An adult had sex with an 18 year old adult and it was inappropriate due to career reasons; just as it would be if I had sex with a subordinate as a supervisor for a private corporation as the power is in my hands, etc etc. That having been said, an appropriate response is to ruin his career over this, and that has been done.
He has made his choice (love or lust, your opinion) and he has paid his price (loss of family and career) - I say, case closed.
Legally yeah, if he didnt touch her before she turned 18 (and I think the conclusion of the investigation was that he did not) then the most the law can make this dirtbag do is pay child support which I think we can all agree he should. I am not calling for the law to do anything about this. I am saying that its a sign of societal rot and moral decay in our civilization that there are actually people defending him from an ethical standpoint.
Why is he automatically a "dirtbag" ...? We don't know the circumstances of his life, or hers. I, for one, am not so willing to stand in judgment of another... my Christian friend.
As for defending him, again, you don't consider the defense of slavery hundreds of years ago much worse than this "moral decay" you wring your hands about now? An adult had sex with an 18 year old woman, leaving his wife and kids. You honestly can't find more horrible stories in your own religious texts than this?
This is the epitome of moral decay to you? Not that children are starving and dying unwanted around the world; but that two adults had sex?
Wow, man. You never stop having your eyes opened, I guess.
An adult had sex with an 18 year old adult and it was inappropriate due to career reasons; just as it would be if I had sex with a subordinate as a supervisor for a private corporation as the power is in my hands, etc etc. That having been said, an appropriate response is to ruin his career over this, and that has been done.
He has made his choice (love or lust, your opinion) and he has paid his price (loss of family and career) - I say, case closed.
Legally yeah, if he didnt touch her before she turned 18 (and I think the conclusion of the investigation was that he did not) then the most the law can make this dirtbag do is pay child support which I think we can all agree he should. I am not calling for the law to do anything about this. I am saying that its a sign of societal rot and moral decay in our civilization that there are actually people defending him from an ethical standpoint.
Why is he automatically a "dirtbag" ...? We don't know the circumstances of his life, or hers. I, for one, am not so willing to stand in judgment of another... my Christian friend.
As for defending him, again, you don't consider the defense of slavery hundreds of years ago much worse than this "moral decay" you wring your hands about now? An adult had sex with an 18 year old woman, leaving his wife and kids. You honestly can't find more horrible stories in your own religious texts than this?
This is the epitome of moral decay to you? Not that children are starving and dying unwanted around the world; but that two adults had sex?
Wow, man. You never stop having your eyes opened, I guess.
Heh, he is free to judge me all he wants, I didnt run off and abandon my family to be with a woman who could be my daughter. Aye we don't know everything about his life but we know enough to form an opinion on how he handled things.
Don't try and distract from the issue at hand.
No its not the epitome of moral decay but it is a symptom of it. Also its not that they had sex, its that he left his wife and kids to live with another woman.
My eyes are open wide enough to avoid your attempts at misdirection and trivialization.
Legally yeah, if he didnt touch her before she turned 18 (and I think the conclusion of the investigation was that he did not) then the most the law can make this dirtbag do is pay child support which I think we can all agree he should. I am not calling for the law to do anything about this. I am saying that its a sign of societal rot and moral decay in our civilization that there are actually people defending him from an ethical standpoint.
Why is he automatically a "dirtbag" ...? We don't know the circumstances of his life, or hers. I, for one, am not so willing to stand in judgment of another... my Christian friend.
As for defending him, again, you don't consider the defense of slavery hundreds of years ago much worse than this "moral decay" you wring your hands about now? An adult had sex with an 18 year old woman, leaving his wife and kids. You honestly can't find more horrible stories in your own religious texts than this?
This is the epitome of moral decay to you? Not that children are starving and dying unwanted around the world; but that two adults had sex?
Wow, man. You never stop having your eyes opened, I guess.
Heh, he is free to judge me all he wants, I didnt run off and abandon my family to be with a woman who could be my daughter. Aye we don't know everything about his life but we know enough to form an opinion on how he handled things.
Don't try and distract from the issue at hand.
No its not the epitome of moral decay but it is a symptom of it. Also its not that they had sex, its that he left his wife and kids to live with another woman.
My eyes are open wide enough to avoid your attempts at misdirection and trivialization.
I think you're seeing "moral decay" where I see "a guy running off to be with a younger woman" - something that has been happening since marriage began; and something often talked about in the Old Testament, as I recall. (Not to mention much worse things, such as a king driving one wife and his child out because another wife didn't like her!)]
I'd say we've "morally" come a long way from the Dark Ages and beyond; not the other way around.
Your moral outrage here just isn't that... outrageous.
Why is he automatically a "dirtbag" ...? We don't know the circumstances of his life, or hers. I, for one, am not so willing to stand in judgment of another... my Christian friend.
As for defending him, again, you don't consider the defense of slavery hundreds of years ago much worse than this "moral decay" you wring your hands about now? An adult had sex with an 18 year old woman, leaving his wife and kids. You honestly can't find more horrible stories in your own religious texts than this?
This is the epitome of moral decay to you? Not that children are starving and dying unwanted around the world; but that two adults had sex?
Wow, man. You never stop having your eyes opened, I guess.
Heh, he is free to judge me all he wants, I didnt run off and abandon my family to be with a woman who could be my daughter. Aye we don't know everything about his life but we know enough to form an opinion on how he handled things.
