Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

This makes it clear he doesn't know, but is just projecting his own fantasies on the situation.

Hey man, you don't want to go there. gak will get weird.

You just had me laughing hard. Well done and let's leave this mess as friends. Extends hand.

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

This makes it clear he doesn't know, but is just projecting his own fantasies on the situation.

Hey man, you don't want to go there. gak will get weird.

You just had me laughing hard. Well done and let's leave this mess as friends. Extends hand.

Put that hand back, you're in his personal space!

Relapse wrote:


You just had me laughing hard. Well done and let's leave this mess as friends. Extends hand.

Very well. *Shakes hand*

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

This makes it clear he doesn't know, but is just projecting his own fantasies on the situation.

Hey man, you don't want to go there. gak will get weird.

You just had me laughing hard. Well done and let's leave this mess as friends. Extends hand.

Put that hand back, you're in his personal space!

Not you too!

I am seriously laughing my ass off putting your comment together with that picture! Good job gentlemen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:


You just had me laughing hard. Well done and let's leave this mess as friends. Extends hand.

Very well. *Shakes hand*

Hugs, chaste hugs?

I keep coming back to the part in the article where the boy admits he slapped her butt several times during the event. In my mind, that rules out the idea of this being a terribly traumatizing experience. I realize Stockholm syndrome and systematic abuse can invoke unwilling or coerced participation, but as far as I know that can't occur in the course of a 3 minute song in public place.

It is an abuse of power by the teacher, and she should never teach again.

Hugs, chaste hugs?

Please, people probably already think this entire argument is just some bizarre form of foreplay

 LordofHats wrote:

Hugs, chaste hugs?

Please, people probably already think this entire argument is just some bizarre form of foreplay

Bow chicka bow wow.

Was it good for you, too?

Relapse wrote:


Was it good for you, too?

Eh. It was kind of hard to stay up for dessert after the dinner.

Lucky kid...

LOL imagine how many of us guys would brag about it if it of happen to us

That particular teacher? Eh, not feeling any attraction to her. The chem teacher who got caught sleeping with students? Oh, hell yes I'd brag!! But not everybody would handle that situation the same. It all depends on the person.


Good lord, you can tell it's a messed up thread when I'm a voice of reason in it.

Relapse wrote:

You have expressed in the past if bad things that happen to others don't affect you personally, you don't care.

I don't. However that does not mean I only care about myself. For example, if something were to happen to my mother that would affect my on a personal level, implying that I do care about some others; but only others I have a personal relationship with.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
That particular teacher? Eh, not feeling any attraction to her. The chem teacher who got caught sleeping with students? Oh, hell yes I'd brag!! But not everybody would handle that situation the same. It all depends on the person.


Good lord, you can tell it's a messed up thread when I'm a voice of reason in it.

There are many things I could call your comment, but "voice of reason" is not one of them.

 LordofHats wrote:
Much like Relapse, you're making the false equivalence that a fully clothed lap dance is somewhere in the same world as full blown sex, stalking, or the collection of other abuses that define child molesters. They are not.

I am not. However, I am pretty sure if that had happened to me back then, I am pretty sure it would not have been something I would have enjoyed, and therefore the ensuing “popularity” would have also been very unsettling and disturbing actually. And would probably have backfired if I showed I did not enjoy it. But that is quite well mentioned in the video I put before. Though I have to admit I certainly would not have slapped her butt.
My point is not that she should be charged in the same way as if she had raped the boy, my point is that you cannot assume the boy will enjoy the following popularity. It is really just about whether or not you can assume he will enjoy or be distressed by it.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

You have expressed in the past if bad things that happen to others don't affect you personally, you don't care.

I don't. However that does not mean I only care about myself. For example, if something were to happen to my mother that would affect my on a personal level, implying that I do care about some others; but only others I have a personal relationship with.

This right here is exactly his point-you realize that, right? Something happening to your mother, it affects you personally. Just because it's not something that happened to you directly doesn't mean it's not personal. You've proven his point entirely. You've admitted if it's not part of your life directly, you don't care. Your mother is a direct part of your life.

