If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Female teachers: If you're going to have sex with your 15-year-old students, don't do it in your classroom. Twice   (nydailynews.com) divider line 324
    More: Fail, language arts, Memorial Middle School, Spring Branch, alumni, Texas, teachers  
•       •       •

32526 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jul 2012 at 12:20 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



324 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 02:40:34 PM
www.miataturbo.net
 
2012-07-05 02:41:34 PM

Mr_Fabulous: While I do value her candor a great deal, I feel like I need a second opinion or two (hello Fark!). So... is this a story that needs to be told in a sympathetic light? Or should I just farking drop it?


Boil it down to a 2-3 paragraph CSB and post it here.
 
2012-07-05 02:41:43 PM

Mr_Fabulous: OK, serious question time.

Back in the early 1980s, I had a relationship with my Chem teacher. I was 17 and she was 23. I remember it fondly, it was a nice little fling that lasted a few months, and then it ended.

Flash forward to today. I'm an amateur writer, languishing in a 'business writing' career (hey, it pays the bills). And I have an outline for a semi-humorous novella (possibly a film script) about my experiences back in 1980. I think it has potential, mostly because it treats the relationship from a naturalistic, first-person POV and NOT as something sick, sad and unforgivable.

I've run the idea past my good friend, who's a fairly accomplished novelist (and who also knew me in high school). She is absolutely against it, just on general principles. She insists that most people would simply regard such a story as pathetic, tragic, ugly and prurient... no matter how it is actually written.

While I do value her candor a great deal, I feel like I need a second opinion or two (hello Fark!). So... is this a story that needs to be told in a sympathetic light? Or should I just farking drop it?


If you do decide to write this story, the first words must be "Dear Penthouse Forum..."
 
2012-07-05 02:44:02 PM

hogans: Mr_Fabulous: OK, serious question time.

Back in the early 1980s, I had a relationship with my Chem teacher. I was 17 and she was 23. I remember it fondly, it was a nice little fling that lasted a few months, and then it ended.

Flash forward to today. I'm an amateur writer, languishing in a 'business writing' career (hey, it pays the bills). And I have an outline for a semi-humorous novella (possibly a film script) about my experiences back in 1980. I think it has potential, mostly because it treats the relationship from a naturalistic, first-person POV and NOT as something sick, sad and unforgivable.

I've run the idea past my good friend, who's a fairly accomplished novelist (and who also knew me in high school). She is absolutely against it, just on general principles. She insists that most people would simply regard such a story as pathetic, tragic, ugly and prurient... no matter how it is actually written.

While I do value her candor a great deal, I feel like I need a second opinion or two (hello Fark!). So... is this a story that needs to be told in a sympathetic light? Or should I just farking drop it?

If you do decide to write this story, the first words must be "Dear Penthouse Forum..."


There's your angle! It's a film/story/screenplay/whatever told from the perspective of someone recounting this experience in a letter to penthouse!

BRILLIANT!
 
2012-07-05 02:45:26 PM

WhippingBoy: I agree, but I also think there is a gray area between this and obvious non-consensual rape.


I would agree, but I think the result of that gray area should be in sentencing discretion, rather than liability.

Strategeryz0r: Out of curiosity, since you are a lawyer after all, do you think the rape laws may be a tad too open? That's not to say things like the one you pointed out aren't rape, but rather the abuse of the law from women who regret having consensual sex the night before and claim rape a couple days after the fact.


Nope. False accusations have the same rate in rape as they do in fraud, burglary, theft, etc. If we don't worry about those laws being too open, then I'm not going to worry about rape laws being too open. Plus, honestly, legitimate false accusations are pretty easy to spot. There's a psychological profile that false accusers tend to fit very closely.
And finally, the real harm of a false accusation isn't in some abstract moral outrage over being falsely accused, but in the media's crucifixion of the innocent defendant. The requirement of actual malice for defamation by the media is something that's a tad too open.
Hell, my personal preference would be a gag order on the entire trial until sentencing, but that could set a bad precedent of "disappeared people" who could get held for years without being tried. So, absent that, I think holding the media responsible for the financial results of their character assassination would be a good step towards paring back the sensationalism.

The Flexecutioner: i tend to lump that kind into violent rape. regardless of resistance being present, semi-conscious/unconscious penetration i consider violent.


Not all do, hence why I brought up the distinction.
 
2012-07-05 02:46:04 PM

Strategeryz0r: hogans: Mr_Fabulous: OK, serious question time.