Don't try and distract from the issue at hand.
No its not the epitome of moral decay but it is a symptom of it. Also its not that they had sex, its that he left his wife and kids to live with another woman.
My eyes are open wide enough to avoid your attempts at misdirection and trivialization.
I think you're seeing "moral decay" where I see "a guy running off to be with a younger woman" - something that has been happening since marriage began; and something often talked about in the Old Testament, as I recall. (Not to mention much worse things, such as a king driving one wife and his child out because another wife didn't like her!)]
I'd say we've "morally" come a long way from the Dark Ages and beyond; not the other way around.
Your moral outrage here just isn't that... outrageous.
What I am outraged about is more the people actually defending him. Your right that worse than this has been done in the past (far worse) but at least in modern times stuff like this was consistently condemned or shamed in society. Now not only do you have people who dont care but you also have people who act indignant that anyone would criticize what this man did.
What I am outraged about is more the people actually defending him. Your right that worse than this has been done in the past (far worse) but at least in modern times stuff like this was consistently condemned or shamed in society. Now not only do you have people who dont care but you also have people who act indignant that anyone would criticize what this man did.
In what society? Western Christian society? Which also sanctioned (and even helped keep in place) slavery?
As I said, we have a clear case of a person using his authority to sleep with a subordinate; in this case, a teacher/student. Professor/student relationships have been quietly happening for decades if not centuries; but the difference of 1 or 2 years apparently makes it morally much less objectionable.
He abused his position, his career is ruined. Case closed. As I said, he paid a price for choosing lust or love.
Continuing to shame him is just useless and judgmental unless you're 100% free of sin and blameless yourself. Remove the plank in your eye.
What I am outraged about is more the people actually defending him. Your right that worse than this has been done in the past (far worse) but at least in modern times stuff like this was consistently condemned or shamed in society. Now not only do you have people who dont care but you also have people who act indignant that anyone would criticize what this man did.
In what society? Western Christian society? Which also sanctioned (and even helped keep in place) slavery?
As I said, we have a clear case of a person using his authority to sleep with a subordinate; in this case, a teacher/student. Professor/student relationships have been quietly happening for decades if not centuries; but the difference of 1 or 2 years apparently makes it morally much less objectionable.
He abused his position, his career is ruined. Case closed. As I said, he paid a price for choosing lust or love.
Continuing to shame him is just useless and judgmental unless you're 100% free of sin and blameless yourself. Remove the plank in your eye.
In this case I have no plank in my eye since I have never done anything remotely comparable to what this guy did, have you?
Also we don't know if he abused his position or not, you are making an assumption.
What I am outraged about is more the people actually defending him. Your right that worse than this has been done in the past (far worse) but at least in modern times stuff like this was consistently condemned or shamed in society. Now not only do you have people who dont care but you also have people who act indignant that anyone would criticize what this man did.
In what society? Western Christian society? Which also sanctioned (and even helped keep in place) slavery?
As I said, we have a clear case of a person using his authority to sleep with a subordinate; in this case, a teacher/student. Professor/student relationships have been quietly happening for decades if not centuries; but the difference of 1 or 2 years apparently makes it morally much less objectionable.
He abused his position, his career is ruined. Case closed. As I said, he paid a price for choosing lust or love.
Continuing to shame him is just useless and judgmental unless you're 100% free of sin and blameless yourself. Remove the plank in your eye.
In this case I have no plank in my eye since I have never done anything remotely comparable to what this guy did, have you?
Also we don't know if he abused his position or not, you are making an assumption.
You've never done anything NEARLY as bad as THAT guy, eh?
And in general if you sleep with a subordinate; you are abusing your position. After years spent in private sector work as a manager, I can tell you - I'd be fired for having sex with a subordinate if he or she reported me; or at least demoted/see my promotions stop. It's a career-killer to sleep with somebody that is your subordinate.
That is not my assumption; that's a fairly widespread belief in corporate and public-sector America.
In what society? Western Christian society? Which also sanctioned (and even helped keep in place) slavery?
As I said, we have a clear case of a person using his authority to sleep with a subordinate; in this case, a teacher/student. Professor/student relationships have been quietly happening for decades if not centuries; but the difference of 1 or 2 years apparently makes it morally much less objectionable.
He abused his position, his career is ruined. Case closed. As I said, he paid a price for choosing lust or love.
Continuing to shame him is just useless and judgmental unless you're 100% free of sin and blameless yourself. Remove the plank in your eye.
In this case I have no plank in my eye since I have never done anything remotely comparable to what this guy did, have you?
Also we don't know if he abused his position or not, you are making an assumption.
You've never done anything NEARLY as bad as THAT guy, eh?
And in general if you sleep with a subordinate; you are abusing your position. After years spent in private sector work as a manager, I can tell you - I'd be fired for having sex with a subordinate if he or she reported me; or at least demoted/see my promotions stop. It's a career-killer to sleep with somebody that is your subordinate.
That is not my assumption; that's a fairly widespread belief in corporate and public-sector America.
And as for judging if I have done anything as "bad" as this guy; I'm not God; I'm not supposed to judge at all.
It's that last part that is the big trigger. If you don't trust a 17 year old to go to the mall by herself its a good indication of a control problem. The word "compliant" also set a lot of people off as a warning of a possible over controlling environment.