And yes, compared to some of the slinging going on in this thread, my voice is far more reasonable than most. But...carry on anyway. I said I'd brag about the one teacher, but not everyone handles things the same-some people would have issue with it. I'd say that's a fairly reasonable response. "Reasonable" doesn't mean "emotionless". Of course I'd show emotion if it was something I was excited about. That's human nature. But just because I'd have been excited about it doesn't mean Joe Nextdoor would be. I swear, you've got to be trolling us all at this point.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

My point is not that she should be charged in the same way as if she had raped the boy

She gave him a lap dance. She didn't have sex with him, or rape him. No nudity was involved. Sending her to jail for 20 years for a stupid decision is completely over the top. Losing her job and being put on the sex offender registry are sufficient punishments for an incident that thus far seems highly unlikely to repeat itself.

Though I have to admit I certainly would not have slapped her butt.

Stepping away from our dispute for a moment, in and of itself, seeming cooperation is not a sign that someone actually was cooperating. It's not uncommon for rapists and predators to coerce their victims into performing acts they would not of their own accord. They then use those acts to convince the victim that they wanted it all along and in court will argue that it is a sign that no rape or abuse occurred. EDIT: The most common one is saying that if someone had an orgasm they enjoyed it and it's not rape. That's not true. Orgasm is a biological mechanism. You can't always stop it just because you don't want it.

Rape and sexual abuse isn't about sex. Sex is just a byproduct. It's about control and it's about power. That's what rapists and predators really get off on. Having completely control over another person who doesn't want to be controlled.

 LordofHats wrote:
She gave him a lap dance. She didn't have sex with him, or rape him. No nudity was involved. Sending her to jail for 20 years for a stupid decision is completely over the top. Losing her job and being put on the sex offender registry are sufficient punishments for an incident that thus far seems highly unlikely to repeat itself.

Yeah, you are basically agreeing with what I just said.

Back to my point, are you still so sure the guy enjoyed it and/or will enjoy the “popularity” it earned him ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Yeah, you are basically agreeing with what I just said.

You must have a bizarre definition of what rape means

 LordofHats wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

My point is not that she should be charged in the same way as if she had raped the boy

She gave him a lap dance. She didn't have sex with him, or rape him. No nudity was involved. Sending her to jail for 20 years for a stupid decision is completely over the top. Losing her job and being put on the sex offender registry are sufficient punishments for an incident that thus far seems highly unlikely to repeat itself.

Though I have to admit I certainly would not have slapped her butt.

Stepping away from our dispute for a moment, in and of itself, seeming cooperation is not a sign that someone actually was cooperating. It's not uncommon for rapists and predators to coerce their victims into performing acts they would not of their own accord. They then use those acts to convince the victim that they wanted it all along and in court will argue that it is a sign that no rape or abuse occurred.

Rape and sexual abuse isn't about sex. Sex is just a byproduct. It's about control and it's about power. That's what rapists and predators really get off on. Having completely control over another person who doesn't want to be controlled.

Fairly profound statement there. There was a woman I was pretty involved with for a number of years who told me about being gang raped as a 16 year old by her sky diving instructor and a couple of his buddies. She couldn't really bring herself to speak about it in detail, and I never pressed her about it, but she would bring it up in bits and pieces during the course of our relationship. A lot of what she told me meshes well with your comments about power. She said he told her once they were done with her that she'd forget about it within a year. Pretty sick and anger inducing stuff.
She never forgot about it but was eventually able to move on with her life and became a doctor specializing in contageous diseases.

 poppa G wrote:
Lucky kid...

mmm no, Id be grossed out if that old lady started grinding up on me.

and while this particular situation isnt the worst possible case, it does still highlight the double standard our culture has regarding male victims of inappropriate sexual acts (be they as insevere as this one, or more severe)

 LordofHats wrote:
You must have a bizarre definition of what rape means

You must have misread my post. Maybe skimmed over a negation or something .

Relapse wrote:


Fairly profound statement there. There was a woman I was pretty involved with for a number of years who told me about being gang raped as a 16 year old by her sky diving instructor and a couple of his buddies. She couldn't really bring herself to speak about it in detail, and I never pressed her about it, but she would bring it up in bits and pieces during the course of our relationship. A lot of what she told me meshes well with your comments about power. She said he told her once they were done with her that she'd forget about it within a year. Pretty sick and anger inducing stuff.
She never forgot about it but was eventually able to move on with her life and became a doctor specializing in contageous diseases.