Back in the early 1980s, I had a relationship with my Chem teacher. I was 17 and she was 23. I remember it fondly, it was a nice little fling that lasted a few months, and then it ended.

Flash forward to today. I'm an amateur writer, languishing in a 'business writing' career (hey, it pays the bills). And I have an outline for a semi-humorous novella (possibly a film script) about my experiences back in 1980. I think it has potential, mostly because it treats the relationship from a naturalistic, first-person POV and NOT as something sick, sad and unforgivable.

I've run the idea past my good friend, who's a fairly accomplished novelist (and who also knew me in high school). She is absolutely against it, just on general principles. She insists that most people would simply regard such a story as pathetic, tragic, ugly and prurient... no matter how it is actually written.

While I do value her candor a great deal, I feel like I need a second opinion or two (hello Fark!). So... is this a story that needs to be told in a sympathetic light? Or should I just farking drop it?

If you do decide to write this story, the first words must be "Dear Penthouse Forum..."

There's your angle! It's a film/story/screenplay/whatever told from the perspective of someone recounting this experience in a letter to penthouse!

BRILLIANT!


A story that plays out which ends up as a Penthouse letter? What A Tweeest!
 
2012-07-05 02:47:36 PM

Ordinary Genius: Savage Bacon: falcon444: Silly Jesus:
Simple physics. A female can't really rape a male that's not aroused. She was aroused, he was aroused. It doesn't work the same the other way.

Arousal, sure, as it's a mechanical reaction, but what about consciousness?

/Roofies + Viagra = Ride'em, Cowgirl!
//also, strap-ons
///yes, I realize that this wasn't the case in this situation, but a woman can most definitely rape a man

I don't want to white-knight or anything, but he's technically not wrong for the circumstances that are implied.


(i) arousal doesn't require consent;
(ii) you're neglecting the strap-on mentioned in the slashies.
 
2012-07-05 02:49:04 PM

Theaetetus: Nope. False accusations have the same rate in rape as they do in fraud, burglary, theft, etc. If we don't worry about those laws being too open, then I'm not going to worry about rape laws being too open. Plus, honestly, legitimate false accusations are pretty easy to spot. There's a psychological profile that false accusers tend to fit very closely.
And finally, the real harm of a false accusation isn't in some abstract moral outrage over being falsely accused, but in the media's crucifixion of the innocent defendant. The requirement of actual malice for defamation by the media is something that's a tad too open.
Hell, my personal preference would be a gag order on the entire trial until sentencing, but that could set a bad precedent of "disappeared people" who could get held for years without being tried. So, absent that, I think holding the media responsible for the financial results of their character assassination would be a good step towards paring back the sensationalism.


Actually that's a rather good point about other laws being abused in the same manner. I hadn't thought of the media crucifixion angle though. Put in that light, I completely agree with you. Just makes me wonder how you would hold the media liable for that. Defamation of character charges? Or is that something they can wave the first amendment in front of and skate past all legal liability?
 
2012-07-05 02:50:15 PM

Theaetetus: The Flexecutioner: i tend to lump that kind into violent rape. regardless of resistance being present, semi-conscious/unconscious penetration i consider violent.

Not all do, hence why I brought up the distinction.


and tastefully so, with a notsureifserious.jpg rife with condescension and insult.

/but hey its fark
//so no biggie
 
2012-07-05 02:51:23 PM

Ordinary Genius: Savage Bacon: falcon444: Silly Jesus:
Simple physics. A female can't really rape a male that's not aroused. She was aroused, he was aroused. It doesn't work the same the other way.

Arousal, sure, as it's a mechanical reaction, but what about consciousness?

/Roofies + Viagra = Ride'em, Cowgirl!
//also, strap-ons
///yes, I realize that this wasn't the case in this situation, but a woman can most definitely rape a man

I don't want to white-knight or anything, but he's technically not wrong for the circumstances that are implied.


Sure, in the case of said teacher and student, there was arousal AND consent, but his opening sentence had a vibe to it like it's an absolute truth, which it isn't. After all, women who are raped might get wet, which is typically associated with arousal, but it's pretty much a natural physical reaction to penetration and does not constitute consent. A man getting hard might just mean that his penis is being played with or he's ingested chemicals that make him erect. Hell, prostate stimulation can even get him there. Doesn't mean he's consenting to any of it and that's what differentiates rape from plain ol' sex.
 
2012-07-05 02:52:54 PM

Theaetetus: (ii) you're neglecting the strap-on mentioned in the slashies.


I never neglect. Every time this subject comes up, I think of the librarian in Tomcats.
 
