interest.

Conflict-of-interest is overrated. Life, being a zero-sum game, is a huge conflict-of-interest. Caveat emptor is the best antidote.

Besides, a sexual liaison is nothing special nowadays.

gsr says

So if a private school teacher does this to her/his students irrespective of the age of consent, he/she would be fired immediately.

Or perhaps the clientele of a private school tends to be more tactful.

gsr says

The teachers should not face jail time. But they should be fired.

I am all for at-will employment. The school should be able to fire them with or without reason.

turtledove says

statutory rape

Exactly the problem it should not be a statutory law, it should be common law with judges using what they are paid to do, which is to exercise judgment.

turtledove says

To me the issue isn't about the age of consent. Teenagers are not old enough to play adult games. There is something very wrong with experienced people who target the minimally experienced.

You've got it backwards. In reality, it is the other way around: It is the the 16 year old women that DEMAND that their partners must be older (wealthier, more accomplished, better, more proven, etc).

So a 21-year old men cannot have most 21-year old women, because the 21-year old women want a 26-year old man that is still "better". But when the 21-year old man turns to the 16-year old woman that does desire him, you want to blame him for "targeting" (nice choice of a loaded phrase there) "the minimally experienced". And to criminalize the man.

turtledove says

Otherwise, it's not a level playing field emotionally or intellectually

You must be aware of the fact that most 21-year old men are no match for the manipulative skill of a 16-year old woman. If anything, it is the 21-year old men that need to be protected.

justme says

You mys be aware of the fact that most 21-year old men are no match for the manipulative skill of a 16-year old woman.

That is sad. But much of the manipulation fire power of the 16-year old comes from her superior legal position in case things go sideways.

justme says

You must be aware of the fact that most 21-year old men are no match for the manipulative skill of a 16-year old woman. If anything, it is the 21-year old men that need to be protected.

Yes, this is true.

justme says

But when the 21-year old man turns to the 16-year old woman that does desire him, you want to blame him for "targeting" (nice choice of a loaded phrase there) "the minimally experienced". And to criminalize the man

That's turtledove's style, trying to make the man look like the oppressor.

She did the same to me, when I'd said that my sister, with borderline/histrionic personality disorder, had ruined the lives of ppl around her, like the brother-in-law, my dad, and many of her former friends. But yet, it was my fault, for thinking poorly of her and not defending her.

BTW, TD, I'm still waiting for your formal apology, I don't go for that passive-aggressive stuff. You were wrong, now admit it.

indigenous says

Exactly the problem it should not be a statutory law, it should be common law with judges using what they are paid to do, which is to exercise judgment.

Common law (case law and precedent) is very dangerous, especially when judges get to exercise "judgement" on top of that. "Judgement" is exactly what causes men to go to jail for 30 years, while women get a free pass and court-ordered child support from their male rape victim. It is pure insanity.

justme says

indigenous says

Exactly the problem it should not be a statutory law, it should be common law with judges using what they are paid to do, which is to exercise judgment.

Common law (case law and precedent) is very dangerous, especially when judges get to exercise "judgement" on top of that. "Judgement" is exactly what causes men to go to jail for 30 years, while women get a free pass and court-ordered child support from their male rape victim. It is pure insanity.

Obviously there have to be boundaries written into the law. They are executing judgement every day already. Any judge who breaks those boundaries should get prosecuted.

mell says

Obviously there have to be boundaries written into the law. They are executing judgement every day already. Any judge who breaks those boundaries should get prosecuted.

Yeah, except judges cannot be prosecuted for making judgements, only for procedural misconduct. And prosecution is more rare than the appearance of a unicorn.

What about prosecutors? Would it not be great if prosecutors could be prosecuted? Fat chance that will ever happen. At most they will get a reprimand from a the state bar.

justme says

You've got it backwards. In reality, it is the other way around: It is the the 16 year old women that DEMAND that their partners must be older (wealthier, more accomplished, better, more proven, etc).

You really think that the majority of 16-year-old girls think like that? I've not met one. My sixteen-year-old step daughter wants a date to football games... someone to take her to the movies.... Someone to experience a first-time relationship with. Who are these young, teenage girls who are projecting out so far into the future that they will only date guys with wealth and power? The 16-year-old girls I know cannot see past the weekend.

justme says

So a 21-year old men cannot have most 21-year old women, because the 21-year old women want a 26-year old man that is still "better". But when the 21-year old man turns to the 16-year old woman that does desire him, you want to blame him for "targeting" (nice choice of a loaded phrase there) "the minimally experienced". And to criminalize the man.

The 21-year-old man can date women who are 18, 19, 20, etc... They would be considered in his peer group, too. His only two choices aren't dating women his exact age OR combing high schools. There are some options that fall squarely in between, and as a bonus, are legal.

turtledove says

You really think that the majority of 16-year-old girls think like that?

Yes, a majority (>50% does)

justme says

turtledove says

My sixteen-year-old step daughter wants a date to football games...

Prediction: You are being very naive about the nature of 16-year old women. Be forewarned.