Well the thing is I see the mall thing as a bit ambiguous. The way it's phrased means it could either mean that she has to go to the mall with her daughter (which is odd at that age) or she has to be with someone. Like friends and such. Which to me, is perfectly understandable depending on the sketch levels of the mall. Besides, I *never* have been to the mall by myself. Not because I'm on a short leash, but because I just don't like going alone. And I see the compliant complaint. A bit overblown by some forum members In my opinion though.
I will post it in spoilers in the OP but the gist of it is that Hooker was arrested for sexual abusing a teenager a decade ago and Powers has told him that they are done and with the help of her mother is moving out of the apartment she and Hooker shared these past months and can get back on with her life.
I don't want to say this is a happy ending but it is a good one. Now this young woman can move on with her life and Hooker is in jail.
It's obviously great that he's in prison for his actual violation, but I don't like the implication you made, Seekster, that this is somehow just because of what he did what the thread was created over. It has nothing to do with that, two completely separate issues. One is a maybe morally dubious but perfectly legal act, the other is a criminal offense. I don't like seeing moral outrage mixed with legal issues like that.
Ah, apparently sex happened between people who are apt to have sex, and at ages which people are often sexually active anyway.
But 17? A decade ago he slept with someone who was 17? Not 18? Clearly prison is an appropriate response. Because that's not totally arbitrary or anything.
Seanchaidh: Ah, apparently sex happened between people who are apt to have sex, and at ages which people are often sexually active anyway.
But 17? A decade ago he slept with someone who was 17? Not 18? Clearly prison is an appropriate response. Because that's not totally arbitrary or anything.
Wait, 17? I thought the age of consent in the USA was 16, at least in most states. Hadn't read the new source. Why exactly is he going to jail for this?
Then again, the article states:
Hooker, 41, was arrested Friday on suspicion of sexually abusing a 17-year-old girl in 1998.
Sexual abuse would indicate a lack of consent in that case, which would obviously still be criminal. Or are they using the term simply because he had sex, even if consenting, with somebody younger than 18? This is a very unclear article.
Sexual abuse would indicate a lack of consent in that case, which would obviously still be criminal. Or are they using the term simply because he had sex, even if consenting, with somebody younger than 18? This is a very unclear article.
One'd also think that if it really was "abuse", it would have come up sooner.
Like...in 1998? You know, not...conveniently, 14 years after? I mean what the hell was the legal system doing all this time, twiddling its thumbs?
It's just too bloody convenient to be taken at face value.
Vegosiux: One'd also think that if it really was "abuse", it would have come up sooner.
Like...in 1998? You know, not...conveniently, 14 years after? I mean what the hell was the legal system doing all this time, twiddling its thumbs?
It's just too bloody convenient to be taken at face value.
To be fair, sexual abuse or rape victims unfortunately often do hide it for many, many years. Often for long after the statute of limitation (where it applies, apparently not here since it's 14 years later and he was still arrested). It has a lot to do with shame, misplaced guilt and so on. So I'm not going to discount it on that basis, but still. I wonder what exactly is he being charged with/suspected of.
Seanchaidh: Ah, apparently sex happened between people who are apt to have sex, and at ages which people are often sexually active anyway.
But 17? A decade ago he slept with someone who was 17? Not 18? Clearly prison is an appropriate response. Because that's not totally arbitrary or anything.
Wait, 17? I thought the age of consent in the USA was 16, at least in most states. Hadn't read the new source. Why exactly is he going to jail for this?
Then again, the article states:
Hooker, 41, was arrested Friday on suspicion of sexually abusing a 17-year-old girl in 1998.
Sexual abuse would indicate a lack of consent in that case, which would obviously still be criminal. Or are they using the term simply because he had sex, even if consenting, with somebody younger than 18? This is a very unclear article.
Seanchaidh: Ah, apparently sex happened between people who are apt to have sex, and at ages which people are often sexually active anyway.
But 17? A decade ago he slept with someone who was 17? Not 18? Clearly prison is an appropriate response. Because that's not totally arbitrary or anything.
Wait, 17? I thought the age of consent in the USA was 16, at least in most states. Hadn't read the new source. Why exactly is he going to jail for this?
Then again, the article states:
Hooker, 41, was arrested Friday on suspicion of sexually abusing a 17-year-old girl in 1998.
Sexual abuse would indicate a lack of consent in that case, which would obviously still be criminal. Or are they using the term simply because he had sex, even if consenting, with somebody younger than 18? This is a very unclear article.
News articles often refer to statutory rape as sexual abuse, even if consent is given. I don't know if that's the case here. In many (I think most) places in the United States age of consent is actually 18. Some places are 16. I think a few might actually be 14.
Seekster: I don't want to say this is a happy ending but it is a good one. Now this young woman can move on with her life and Hooker is in jail.
You mean she'll most likely be forced back to her extremely repressive parents, traumatising her for life, or she'll find someone new to shelter her (that kind of situation is when most coerced prostitution occurs), while a slightly weird teacher has been jailed for breaking Christian morals in a rather shameless move of political prosecution?
Seekster: I don't want to say this is a happy ending but it is a good one. Now this young woman can move on with her life and Hooker is in jail.