2012-07-05 02:52:59 PM

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: I agree, but I also think there is a gray area between this and obvious non-consensual rape.

I would agree, but I think the result of that gray area should be in sentencing discretion, rather than liability.


Really? So the split second the person says "no", it transitions immediately from consensual sex to rape? Or is there a time limit on how long the other person has to pull out? What if something prevents him from pulling out (e.g. suppose they're wearing S&M gear, or "Fundies")? What if he's a second too slow? What if the couple in question have a history of "rape-play" roleplaying (how is he supposed to know that in this particular instance she actually means "no"?). I'm sorry, but I think there's a huge gray area with respect to liability; the amount of destructive power that someone could wield by this is staggering.
 
2012-07-05 02:55:58 PM

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: I agree, but I also think there is a gray area between this and obvious non-consensual rape.

I would agree, but I think the result of that gray area should be in sentencing discretion, rather than liability.

Really? So the split second the person says "no", it transitions immediately from consensual sex to rape? Or is there a time limit on how long the other person has to pull out? What if something prevents him from pulling out (e.g. suppose they're wearing S&M gear, or "Fundies")? What if he's a second too slow? What if the couple in question have a history of "rape-play" roleplaying (how is he supposed to know that in this particular instance she actually means "no"?). I'm sorry, but I think there's a huge gray area with respect to liability; the amount of destructive power that someone could wield by this is staggering.


There is a 2 thrust grace period.
 
2012-07-05 02:56:59 PM

Strategeryz0r: Theaetetus: Nope. False accusations have the same rate in rape as they do in fraud, burglary, theft, etc. If we don't worry about those laws being too open, then I'm not going to worry about rape laws being too open. Plus, honestly, legitimate false accusations are pretty easy to spot. There's a psychological profile that false accusers tend to fit very closely.
And finally, the real harm of a false accusation isn't in some abstract moral outrage over being falsely accused, but in the media's crucifixion of the innocent defendant. The requirement of actual malice for defamation by the media is something that's a tad too open.
Hell, my personal preference would be a gag order on the entire trial until sentencing, but that could set a bad precedent of "disappeared people" who could get held for years without being tried. So, absent that, I think holding the media responsible for the financial results of their character assassination would be a good step towards paring back the sensationalism.

Actually that's a rather good point about other laws being abused in the same manner. I hadn't thought of the media crucifixion angle though. Put in that light, I completely agree with you. Just makes me wonder how you would hold the media liable for that. Defamation of character charges? Or is that something they can wave the first amendment in front of and skate past all legal liability?


Unfortunately, there was a case - NY Times v. Sullivan - in which the Supreme Court said that defamation by the press of a public official requires "actual malice". In other words, I can print a story alleging that Obama's a kiddie-diddler, and as long as it can't be proved that I'm doing it out of spite, then I have a complete defense. Issuing a 6-point retraction on page 37 would absolve me of any blame.
This then got expanded from "public official" to "public figure", meaning anyone who is involved in a matter or issue of public interest... hence defendants (though some states look at that as being non-voluntary, and so have a slightly higher standard for defamation).
But basically, unless there's actual malice or gross negligence - which are both going to be impossible to prove - the media can just wave the first amendment at any claims.

The potential avenue would be a case holding that defendants are not public figures, and that due to the potential for harm, a mere negligence standard should apply to defamation. But that would require a supreme court decision.
 
2012-07-05 03:00:34 PM

hogans: If you do decide to write this story, the first words must be "Dear Penthouse Forum..."


This is, literally, the exact reaction I have gotten every single time I have mentioned this story to anyone. Ever. So... maybe my writer friend is right after all.

But I still feel like this type of story hasn't been done properly yet.
 
2012-07-05 03:01:56 PM

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: I agree, but I also think there is a gray area between this and obvious non-consensual rape.

I would agree, but I think the result of that gray area should be in sentencing discretion, rather than liability.

Really?


Yep.

So the split second the person says "no", it transitions immediately from consensual sex to rape?

Withdrawing is not penetrating.

Or is there a time limit on how long the other person has to pull out?

I think we can trust a jury to find that "one nanosecond" is too short and "one minute" is too long.

What if something prevents him from pulling out (e.g. suppose they're wearing S&M gear, or "Fundies")?

Criminal acts must be voluntary, so you're fine there.

What if he's a second too slow?

See the jury above.

What if the couple in question have a history of "rape-play" roleplaying (how is he supposed to know that in this particular instance she actually means "no"?).