BTW an extreme statutory law would include the 3 strike law and abomination it is.

justme says

Yes, a majority (>50% does)

Exactly why statutory law is bad. The bese government is from the bottom up, not centralized.

Somalia practices Xeer law which is 99% common law, and it works.

The last thing we need is more centralized we know best horse shit.

Fellas, just follow the rules and make sure that she looks like she's 25, esp if you suspect a fake ID. Or better yet ... go up to Canada and call an esc*rt agency. And the Canadian Mounties are not like some dimwitted Dudley Do-Rights; they'll bust an agency which employs anyone under 18.

It's bad enough that between adults, 41% of rape charges are faked. Does anyone remember Kobe Bryant, ten years ago in Colorado? After a settlement of a cool million, his accuser disappeared. Now, was that person, looking for justice and some acknowledgement that she was wronged? I don't think so.

The end result ... Kobe had lost his endorsements from Coca-Cola, McDonalds, and Nutella, more than his NBA salary.

Another story in the news today: A 46-year old female Austrialian teacher attempted to have sex with (=rape) a 10-year old boy that she was sexually obsessed with. The boy was smart, pushed her away and told the teacher that he was not old enough to have sex.

Diane Brimble, a teacher and mother of 8 (!!) was sentenced to ZERO jail time and 200 hours of community service. This case is the perfect example
of why judges should, in certain cases, not be allowed to exercise "judgement" with respect to sentencing. What Diane Brimble did was attempted rape. If a male teacher had done the same to a female 10-year old, he would have been locked up for life. That is, if he had even made it alive past the angry lynch mob that would have formed outside his residence.

But Diane Brimble got ZERO jail time because she is a woman.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/female-teacher-who-sought-sex-with-10yearold-boy-walks-free-20141009-113hlz.html

So there you have it. A crime that might get a man strung up by vigilantes gets a woman a slap on the wrists.

QUOTES:

"She tried to manipulate [the boy] to think that she loved him and that his parents did not. This hurts me to the very core," the father said.

"I feel angry that if it was a 46-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl that it would most likely be a different outcome ... I feel angry and betrayed by the Education Department who did nothing to remove this evil woman from other children," he said.

"To think a woman would get a tattoo with my child's name as a sign of her undying love for [the boy] baffles me. I would like Brimble to endure the pain of removing name forever."

About Diane Brimble again:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/female-teacher-groomed-student-10-20141006-10qtvt.html

Remember that big propaganda campaign a few years ago about being on the a vigilant lookout for bad men supposedly "grooming" underage girls to be their sex slaves? Well, guess what, it was female schoolteachers that needed to be looked out for!

Rampantly demonizing ALL men while completely giving women a free pass is all in days work, and probably paying only 72 cents on the dollar [sarcasm alert for the impaired].

justme says

demonizing ALL men while completely giving women a free pass

This is the law of the land these days, an institutionalized double standard.

And then, there are those who continually criticize men like me, who'd given up on dating, years ago. It's like we're suppose to get ripped off by the opposite gender and if we resist getting robbed blind then it's our problem for not being open minded.

Never watched this show. Did they every catch any females?

Vicente says

Never watched this show. Did they every catch any females?

Why don't you have a seat right here?

justme says

This case is the perfect example

of why judges should, in certain cases, not be allowed to exercise "judgement" with respect to sentencing.

That is preferable to the 3 strike law in Calif where the judges hands are tied and the 3rd strike may be for a misdemeanor. Giving, the more often than not drug addict, a 25yr to life sentence. Which is 80% of the inmates.

Again the who question is the prison guards union and the police. Whom feed like vultures on the drug addict charges as they get brownie points when even ever they convict someone.

There would be no more drug abuse if they simply legalized it. It would save a Lot of money and ruined lives or murdered people.

Vicente says

Never watched this show.

You should try to find it online to watch. It's pretty good.

Vicente says

Did they every catch any females?

No. Duh.

indigenous says

That is preferable to the 3 strike law in Calif where the judges hands are tied and the 3rd strike may be for a misdemeanor.

I agree. The California three convictions and you get life in prison is a horribly bad idea.

To fix the problem of female sex predators, though, we need codification that women CANNOT be treated with more lenience that men, and that each judge will have the gender balance of their sentencing practices tracked and forcibly corected. Same thing goes for prosecutors.

I'm NOT a "tough on crime" [sarcasm] kind of person, but men and women should be treated EQUALLY when it comes to prosecution and sentencing. Otherwise we get crazy laws and a crazy society.

justme says

What Diane Brimble did was attempted rape.

Yes, because
1. Ten is way different than 16.
2. She forced herself onto him.

This is an example that illustrates the difference between rape and what the state falsely calls rape in the case of a 16-year-old and a 18-year-old who both want a sexual relationship with each other.

There's also a huge difference between a prepubescent child and an adolescent. Adolescents, particularly mid-to-late teens, have sexual feelings and should have the right to act on those feelings and choose their partners. It's a human right.