You mean she'll most likely be forced back to her extremely repressive parents, traumatising her for life, or she'll find someone new to shelter her (that kind of situation is when most coerced prostitution occurs), while a slightly weird teacher has been jailed for breaking Christian morals in a rather shameless move of political prosecution?
I was waiting for someone to say that. People who grew up in stable homes with normal parents have no idea why a girl would seek shelter with a man twice her age. And yes, Christian conservatism can and will drive these women indirectly in prostitution. I've seen this happen multiple times, and I am sure Blahblah can tell us some chilling stories as well.
So if you have a child, and he or she does not conform to your strict upbringing, for their sake be a bit more understanding then not at all; you'll be a better person for it and give your kids a fighting chance in the real world.
Well, hopefully it was the girl's own choice, and not something she was pressured into because of a puritan community that can't keep its condemnatory noses to itself when it comes to other people's bedroom activities.
Seekster: I don't want to say this is a happy ending but it is a good one. Now this young woman can move on with her life and Hooker is in jail.
You mean she'll most likely be forced back to her extremely repressive parents, traumatising her for life, or she'll find someone new to shelter her (that kind of situation is when most coerced prostitution occurs), while a slightly weird teacher has been jailed for breaking Christian morals in a rather shameless move of political prosecution?
I was waiting for someone to say that. People who grew up in stable homes with normal parents have no idea why a girl would seek shelter with a man twice her age. And yes, Christian conservatism can and will drive these women indirectly in prostitution. I've seen this happen multiple times, and I am sure Blahblah can tell us some chilling stories as well.
So if you have a child, and he or she does not conform to your strict upbringing, for their sake be a bit more understanding then not at all; you'll be a better person for it and give your kids a fighting chance in the real world.
I still say that people shouldnt be blaming the parents for what an adult did. If you are going to treat the girl like an adult then she is responsible for her own life. If you are not going to treat the girl as an adult then she had no business moving in with a guy over twice her age.
And honestly I don't see what the mother did that was so bad. Yeah she was a little too strict I think but only a little.
Imperator_DK: Oh no! It's that heinous sin of Divorce rearing its ugly head. People splitting up, surely this is the end times...
The guy's already been fired from his job due to violating the trust necessary for the position, and there's no evidence he's done anything to her before she turned 18. Assuming he didn't, I fail to see any further problems here, certainly anything that concerns others than those involved.
He left a wife and kids to be with someone about 20 years younger than him...that is just wrong.
OK. Presume the person he was dating (an adult ALREADY mind you, who can make up their own damn mind, but let's pretend) was another 40 year old.
Would that matter, then?
Realistically, the situation is the same. An adult divorced, legally, another adult, to marry a different adult. Whoopidy do.
Your kid won't die. People get divorced. It's actually kind of insulting to state that he can't be a good father and not married to their children's mother. And if he's so old his kids are probably adults too anyways, so I'm sure they can deal with it more so anyways.
The only, and absolutely only 'sketchy' thing here is the fact that they were in a business relationship where one person has authority over the other, and only because it suggest coercive, but not necessarily violent rape, for favors on the 'job'.
But, hey, he resigned, and she still married him, so I'm extremely doubtful on that matter. After all if you're screwing your boss for a paycheck and he quits the job, do you keep dating him?
Following that, you have at best an argument that he's 'stupid' from a financial standpoint, but so what. If you do something that doesn't maximize your potential profits, is that illegal?
He did the right thing he could do, by giving up his place in authority to follow his heart.
Compared to her teacher she is younger. She is not however a child.
Sure, 18 year olds can be mature and make mistakes, but that doesn't excuse you calling an adult a child.
Your suggestion that girls also have a longer and more screwed up time with puberty is a bunch of sexist crap.
Id call her a child in some sense at least. As my grandfather once said "some guys are old men before they grow up" (I assume the same applies to women).
Its not sexist...its observation. I don't know what the science is but at least in my experience girls get a lot more psycho in puberty...come to think of it girls get a lot more psycho out of puberty too but that is beside the point (that last one might have been sexist but ;p)
Without any science to back you, yes that's sexist, even before you get to the last part.
It is sexist, because guess what, Seekster. Women mature faster than men. That's a scientific fact. Oh, it's not by a LOT of time, mind you.
But if you're going to play the whole 'one sex matures faster' card, your sex lost that round. You can either concede defeat and admit that males are the weaker sex in that regard, backpedal and say the tiny amount of time on average between mental maturity between the sexes isn't really that big a deal (and hey, I'll hand you that one for free, no hard feelings), or continue to make up shit and sound sexist.
Seanchaidh: Ah, apparently sex happened between people who are apt to have sex, and at ages which people are often sexually active anyway.
But 17? A decade ago he slept with someone who was 17? Not 18? Clearly prison is an appropriate response. Because that's not totally arbitrary or anything.
Wait, 17? I thought the age of consent in the USA was 16, at least in most states. Hadn't read the new source. Why exactly is he going to jail for this?
Then again, the article states:
Hooker, 41, was arrested Friday on suspicion of sexually abusing a 17-year-old girl in 1998.
Sexual abuse would indicate a lack of consent in that case, which would obviously still be criminal. Or are they using the term simply because he had sex, even if consenting, with somebody younger than 18? This is a very unclear article.
Federal law is 18. State laws very between 21 and 16. Federal law covers certain jurisdictions and the transport of minors. Apparently it's illegal for a guy from a state where he's legally allowed to be sexually active, to move a girl in a state where she's legally allowed to be sexually active to that first state. Even if in every state they cross, they could be legally active.