A couple with a history of "rape-play" also have a safeword, no? Plus, there's still the voluntary aspect mentioned above. If he lacked any intent to continue while knowing that he no longer had consent, because he didn't know that he no longer had consent, he didn't commit a crime.

I'm sorry, but I think there's a huge gray area with respect to liability; the amount of destructive power that someone could wield by this is staggering.

I don't, and I fail to see any legitimate cause for concern. If someone says "no, stop," then you stop, no? Arguing that you should be allowed to continue "because of the destructive power of that 'no'" isn't a legitimate reason for saying that someone's lack of consent doesn't matter.
 
2012-07-05 03:03:55 PM

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: I agree, but I also think there is a gray area between this and obvious non-consensual rape.

I would agree, but I think the result of that gray area should be in sentencing discretion, rather than liability.

Really? So the split second the person says "no", it transitions immediately from consensual sex to rape? Or is there a time limit on how long the other person has to pull out? What if something prevents him from pulling out (e.g. suppose they're wearing S&M gear, or "Fundies")? What if he's a second too slow? What if the couple in question have a history of "rape-play" roleplaying (how is he supposed to know that in this particular instance she actually means "no"?). I'm sorry, but I think there's a huge gray area with respect to liability; the amount of destructive power that someone could wield by this is staggering.


While these are all very specific situations, I'll try and address them. First off, I assume being told to stop means ceasing the ol' in-n'-out action. As a man, if I'm ever told to stop, I stop. Sure, one might be in a position where removing the penis entirely might be impeded by position or gear, but ending the penetration action itself is a relatively straightforward affair. As such, assigning a timetable of some kind to this doesn't really make sense, as I don't see how one is needed. You're told to stop, so you stop, plain and simple. If you keep going, you are deliberately ignoring the wishes of another and that's on you. As for "rape-play", I was never into that, but I'm fairly certain those that do establish a safe word well in advance so that they may say "no" all they want, but when the safe word comes out, everything stops.
 
2012-07-05 03:03:56 PM

MoronLessOff: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: I agree, but I also think there is a gray area between this and obvious non-consensual rape.

I would agree, but I think the result of that gray area should be in sentencing discretion, rather than liability.

Really? So the split second the person says "no", it transitions immediately from consensual sex to rape? Or is there a time limit on how long the other person has to pull out? What if something prevents him from pulling out (e.g. suppose they're wearing S&M gear, or "Fundies")? What if he's a second too slow? What if the couple in question have a history of "rape-play" roleplaying (how is he supposed to know that in this particular instance she actually means "no"?). I'm sorry, but I think there's a huge gray area with respect to liability; the amount of destructive power that someone could wield by this is staggering.

There is a 2 thrust grace period.


"No! I said no!"
"I get 2 freebies!!"
 
2012-07-05 03:05:28 PM
Also, I should add "if you don't trust the partner with whom you're engaging in rape-play roleplay to not falsely accuse you of rape, then don't engage in rape-play, you moran!"

/or any BDSM for that matter. Not trusting the person you're doing a trust exercise with should be a red flag, y'know?
 
2012-07-05 03:05:49 PM

Masterstuff: MoronLessOff: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: I agree, but I also think there is a gray area between this and obvious non-consensual rape.

I would agree, but I think the result of that gray area should be in sentencing discretion, rather than liability.

Really? So the split second the person says "no", it transitions immediately from consensual sex to rape? Or is there a time limit on how long the other person has to pull out? What if something prevents him from pulling out (e.g. suppose they're wearing S&M gear, or "Fundies")? What if he's a second too slow? What if the couple in question have a history of "rape-play" roleplaying (how is he supposed to know that in this particular instance she actually means "no"?). I'm sorry, but I think there's a huge gray area with respect to liability; the amount of destructive power that someone could wield by this is staggering.

There is a 2 thrust grace period.

"No! I said no!"
"I get 2 freebies!!"


Sorry, you lose. You acknowledged the request to stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
 
2012-07-05 03:08:08 PM
geez, she looks about their age too.
 
2012-07-05 03:10:50 PM

Theaetetus: I don't, and I fail to see any legitimate cause for concern. If someone says "no, stop," then you stop, no? Arguing that you should be allowed to continue "because of the destructive power of that 'no'" isn't a legitimate reason for saying that someone's lack of consent doesn't matter.


Of course you stop; I'm not suggesting otherwise (and I'm not really sure why you would think that I had).
All I'm saying is that the potential for abuse of power in situations like this is staggering.
 