Yep, and even if a bunch of people surround someone and coerce a 'yes' from them, it's still rape. This is a frequent form that sex assault takes in the US Military. Not gang rape per se, but its hard to hide sex assault in a unit. Coercing the victim in some way to have sex is still rape. In some jurisdictions I think it is a lesser degree of rape (some have degrees of rape like degrees of murder).

Unfortunately our double standard across the board is that it becomes hard to convict a rapist of their crimes if they can walk into court and say that the other person cooperated. Sick thing (it basically victimizes the victim all over again).

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Fairly profound statement there. There was a woman I was pretty involved with for a number of years who told me about being gang raped as a 16 year old by her sky diving instructor and a couple of his buddies. She couldn't really bring herself to speak about it in detail, and I never pressed her about it, but she would bring it up in bits and pieces during the course of our relationship. A lot of what she told me meshes well with your comments about power. She said he told her once they were done with her that she'd forget about it within a year. Pretty sick and anger inducing stuff.
She never forgot about it but was eventually able to move on with her life and became a doctor specializing in contageous diseases.

Yep, and even if a bunch of people surround someone and coerce a 'yes' from them, it's still rape. This is a frequent form that sex assault takes in the US Military. Not gang rape per se, but its hard to hide sex assault in a unit. Coercing the victim in some way to have sex is still rape. In some jurisdictions I think it is a lesser degree of rape (some have degrees of rape like degrees of murder).

Unfortunately our double standard across the board is that it becomes hard to convict a rapist of their crimes if they can walk into court and say that the other person cooperated. Sick thing (it basically victimizes the victim all over again).

She went after the guy a couple days later with a rifle, but was stopped from shooting him. He was married with kids, and that went by the boards for him when it came out what he had done.

So, LordsOfHat, what is so strange about my definition of rape ?

Maybe we are all looking at it wrong. School funding issues and closures have been a huge issue recently in H-town.

Maybe the teacher just figured out an alternative revenue stream to help fund the pubic schools.


Seriously, if feel you it would be a form of molestation if the teacher was a 42 yo male and/or the student was female...then you have to apply the same for this case.

Its not a matter of "he wanted it". That excuse doesn't apply with girl victims so it should not/can not apply here.
The point being that under current laws a 15 y.o. kid can not legally give consent. No legal consent means "no consent" at which point it becomes an assault.

Also, some here need to understand that while rape is a form of sexual offense, not all sex offenses are rape. Some are abuse and/or molestation.

Finally, in recent years the definitions for sexual offense like rape and molestation have been expanded to include otherwise consentual acts but are considered a crime due to one individual having authority over another.

This means that a student or employee can be of legal age and give consent, then the later claim rape or molestation.
Whether you agree with this or not, it is how rape and sexual molestation are currently being defined in the U.S.

Later

Edit spelling

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, LordsOfHat, what is so strange about my definition of rape ?

You were saying we should charge her like she raped him, so it sounded like you were either equaling her actions to rape or that rape was broad enough to include lap dances XD

 LordofHats wrote:
You were saying we should charge her like she raped him, so it sounded like you were either equaling her actions to rape or that rape was broad enough to include lap dances XD

No. I was saying we should not charge her like she raped him. It is basically the contrary. You know, the exact opposite.
See :
“My point is not that she should be charged in the same way as if she had raped the boy”
Maybe my sentence was not very clear, but I explicitly told you that you likely had missed a negation, and you did not care.
So now, please re-read my post while keeping that in mind.

Ahh, my bad

 timetowaste85 wrote:

This right here is exactly his point-you realize that, right? Something happening to your mother, it affects you personally. Just because it's not something that happened to you directly doesn't mean it's not personal. You've proven his point entirely.

His initial point was that I don't care about anyone but myself. If I care about my mother then I clearly care about people other than myself, as I am not my mother.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

You've admitted if it's not part of your life directly, you don't care. Your mother is a direct part of your life.

Well, no, I admitted that if something does not affect me, personally, I don't care about it. I made no comment about directness.

And the larger point is that anything which does not impact you on a personal level is a thing you are not emotionally invested in (read: care about).