You could have sex in both states, on the state line, but you can't carry her across that line in a car, or your ass going to jail.
Those state laws are also very specific in what counts as 'legal' sex too, so in some states as much as kissing counts, in others some are protected while others aren't, like intercourse is fine, but anal or homosexual activity being illegal. Though with Lawrence V. Texas those laws aren't likely to be upheld in the same way anymore since 2003, I gather.
Some laws have a 'Romeo and Juliet' law, where there's an age limit, to protect a guy that's dating his 17 year old girlfriend from becoming a child molester magically the day he turns 18. These laws though almost universally protect only heterosexual couples. Like, it's usually a 3-4 year spread, so that a senior or junior in high school dating a freshmen doesn't become a child molester magically when she becomes a sophomore or something.
Some states don't give a crap, and you get an incident where a 15 year old boy is a registered child molester for life because he was caught kissing his older (but still underage) girlfriend.
Edit: Also, now, because of you Skeleon, I'm probably on some sort of FBI Watch List for my recent Wikipedia searches. So thanks for that.
Imperator_DK: Oh no! It's that heinous sin of Divorce rearing its ugly head. People splitting up, surely this is the end times...
The guy's already been fired from his job due to violating the trust necessary for the position, and there's no evidence he's done anything to her before she turned 18. Assuming he didn't, I fail to see any further problems here, certainly anything that concerns others than those involved.
He left a wife and kids to be with someone about 20 years younger than him...that is just wrong.
OK. Presume the person he was dating (an adult ALREADY mind you, who can make up their own damn mind, but let's pretend) was another 40 year old.
Would that matter, then?
Realistically, the situation is the same. An adult divorced, legally, another adult, to marry a different adult. Whoopidy do.
Your kid won't fucking die. People get fucking divorced. It's actually kind of insulting to state that he can't be a good father and not married to their children's mother. And if he's so old his kids are probably adults too anyways, so I'm sure they can deal with it more so anyways.
The only, and absolutely only 'sketchy' thing here is the fact that they were in a business relationship where one person has authority over the other, and only because it suggest coercive, but not necessarily violent rape, for favors on the 'job'.
But, hey, he resigned, and she still married him, so I'm extremely doubtful on that matter. After all if you're fucking your boss for a paycheck and he quits the job, do you keep dating him?
Following that, you have at best an argument that he's 'stupid' from a financial standpoint, but so fucking what. If you do something that doesn't maximize your potential profits, is that illegal?
He did the right thing he could do, by giving up his place in authority to follow his heart.
Id call her a child in some sense at least. As my grandfather once said "some guys are old men before they grow up" (I assume the same applies to women).
Its not sexist...its observation. I don't know what the science is but at least in my experience girls get a lot more psycho in puberty...come to think of it girls get a lot more psycho out of puberty too but that is beside the point (that last one might have been sexist but ;p)
Without any science to back you, yes that's sexist, even before you get to the last part.
It is fucking sexist, because guess what, Seekster. Women mature faster than men. That's a scientific fact. Oh, it's not by a LOT of time, mind you.
But if you're going to play the whole 'one sex matures faster' card, your sex lost that round. You can either concede defeat and admit that males are the weaker sex in that regard, backpedal and say the tiny amount of time on average between mental maturity between the sexes isn't really that big a deal (and hey, I'll hand you that one for free, no hard feelings), or continue to make up shit and sound sexist.
First of all its just a little creepy to be sleeping with someone who is young enough to be your child. However what really pissed me off about this story is that he abandoned his family for this young woman. Now if he had divorced his wife, made some kind of settlement with taking care of the kids and then moved in with someone half his age, yeah that still would be creepy but it would be better than what he actually did which was essentially move out suddenly like that while still married. From all the stories I read about the guy he sounds like garbage and I am not surprised that this was not his first foray into cradle robbing.
While what the man did with the 18 year old was legal and I wouldnt want the government to get involved in that incident it was thoroughly unethical. My hope is that the guy's family is able to get over him and move on and that the kids realize that its not their fault Daddy abandoned them. For the young woman I hope she and her Mom can reconcile and she can move on with her life after this little episode and learn from it. Life is full of decisions and consequences. Fortunately the young woman did not face any harsh consequences for her decision which was in my judgement at least a poor one. I think its nice that everything turned out alright for her though I still feel for the guy's family. They havnt spoken to the media much and seem content just to get over him.
As for your accusations of sexism I don't get what you are upset about. Every individual is different yes of course but in general women tend to enter puberty before men do. Not sure if this makes them more mature, I would say that prior to the teenage years yes females certainly seem to act more mature. In the end I think it pretty much balances out in general in terms of maturity level though like I said, each individual is going to be different.
Seekster: First of all its just a little creepy to be sleeping with someone who is young enough to be your child.
Is this in the same way that you'd feel it's 'creepy' for me to sleep with my own boyfriend, or how a racist person would feel that it's 'creepy' for a white man and a black woman to sleep together?
Or is in the way that, maybe it's 'creepy' that old people exist at all because they're gross?
Like do you have an actual point here?
She was an adult, he was an adult, and it wasn't my business, so patented "Do I give a crap?" meter registered 0. I'm sorry.