2012-07-05 03:11:03 PM

MoronLessOff: Masterstuff: MoronLessOff: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: I agree, but I also think there is a gray area between this and obvious non-consensual rape.

I would agree, but I think the result of that gray area should be in sentencing discretion, rather than liability.

Really? So the split second the person says "no", it transitions immediately from consensual sex to rape? Or is there a time limit on how long the other person has to pull out? What if something prevents him from pulling out (e.g. suppose they're wearing S&M gear, or "Fundies")? What if he's a second too slow? What if the couple in question have a history of "rape-play" roleplaying (how is he supposed to know that in this particular instance she actually means "no"?). I'm sorry, but I think there's a huge gray area with respect to liability; the amount of destructive power that someone could wield by this is staggering.

There is a 2 thrust grace period.

"No! I said no!"
"I get 2 freebies!!"

Sorry, you lose. You acknowledged the request to stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.


But I rolled doubles, so I get out. HA!
 
2012-07-05 03:11:11 PM
I've seen this porn video...
In small doses...
/by "doses," I mean...
 
2012-07-05 03:11:33 PM
Tawdry Texas teacher tackles teen twice to titilate thickly
 
2012-07-05 03:13:52 PM

dletter: Here is the bottom line for the adults on any of these cases no matter what the sexes are of any of the people involved:

You are an idiot if you think a teenager can/will truly keep something a secret.


So much ^^^THIS^^^.

In my younger, more attractive, adult years, I had several opportunities for sex presented to me by young ladies under the age of 18. I'm not sure how I managed to restrain myself, but I did. Now, years later, every time I hear one of these news stories about statutory rape/molestation charges being brought against people YEARS after the fact, I think "Whew..... there but for the grace of FSM go I." It's tempting to regret not hooking up with this one or that one, but now I realize how low the odds were that any of these girls would've kept their mouths shut if I HAD farked any of them.

Now I'm old and fat and ugly, and I don't get underage chickies throwing themselves at me. Problem solved.
 
2012-07-05 03:14:18 PM

Sticky Hands: The Flexecutioner: annoyed_grunt: Why is it "having sex with" when it's a female teacher with a man, but "rape" when it's a male teacher with a female?

because the boys never resist?

I suspect that is the assumption. Or to be more specific, I believe that the underlying assumption is that the average15 year old boy is very capable of stopping an average unarmed woman from raping him.

This seems consistent with the various levels of outrage:

Female teacher: male student = lucky bastard (assumed the boy is stronger, therefore in control)
Female teacher: female student = probably hot (assumed physically about equal)
Male teacher: any student = string him up (assumed that the older male is physically strongest by a wide margin)

Obviously this isn't all there is to it, but I think that it is a major factor.


No, its more like when we picture these scenarios, it's like this:

Female Teacher: "would you like to have sex with me?"
Boy: "Hell Yeah!"

vs.

Male Teacher (who is obviously lying): "I care so much about you, I want to have sex with you right now.."
Girl: "I'm not sure about this, but I don't want to lose you to another girl, so I guess it's OK." OR "I really need a good grade in this class, so I guess I can do it just this once."

Call it The Double Standard if you want, but truth is, it is far closer to reality than many people would openly admit.
 
2012-07-05 03:17:38 PM
Gods, I know I sound like my grandpa when I say "I never had that when I was a kid".
 
2012-07-05 03:18:28 PM
i1175.photobucket.com

i.imgur.com

/sorry, guys
 
2012-07-05 03:20:05 PM

Theaetetus: Unfortunately, there was a case - NY Times v. Sullivan - in which the Supreme Court said that defamation by the press of a public official requires "actual malice". In other words, I can print a story alleging that Obama's a kiddie-diddler, and as long as it can't be proved that I'm doing it out of spite, then I have a complete defense. Issuing a 6-point retraction on page 37 would absolve me of any blame.
This then got expanded from "public official" to "public figure", meaning anyone who is involved in a matter or issue of public interest... hence defendants (though some states look at that as being non-voluntary, and so have a slightly higher standard for defamation).
But basically, unless there's actual malice or gross negligence - which are both going to be impossible to prove - the media can just wave the first amendment at any claims.

The potential avenue would be a case holding that defendants are not public figures, and that due to the potential for harm, a mere negligence standard should apply to defamation. But that would require a supreme court decision.


