Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sadly I have to agree with you. My own personal experiences with the first ten girlfreinds that I had 8 of them were either raped or abused as a young girl. As I got older the number increased. I have always felt a certain way because these women trusted me enough to tell me a very bad part in their lives.
Every woman I have ever dated was abused and I am very involved in workshops related to rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence etc. in my school and area. Abuse is much more common than most people realize.
So following this thought (bold) our ancestors had "inappropriate" relationships all the time.
Yes, yes they did. You realize that women were viewed as commodities & property in the past, & marrying your young daughter to an older man was a means to secure wealth/land? I wouldn't consider that always appropriate or even consensual.
Quote:
From what I've read as late as the 1900's it wasn't uncommon for a girl of 14 to marry, usually someone much older than she. It also wasn't unheard of for girls of 13 as well.
Yes, many inappropriate things were considered the norm "back in the day." Thankfully when we know better, we do better.
Quote:
I personally know of a girl who was quite promiscuous at 11-12 (looked 15) who started living with a guy who she started "playing" with when 12 and married him at 14 then had a kid at 15. He was around 26. She was one of a few young girls I knew like this and they were always the aggressor.
It doesn't matter how aggressively a child pursues a sexual relationship, it doesn't make it right. The adult in this scenario took advantage of a child who probably had a sexual abuse history prior to meeting him (if she was not molested or worse, she may have been exposed to pornography). It doesn't really matter how she became hyper-sexual at such a young age, what she NEEDED was help coping with her sexual urges -- NOT an adult that took advantage of her & groomed her to believe that was okay.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 10-06-2012 at 06:31 AM..
Yes, yes they did. You realize that women were viewed as commodities & property in the past, & marrying your young daughter to an older man was a means to secure wealth/land? I wouldn't consider that always appropriate or even consensual.
But you do see it as sometimes appropriate or consensual? Who decides? The church,the moral majority, who?
Yes, many inappropriate things were considered the norm "back in the day." Thankfully when we know better, we do better. [/quote]
Do we really? I don't want to side track this thread, just think how the gay issue is currently being handled by those in the "moral majority" and others. We know better and yet there's still deprogramming etc going on.
Quote:
It doesn't matter how aggressively a child pursues a sexual relationship, it doesn't make it right. The adult in this scenario took advantage of a child who probably had a sexual abuse history prior to meeting him (if she was not molested or worse, she may have been exposed to pornography). It doesn't really matter how she became hyper-sexual at such a young age, what she NEEDED was help coping with her sexual urges -- NOT an adult that took advantage of her & groomed her to believe that was okay.
Seriously? was exposed to porn so that made her hyper-sexual? Yes it does matter how it came to pass. What if it just did? What if she just happened to develop that way? Having been around her I can say she was what you'd call "old for her age" and looked to be comfortable in her role as wife/mother.
I'm not saying that if the kid is aggressive it's ok but what I am saying is it's not always a cut and dried issue, there's many shades of grey involved.
That's your definition and perhaps the dictionary's definition, but unfortunately it isn't the law's definition. If it were Mary Kay Letourneau, among many others, would never have gone to prison.
So the people reading along know a couple of facts about the case:
Mary Kay Letourneau was 34. She was married, the mother of four children and teaching in a public school.
She started having sex with her student when he was 12 and in her 6th grade class. She first met him when he was in the 2nd grade and a student in her class.
Mary Kay Letourneau was a married, elementary school teacher in Shorewood Elementary School in Burien, Washington when she began a relationship with a sixth grade student she had previously taught in second grade. Letourneau is arguably the forerunner in the female teacher sex scandal arena, which included her serving over seven years for rape of her student, later marrying the student in her crimes, having two of the student’s children, and being the true story behind a Lifetime Original Film. Today, the student, Vili Fualaau, and Letourneau are now married and raising the couple’s two children.
Criminal Charges of rape of a minor, which was a suspended sentence leaving Letourneau on probation for her crimes. However, Letourneau refused to avoid contact with the victim, who was still a minor at the time, and actually conceived the couple’s first child while in violation of her probation, which sent Letourneau to prison for seven and a half years.
Maybe you could clarify why you disagree regarding teenagers? Obviously there are power differentials between teenagers & adults via status/wealth/experience/etc. & obviously a teen's brain is not as developed as an adults, which research has shown impacts the ability to consider long-term consequences.
That poster has a "party line" as well...it's just a very different party.
So the people reading along know a couple of facts about the case:
Mary Kay Letourneau was 34. She was married, the mother of four children and teaching in a public school.
She started having sex with her student when he was 12 and in her 6th grade class. She first met him when he was in the 2nd grade and a student in her class.
Now that we have all the details straight, I take it you concur with me that under nimchimpsky's stated definition of "abuse", Letourneau was not guilty of abuse. Because that's what the point was.
I wanted to make sure everyone knew the ages involved. I'll make my own point. I consider what she did sexual abuse and she was found guilty in a court of law. She was 34 and he was 12
One more time: I think children should be protected by adults. Not used by them for the adult's own sexual/emotional/physical gratification. It's very simple. Children are not on this earth to be used or abused sexually by adults. Period. Do this to a child and go to prison. Do not stop. Do not collect $200.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 10-07-2012 at 09:27 AM..
I wanted to make sure everyone knew the ages involved. I'll make my own point. I consider what she did sexual abuse and she was found guilty in a court of law.
You're entitled to consider it anything you like. I don't agree with you, but I am more interested in whether nimchimpsky is going to revise her definition.
What is really strange is that men as adults look back at having sex with a good looking teacher back then as a win-win situation and never think about how that can affect a boy later in life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