If you don't like dating old people or, whatever, then by all means don't. And I don't mean that in a condescending way. I feel that if gay people don't like to have sex with women they shouldn't, that if asexual people don't like sex period, they shouldn't do it, that if a super religious person decides they're celibate, fine, a straight buy probably won't enjoy doing it with another dude, etc. That's your choice.
But.. that's all it is. Your personal choice for your personal life. Unless you're this guy or this woman, then realistically you can take your fake moral outrage over what consenting adults do with their own private sex lives and move on.
Seekster: However what really pissed me off about this story is that he abandoned his family for this young woman. Now if he had divorced his wife, made some kind of settlement with taking care of the kids and then moved in with someone half his age, yeah that still would be creepy but it would be better than what he actually did which was essentially move out suddenly like that while still married. From all the stories I read about the guy he sounds like garbage and I am not surprised that this was not his first foray into cradle robbing.
To me, it sounds like you're upset at the idea that people might break up, period. And realistically I'm not in the mood to debate that matter.
Because it seems to me that if this was a case of a 40 year old guy with grown children leaving his wife to live with a different 40 year old woman, that it wouldn't be news. It wouldn't even be all that interesting.
Seekster: While what the man did with the 18 year old was legal and I wouldn't want the government to get involved in that incident it was thoroughly unethical.
OK, but you publicly shaming him into changing his ways is no real different than you making it illegal.
"It's your legal right to do this, but we're going to lynch you", doesn't sound like you're letting this guy exercise his lawful legal rights.
Seekster: My hope is that the guy's family is able to get over him and move on and that the kids realize that its not their fault Daddy abandoned them.
You have the most warped view of parenthood if you think that having a divorce means you have to (or even should) abandon your kids. The only reason the kids would think their father has abandoned them (their fault or not) is... if he goddamn abandons them.
Entering into another marriage isn't abandonment of your kids.
Seekster: For the young woman I hope she and her Mom can reconcile and she can move on with her life after this little episode and learn from it. Life is full of decisions and consequences. Fortunately the young woman did not face any harsh consequences for her decision which was in my judgement at least a poor one. I think its nice that everything turned out alright for her though I still feel for the guy's family. They haven't spoken to the media much and seem content just to get over him.
Maybe because unlike you they're not prone as you to turning something that is none of your business into a giant moral circus, and they're dealing with their private lives as they should and as you should let them.
As for your accusations of sexism I don't get what you are upset about. Every individual is different yes of course but in general women tend to enter puberty before men do. Not sure if this makes them more mature, I would say that prior to the teenage years yes females certainly seem to act more mature. In the end I think it pretty much balances out in general in terms of maturity level though like I said, each individual is going to be different.
The accusation of sexism is thus: You are claiming, and I am claiming, there is no real difference here between the sexes in this issue. And that it's a matter of individuality. And that whatever minute differences balance out, and, again, only individuality matters.
Buuuuut you went on earlier to say that men do it better.
Seekster: First of all its just a little creepy to be sleeping with someone who is young enough to be your child.
Is this in the same way that you'd feel it's 'creepy' for me to sleep with my own boyfriend, or how a racist person would feel that it's 'creepy' for a white man and a black woman to sleep together?
Or is in the way that, maybe it's 'creepy' that old people exist at all because they're gross?
Like do you have an actual point here?
She was an adult, he was an adult, and it wasn't my business, so patented "Do I give a crap?" meter registered 0. I'm sorry.
If you don't like dating old people or, whatever, then by all means don't. And I don't mean that in a condescending way. I feel that if gay people don't like to have sex with women they shouldn't, that if asexual people don't like sex period, they shouldn't do it, that if a super religious person decides they're celibate, fine, a straight buy probably won't enjoy doing it with another dude, etc. That's your choice.
But.. that's all it is. Your personal choice for your personal life. Unless you're this guy or this woman, then realistically you can take your fake moral outrage over what consenting adults do with their own private sex lives and move on.
Seekster: However what really pissed me off about this story is that he abandoned his family for this young woman. Now if he had divorced his wife, made some kind of settlement with taking care of the kids and then moved in with someone half his age, yeah that still would be creepy but it would be better than what he actually did which was essentially move out suddenly like that while still married. From all the stories I read about the guy he sounds like garbage and I am not surprised that this was not his first foray into cradle robbing.
To me, it sounds like you're upset at the idea that people might break up, period. And realistically I'm not in the mood to debate that matter.
Because it seems to me that if this was a case of a 40 year old guy with grown children leaving his wife to live with a different 40 year old woman, that it wouldn't be news. It wouldn't even be all that interesting.
Seekster: While what the man did with the 18 year old was legal and I wouldn't want the government to get involved in that incident it was thoroughly unethical.
OK, but you publicly shaming him into changing his ways is no real different than you making it illegal.
"It's your legal right to do this, but we're going to lynch you", doesn't sound like you're letting this guy exercise his lawful legal rights.
Seekster: My hope is that the guy's family is able to get over him and move on and that the kids realize that its not their fault Daddy abandoned them.
You have the most warped view of parenthood if you think that having a divorce means you have to (or even should) abandon your kids. The only reason the kids would think their father has abandoned them (their fault or not) is... if he goddamn abandons them.
Entering into another marriage isn't abandonment of your kids.