Wow... I hadn't heard of that until now, but that's seemingly too open. All I keep thinking about is that Duke lacrosse case, and how Nancy Grace should have been brought up on some sort of criminal charge(she was calling them all rapists before the damn trial even started). Yet, knowing what I know now, I can see why nobody even attempted to since they probably couldn't prove malice. I swear we give the media way too much freedom in some cases, they have the power to absolutely destroy someone's life over nothing. Yet we seemingly craft laws with the intention of removing all methods of holding the media liable for what they say.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in freedom of speech. But when a news organization's free speech causes the, sometimes, willful destruction of an innocent person's life. At what point do we not start holding them liable for what they say?
 
2012-07-05 03:27:15 PM

The Flexecutioner: DAMMIT! I NEVER HAD TEACHERS LIKE THAT!!


Yes, you did. That semi-good looking teacher was doing a student in her car on the weekends, just not you.
 
2012-07-05 03:28:30 PM
Forget age. A person in authority over another should not have sex with them. If you allow this, you open up the opportunity for all sorts of coercion.
 
2012-07-05 03:29:15 PM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: Forget age. A person in authority over another should not have sex with them. If you allow this, you open up the opportunity for all sorts of coercion.


No wonder married people never have sex.
 
2012-07-05 03:29:27 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: Strategeryz0r: Theaetetus: SweetSaws: A very attractive woman can screw 100% of the time she wants.
A less attractive woman can screw 99% of the time she wants.
An ugly woman can screw 98% of the time she wants.

So, how long have you been suffering from this inability to see truly ugly women? Does it cause you problems trying to maneuver around them in public?

A truly ugly woman still will not have a problem finding someone to fark. To a lot of guys, pussy is pussy. How do you think fat chicks end up with kids too? Nobody WANTED to fark them, it was just all someone could get at the time.

This shows an incredible lack of self-awareness. Tell you what... Let's put some money on it. I bet I can find a woman you wouldn't fark.

I don't doubt that there's a woman out there that he wouldn't fark. But, go looking for a man who would fark her, and you'll find one soon enough.

This could probably become a new formula for how ugly somebody is. The woman that Strategeryz0r wouldn't fark and the man who would fark her are presumed to be equally attractive. Now find the woman who that man wouldn't fark and the man who would fark her, they're one level down. Eventually you should end up with one man who would fark anybody, and one woman who nobody wants to fark. They're the ugliest of the ugly, and everybody else can be ranked by their distance from those two.


.......... and that's when money becomes the equalizer just like it is one the other end of the scale. I bet you for $1 mil you can find at LEAST one guy in this world who would fark even the ugliest woman in the world that you absolutely can't find a man to fark prior to the financial offer.
 
2012-07-05 03:32:30 PM

Rockstone: Slaxl: Most people here had sex before 15

I think you highly underestimate the fark demographic


I hope you meant to say overestimate.
 
2012-07-05 03:33:17 PM

WhippingBoy: Ordinary Genius: Savage Bacon: falcon444: Silly Jesus:
Simple physics. A female can't really rape a male that's not aroused. She was aroused, he was aroused. It doesn't work the same the other way.

Arousal, sure, as it's a mechanical reaction, but what about consciousness?

/Roofies + Viagra = Ride'em, Cowgirl!
//also, strap-ons
///yes, I realize that this wasn't the case in this situation, but a woman can most definitely rape a man

I don't want to white-knight or anything, but he's technically not wrong for the circumstances that are implied.

In what world does arousal == consent?


I don't think he was implying arousal = consent. I certainly wasn't. I think he just meant that if there is no arousal, it can't happen in the normal means.
 
2012-07-05 03:37:08 PM

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: I don't, and I fail to see any legitimate cause for concern. If someone says "no, stop," then you stop, no? Arguing that you should be allowed to continue "because of the destructive power of that 'no'" isn't a legitimate reason for saying that someone's lack of consent doesn't matter.

Of course you stop; I'm not suggesting otherwise (and I'm not really sure why you would think that I had).
All I'm saying is that the potential for abuse of power in situations like this is staggering.


I don't see that as abuse of power at all. If someone says "no, stop," and you keep going for 30 seconds (longer than many Farkers total time, in fact), then I don't think you get to complain about abuse of power when a judge finds you guilty of rape.
 
2012-07-05 03:38:27 PM

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: I don't, and I fail to see any legitimate cause for concern. If someone says "no, stop," then you stop, no? Arguing that you should be allowed to continue "because of the destructive power of that 'no'" isn't a legitimate reason for saying that someone's lack of consent doesn't matter.

Of course you stop; I'm not suggesting otherwise (and I'm not really sure why you would think that I had).
All I'm saying is that the potential for abuse of power in situations like this is staggering.

I don't see that as abuse of power at all. If someone says "no, stop," and you keep going for 30 seconds (longer than many Farkers total time, in fact), then I don't think you get to complain about abuse of power when a judge finds you guilty of rape.


So what's the magic number and who gets to set it?
 
2012-07-05 03:39:48 PM

Mr_Fabulous: OK, serious question time.

Back in the early 1980s, I had a relationship with my Chem teacher. I was 17 and she was 23. I remember it fondly, it was a nice little fling that lasted a few months, and then it ended.

Flash forward to today. I'm an amateur writer, languishing in a 'business writing' career (hey, it pays the bills). And I have an outline for a semi-humorous novella (possibly a film script) about my experiences back in 1980. I think it has potential, mostly because it treats the relationship from a naturalistic, first-person POV and NOT as something sick, sad and unforgivable.

I've run the idea past my good friend, who's a fairly accomplished novelist (and who also knew me in high school). She is absolutely against it, just on general principles. She insists that most people would simply regard such a story as pathetic, tragic, ugly and prurient... no matter how it is actually written.

While I do value her candor a great deal, I feel like I need a second opinion or two (hello Fark!). So... is this a story that needs to be told in a sympathetic light? Or should I just farking drop it?


Nothing prudish, this could come back to bite your cute chem teacher in the butt. I don't know if your relationship was illegal (age of consent, she's a teacher, etc), but legal action aside, if she is still a teacher and they find out she used to doink her students, she could loss her job.
 
2012-07-05 03:41:50 PM

stonicus: if she is still a teacher and they find out she used to doink her students, she could loss her job.


Maybe if she's a teacher who doinks her students, she should lose her job.
 
2012-07-05 03:42:11 PM

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: I don't, and I fail to see any legitimate cause for concern. If someone says "no, stop," then you stop, no? Arguing that you should be allowed to continue "because of the destructive power of that 'no'" isn't a legitimate reason for saying that someone's lack of consent doesn't matter.

Of course you stop; I'm not suggesting otherwise (and I'm not really sure why you would think that I had).
All I'm saying is that the potential for abuse of power in situations like this is staggering.

I don't see that as abuse of power at all. If someone says "no, stop," and you keep going for 30 seconds (longer than many Farkers total time, in fact), then I don't think you get to complain about abuse of power when a judge finds you guilty of rape.

So what's the magic number and who gets to set it?


The magic # is 0 seconds, and it's set by the woman you're penetrating who told you to stop =P
 
2012-07-05 03:42:21 PM

Ordinary Genius: WhippingBoy: Ordinary Genius: Savage Bacon: falcon444: Silly Jesus:
Simple physics. A female can't really rape a male that's not aroused. She was aroused, he was aroused. It doesn't work the same the other way.

Arousal, sure, as it's a mechanical reaction, but what about consciousness?

/Roofies + Viagra = Ride'em, Cowgirl!
//also, strap-ons
///yes, I realize that this wasn't the case in this situation, but a woman can most definitely rape a man

I don't want to white-knight or anything, but he's technically not wrong for the circumstances that are implied.

In what world does arousal == consent?

I don't think he was implying arousal = consent. I certainly wasn't. I think he just meant that if there is no arousal, it can't happen in the normal means.


I don't know, but I've been told, that sometimes a real trooper will managed to get 'er done despite suffering from whiskey dick.

maybe not as fulfilling as the other way... but still possible.
 
2012-07-05 03:45:07 PM

WhippingBoy: stonicus: if she is still a teacher and they find out she used to doink her students, she could loss her job.

Maybe if she's a teacher who doinks her students, she should lose her job.


Maybe, but I was just giving advice to the guy. He seemed to have fond memories of her and their experience, and he seemed to come out of the whole thing just fine, and maybe he doesn't want to get her in trouble for it.
 
2012-07-05 03:46:28 PM

stonicus: WhippingBoy: stonicus: if she is still a teacher and they find out she used to doink her students, she could loss her job.

Maybe if she's a teacher who doinks her students, she should lose her job.

Maybe, but I was just giving advice to the guy. He seemed to have fond memories of her and their experience, and he seemed to come out of the whole thing just fine, and maybe he doesn't want to get her in trouble for it.


Wasn't that a subplot on 30 Rock once?
 
2012-07-05 03:47:09 PM

Parthenogenetic: [i1175.photobucket.com image 595x322]

[i.imgur.com image 420x280]

/sorry, guys


You bastard...
 