Seekster: For the young woman I hope she and her Mom can reconcile and she can move on with her life after this little episode and learn from it. Life is full of decisions and consequences. Fortunately the young woman did not face any harsh consequences for her decision which was in my judgement at least a poor one. I think its nice that everything turned out alright for her though I still feel for the guy's family. They haven't spoken to the media much and seem content just to get over him.
Maybe because unlike you they're not prone as you to turning something that is none of your business into a giant moral circus, and they're dealing with their private lives as they should and as you should let them.
As for your accusations of sexism I don't get what you are upset about. Every individual is different yes of course but in general women tend to enter puberty before men do. Not sure if this makes them more mature, I would say that prior to the teenage years yes females certainly seem to act more mature. In the end I think it pretty much balances out in general in terms of maturity level though like I said, each individual is going to be different.
The accusation of sexism is thus: You are claiming, and I am claiming, there is no real difference here between the sexes in this issue. And that it's a matter of individuality. And that whatever minute differences balance out, and, again, only individuality matters.
Buuuuut you went on earlier to say that men do it better.
That's why it's sexism.
Look if you dont see a problem with cradle robbing then ok thats your view. I think its creepy and that is my view. If you are asking me to prove that cradle robbing is objectively creepy then sorry but that is absurd. There is no way to measure creepy. You might as well ask me to objectively prove that Nachos are objectively tasty.
Sorry where did it say Hooker's children (and yes Tyler it is funny the guy's name is Hooker) are adults?
People have a legal right to smoke too, doesn't mean you can't walk around with an anti-smoking slogan on your T-shirt. I think public shame can go a long way in protecting the moral fiber of a society though I do acknowledge that if taken too far it can lead to hypocrisy.
But the guy DIDNT divorce his wife first, he just up and left her and their kids. Thats abandoning your family. Like I said, it wouldnt be as bad if he had divorced her first or heck if he had sat down with his family and explain himself so they could split up and then work out the divorce while he is living in sin (the phrase "living in sin" means living with and having a sexual relationship with someone whom you are not married to btw) then that wouldnt be as bad either. However from what I read it sounds like his wife and kids were surprised and shocked by this so they guy didnt even have the balls to tell his own family "I'm leaving".
Yes this is their private lives, I am not advocating that the government make it illegal to do what this guy did (with the 18-year-old at least) but when they go out there and share their private life with people on television I think I am justified in saying "no this sort of thing should not be approved of in society even if it is legal".
Well yes men and women are different in very real ways but overall yes it more or less balances out and that is in general. Individually yes all individuals are different though one should never ignore the differences between men and women. Instead one should acknowledge them but not overemphasize them. Men and Women are different but essentially equal, that is what I believe (and if anything I would give a slight nod to women but yeah essentially equal).
This isn't guy 40 dating some love of his life girl 18 who he met randomly: which in that case would be unorthodox (and imo inadvisable) but up to them and perfectly legal.
This is guy 40 leaving family for girl 18 who was HIS STUDENT from before she was 18.
"the romance didn't bloom until months after she became of legal age"
Yeh fucking right.
As a former UK teacher that guy is a sick fuck.
Yeah, the world has gone wrong. If that was my daughter she would be in therapy and that guy would be kneecapped and I would be doing time.
Look if you don't see a problem with cradle robbing then ok that's your view. I think its creepy and that is my view. If you are asking me to prove that cradle robbing is objectively creepy then sorry but that is absurd. There is no way to measure creepy. You might as well ask me to objectively prove that Nachos are objectively tasty.
I'm asking you to grow up and accept shit you don't like exists in the world. I'm not asking you to prove you do or don't like whatever. She's an adult. That's a fact you seem to want to throw out.
If she was a child, it'd be a very different story. Quit trying to imply that I'm OK with pedophilia.
As far as I'm concerned you're going "Man! Nachos are so nasty! There was a guy who ate some nachos. And we should all get together as a community and disrupt this guy's life. Fuck that guy and his shitty ass nachos. Eating nachos is exactly the same as having sex with children."
The only crime as far as I'm concerned was him sleeping with a minor, and that happened in 1998.
Seekster: But the guy DIDN'T divorce his wife first, he just up and left her and their kids. That's abandoning your family. Like I said, it wouldn't be as bad if he had divorced her first or heck if he had sat down with his family and explain himself so they could split up and then work out the divorce while he is living in sin (the phrase "living in sin" means living with and having a sexual relationship with someone whom you are not married to btw) then that wouldn't be as bad either. However from what I read it sounds like his wife and kids were surprised and shocked by this so they guy didn't even have the balls to tell his own family "I'm leaving".
One, again, that's their business, not yours or mine, which is why I don't care, two, I've seen his wife talk and she's a fucking shrew so I can see why he would be afraid of her, and three, what bothers me is all these allegations of him doing criminal shit only suddenly popped up 10 years later and shit when she got a hair up her ass, which really makes them sound pretty fake or her sound like a co conspirator and she should end up in jail too.
Like "Oh, I'm getting divorced? Well, you raped a child 10 years ago!" sounds pretty fishy. If she's right, she aided a rapist escape justice for 10 years. Otherwise she's making shit up to blackmail him because she's a huge bitch.
Either way this isn't a case of a terrible man and his saintly wife. Again, BEST case scenario for your moral outrage, is he's a terrible person (again, for what he did 10 years ago, not for what he's done today), and she's just as terrible for helping him get away with it.
Seekster: Yes this is their private lives, I am not advocating that the government make it illegal to do what this guy did (with the 18-year-old at least) but when they go out there and share their private life with people on television I think I am justified in saying "no this sort of thing should not be approved of in society even if it is legal".
But you're just being a dick about your own personal motivations in a situation that shouldn't involve you.
If I said that going to church makes you stupid, and I don't approve of it, does that mean I can follow you around and spread rumors about you and what not to make your life miserable until you conform to me?
Look if you don't see a problem with cradle robbing then ok that's your view. I think its creepy and that is my view. If you are asking me to prove that cradle robbing is objectively creepy then sorry but that is absurd. There is no way to measure creepy. You might as well ask me to objectively prove that Nachos are objectively tasty.
I'm asking you to grow up and accept shit you don't like exists in the world. I'm not asking you to prove you do or don't like whatever. She's an adult. That's a fact you seem to want to throw out.
If she was a child, it'd be a very different story. Quit trying to imply that I'm OK with pedophilia.
As far as I'm concerned you're going "Man! Nachos are so nasty! There was a guy who ate some nachos. And we should all get together as a community and disrupt this guy's life. Fuck that guy and his shitty ass nachos. Eating nachos is exactly the same as having sex with children."
The only crime as far as I'm concerned was him sleeping with a minor, and that happened in 1998.
Seekster: But the guy DIDN'T divorce his wife first, he just up and left her and their kids. That's abandoning your family. Like I said, it wouldn't be as bad if he had divorced her first or heck if he had sat down with his family and explain himself so they could split up and then work out the divorce while he is living in sin (the phrase "living in sin" means living with and having a sexual relationship with someone whom you are not married to btw) then that wouldn't be as bad either. However from what I read it sounds like his wife and kids were surprised and shocked by this so they guy didn't even have the balls to tell his own family "I'm leaving".
One, again, that's their business, not yours or mine, which is why I don't care, two, I've seen his wife talk and she's a fucking shrew so I can see why he would be afraid of her, and three, what bothers me is all these allegations of him doing criminal shit only suddenly popped up 10 years later and shit when she got a hair up her ass, which really makes them sound pretty fake or her sound like a co conspirator and she should end up in jail too.
Like "Oh, I'm getting divorced? Well, you raped a child 10 years ago!" sounds pretty fishy. If she's right, she aided a rapist escape justice for 10 years. Otherwise she's making shit up to blackmail him because she's a huge bitch.
Either way this isn't a case of a terrible man and his saintly wife. Again, BEST case scenario for your moral outrage, is he's a terrible person (again, for what he did 10 years ago, not for what he's done today), and she's just as terrible for helping him get away with it.
Seekster: Yes this is their private lives, I am not advocating that the government make it illegal to do what this guy did (with the 18-year-old at least) but when they go out there and share their private life with people on television I think I am justified in saying "no this sort of thing should not be approved of in society even if it is legal".
But you're just being a dick about your own personal motivations in a situation that shouldn't involve you.
If I said that going to church makes you stupid, and I don't approve of it, does that mean I can follow you around and spread rumors about you and what not to make your life miserable until you conform to me?
No, that would make me a dick.
Oh I accept that it happens, doesn't mean I can't criticize it.
I am not trying to imply you are ok with pedophilia. Still this is pretty messed up even if she is a legal adult.
I don't know what to tell you Damien. I think this is messed up, if you are ok with this then fine you are entitled to that viewpoint just as I am entitled to mine. You criticize me saying "its none of my business" as if I am advocating that somebody interfere. In fact I am not. It is their private life, I am saying that there should not be interference in that. However I find what this guy did to be messed up and I am expressing that viewpoint. That is all I am doing here.
Nightspore: Yeah, the world has gone wrong. If that was my daughter she would be in therapy and that guy would be kneecapped and I would be doing time.
It's unlikely you impose a curfew on your daughter untill after she is 18, and don't allow her to even visit shops or the cinema without being escorted by a male relative.
That's what her parents did. I'm not surprised she'll do anything to get away from them.
Her parents are the ones who need punishment.
Seekster: And honestly I don't see what the mother did that was so bad. Yeah she was a little too strict I think but only a little.
You got the bit in the media coverage about their daughter not being allowed to leave the house unescorted?
Outside of Saoudi-Arabia, I don't know of any place where that still happens. Afghanistan under the Taliban years ago. But they did that to their daughter.
She didnt let her daughter go to the movies or mall alone. Yes Ill agree that is overly strict, especially when we are talking about the late teens. I think you are overplaying that though. In Saudi Arabia you arent allowed to go ANYWHERE unescorted if you are female. This just says she wasnt allowed to go to certain places alone. That may even mean she was allowed to go with friends.
Why is he automatically a "dirtbag" ...? We don't know the circumstances of his life, or hers. I, for one, am not so willing to stand in judgment of another... my Christian friend.
As for defending him, again, you don't consider the defense of slavery hundreds of years ago much worse than this "moral decay" you wring your hands about now? An adult had sex with an 18 year old woman, leaving his wife and kids. You honestly can't find more horrible stories in your own religious texts than this?
This is the epitome of moral decay to you? Not that children are starving and dying unwanted around the world; but that two adults had sex?
Wow, man. You never stop having your eyes opened, I guess.