2012-07-05 03:47:44 PM

Strategeryz0r: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: I don't, and I fail to see any legitimate cause for concern. If someone says "no, stop," then you stop, no? Arguing that you should be allowed to continue "because of the destructive power of that 'no'" isn't a legitimate reason for saying that someone's lack of consent doesn't matter.

Of course you stop; I'm not suggesting otherwise (and I'm not really sure why you would think that I had).
All I'm saying is that the potential for abuse of power in situations like this is staggering.

I don't see that as abuse of power at all. If someone says "no, stop," and you keep going for 30 seconds (longer than many Farkers total time, in fact), then I don't think you get to complain about abuse of power when a judge finds you guilty of rape.

So what's the magic number and who gets to set it?

The magic # is 0 seconds, and it's set by the woman you're penetrating who told you to stop =P


So if it takes the man, say 5 seconds, to fully realize he's been told to stop and pull out, he's a rapist and should be imprisoned?
 
2012-07-05 03:47:47 PM
Go to head of class or class of head. You decide
 
2012-07-05 03:48:42 PM

minoridiot: He's 15 and still in the 8th grade? How stupid is this kid?


Stupid enough to be getting the nookie and not keep the pleasant little secret from mommy and daddy. I guess it's back to the old gym sock for junior.
 
2012-07-05 03:49:33 PM

WhippingBoy: Strategeryz0r: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: I don't, and I fail to see any legitimate cause for concern. If someone says "no, stop," then you stop, no? Arguing that you should be allowed to continue "because of the destructive power of that 'no'" isn't a legitimate reason for saying that someone's lack of consent doesn't matter.

Of course you stop; I'm not suggesting otherwise (and I'm not really sure why you would think that I had).
All I'm saying is that the potential for abuse of power in situations like this is staggering.

I don't see that as abuse of power at all. If someone says "no, stop," and you keep going for 30 seconds (longer than many Farkers total time, in fact), then I don't think you get to complain about abuse of power when a judge finds you guilty of rape.

So what's the magic number and who gets to set it?

The magic # is 0 seconds, and it's set by the woman you're penetrating who told you to stop =P

So if it takes the man, say 5 seconds, to fully realize he's been told to stop and pull out, he's a rapist and should be imprisoned?


In my opinion, no.

Unfortunately I'm a middle class, employed, white male. So my opinion means farkall in the eyes of society. The feminists of the world have convinced the court system that yes, he is a rapist and should be imprisoned. Try and change that, and odds are you'll have a thousand angry man-hating feminists saying we just set women's rights back 100 years.
 
2012-07-05 03:51:11 PM

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: I don't, and I fail to see any legitimate cause for concern. If someone says "no, stop," then you stop, no? Arguing that you should be allowed to continue "because of the destructive power of that 'no'" isn't a legitimate reason for saying that someone's lack of consent doesn't matter.

Of course you stop; I'm not suggesting otherwise (and I'm not really sure why you would think that I had).
All I'm saying is that the potential for abuse of power in situations like this is staggering.

I don't see that as abuse of power at all. If someone says "no, stop," and you keep going for 30 seconds (longer than many Farkers total time, in fact), then I don't think you get to complain about abuse of power when a judge finds you guilty of rape.

So what's the magic number and who gets to set it?


It's not about a "magic number of seconds", but rather about whether or not the defendant, knowing that consent had been withdrawn, took further penetrative actions. Pumping a couple more times? That's rape. Pulling out? That's not. It's not a time limit, it's about whether you continue or not. In that case you cited, it wasn't that 30 seconds was criminal and 29 seconds wouldn't have been, but that, at 30 seconds, it becomes unreasonable to suggest the defendant didn't know that he no longer had consent:

"From the questions asked by the jury I proceed
upon the basis that you are not criminally liable
for the last act of initial penetration
... Your
criminal responsibility results from the
continuation of penetration
either after she had
withdrawn her consent or after any mistake on
your part had ceased to be honest and reasonable
.
On the evidence I find it difficult to identify
the period of the continuation after the critical
moment. It is however enough to say that it was
an appreciable time, perhaps up to 30 seconds,
after she commenced to try to push you away from
her."

In other words, if she said "no, stop" and he thrust only once or twice more before stopping, a jury could believe that he was honestly and reasonably mistaken about consent during those thrusts... Basically, the delay from "wait, something was said... what was it? Have a beer, Homer? No, worse than that... Right! Stop!" to stopping.
But at 30 seconds, it was no longer reasonable... Thus, by that time, the jury can reasonably believe that he knew he lacked consent, and therefore, any thrust at that point is criminal.
 
Displayed 50 of 324 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report