Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

alstry (35.88)

Putting the WRONG people in Prison?

Recs

13

July 03, 2008 – Comments (9)

I was reading an article this morning about a Nebraska math teacher going to serve a minimum of 70 months in Federal prison for travelling with her 13 year old male student to Mexico and having sex with him.   Don't we have a shortage of math teachers?

What struck me was when I looked at her picture, obviously not taken with any make up and likely after taken into custody, she appeared rather normal looking.  Then I thought about that hot looking blond Florida also female teacher who was convicted of a similar act......but as I recall she got only house arrest.

Is that fair, the hot teacher gets house arrest and the less attractive one gets 70 months? 

Then I really got to thinking, should any of them really got any time....maybe they should have received a bonus for after school tutoring?  I remember when I was thirteen.....I would have died for any of my female teachers to teach me a thing or two after school.  I would have easily paid an entire summer's worth of lawn cutting money just for a few lessons....maybe even one. 

And we are locking up our teachers for providing what any young healthy male would consider bragging rights for life?

Please understand I have a double standard, intellectually I should not be proud of it, but the double standard exists nonetheless.  If a male teacher acted this way to my daughter, I would probably think the appropriate punishment would be having his genitles cut off and then serve a life sentence in a gay Turkish prison.

Back to the looks issue.....we really do treat people who are attractive very differently then those less attractive.  The hot looking blond teacher becomes a celebrity and the more homely looking one we treat as an outcast.....for the exact same act.  Heck with the lights out, what difference does it make?

Back to being serious for a second.  In the past few years, I have seen behavior by executives of publicly traded companies cause much greater economic and social damage than the actions of the two teachers above.  What is even more amazing, not only are these executives not being punished, they are being showered with millions upon millions in bonuses and severance packages while lives around them are being destroyed for a variety of reasons which can be related directly to their behavior.

Our country faces very serious problems ahead.  Our income is dropping rapidly and food and fuel costs are spiraling out of control.  Today Airtran is cutting the wages of ALL of its employees by about 10% and oil closed over $145 per barrel.

Our executives are sucking billions out of our public companies while the employees are getting squeezed.  A 10% pay cut for a person making $10 million per year has a much smaller lifestyle impact on that person compared to a 10% paycut for a person $30K per year....especially during the current period.

I just heard that manhole covers are being stolen in Florida and turned in for scrap.  As more and more people get pushed to the economic edge, expect  improper acts to rise.  If a person is so desperate to steal a manhole cover to raise a few bucks.......what's next?

Our system is breaking down......allowing executives to pilfer millions from money losing businesses and providing misleading financial statements but putting math teachers in prison for at least 70 months for doing something most European parents would have offered a bonus..........we live in interesting times indeed!!!

9 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 03, 2008 at 7:33 PM, abitare (87.76) wrote:

There are 500k views of this:

Why Teachers Have Sex With Students

 

But this has 1,900,000 views:

Van Halen - Hot for Teacher

 

Report this comment
#2) On July 03, 2008 at 7:37 PM, abitare (87.76) wrote:

Actually Van Halen has Views: 1,944,953 and five stars out of five star ratings.

Report this comment
#3) On July 03, 2008 at 7:40 PM, abitare (87.76) wrote:

FYI - CNN RateMyProfessors.com hottest teachers

 

Report this comment
#4) On July 03, 2008 at 11:48 PM, FleaBagger (28.77) wrote:

That's pretty sick. 13 yr olds (neither boys nor girls) do not grow up normal after having sex with an adult. Also, the execs you talk about are taking advantage of people who are allowing themselves to be taken in, and they in turn take advantage of taxpayers by lobbying the government. People taking responsibility for their own mortgages and investments would go a long way to preventing housing bubbles and fixing the overpayment of CEO's.

Report this comment
#5) On July 04, 2008 at 1:03 AM, DemonDoug (60.67) wrote:

Wow.  I have so much to say in response to all of this.

"Is that fair, the hot teacher gets house arrest and the less attractive one gets 70 months?"

Legally? No.  Socially?  Hell yah!  If I'm 13 and I'm nailing a 27 year old perfect 10, I've just made myself an alpha dog.  If I'm 13 and I nail some homely frumpy 30something, I've just set myself up for ridicule.

"Please understand I have a double standard, intellectually I should not be proud of it, but the double standard exists nonetheless."

Maybe it's because I don't have a daughter, but I have no such double standard.  My belief is that sex should be legal for any male who can ejaculate and any female who has had at least one period.  The purpose of sex is to propogate your genetic code, and once you are physically able to initiate sex, I see no reason why we should make it illegal.  Now, I'm not saying that nonconsexual sex is okay - anyone who rapes anyone or truly forces or assaults someone sexually deserves the lifetime of shame they get when they get put on Megan's list.

That psychiatrist is indicative of a strictly puritanical heritage our country has had from the time it began, an unhealthy and repressive social order that suppresses our own biological desires to the point where many, if not most Americans, grow up with extremely screwed up viewpoints on sex and sexuality.  He talks about sex as being "all on the outside" and "young kids not being ready for intense, sexual relationships."  I contend it's the drug pushers like him that label this behavior as "deviant" that needs to be corrected.  He talks about the teacher being responsible to not respond to sexual advances - and that this is a vulnerability.  I say BS.  Most women are born as submissives, and defer to stronger men who are leaders - alpha males.

Here's the simple biology: Women are hard-wired to be sexually aroused by men who display strength, power, and assertiveness.  It should be legal for them to have sex with whomever comes across their path and gets them aroused, as long as they are definitively consenting.

This doesn't relate too well to executive compensation, IMO.  Executive compensation is a construct of runaway capitalism without effective regulation or controls.  I prefer the way China does it - fraud on a massive scale is a capitol offense.  Think sarbox is tough?  Mozilo, Skilling, Ken Lay, the Bear Stearns guys, they'd likely be facing the death penalty in China (if they didn't have enough friends in high places).  

I do agree that executives are the worst criminals out there.  I want them all handcuffed, I want their assets seized, I want them thrown in jail for 10 years at least, I want them to not ever be able to be executives on a board of directors or anything.  I might not be as bearish as you on the whole Alstry, but on this I might even be stronger feeling than you: I want the CEO past and present of SPF to be thrown in jail for a long, long time.  I want them to be poor, out on the street, and I wish, I just wish we could make fraud of 100m or more a capitol offense - because the destructive impact of fraud on that scale likely causes death, multiple deaths, in the form of hardships of the public at large.

We need better enforcement of the markets (not more regs - we have enough - but enforce the regs that are there), and we need less laws that restrict civil liberties, freedoms, and nany-state BS.  Here in CA they just banned holding a cellphone to your ear while you are driving.  Studies have shown that holding a cellphone is just as distracting as a hands free device when driving.  Nanny state BS - and a way for the state to make more money and tax it's populace.

"13 yr olds (neither boys nor girls) do not grow up normal after having sex with an adult."

On what authority do you make this claim?  On what data do you support this claim?  For entire swaths of human history, it was not only normal but expected that women of child-bearing capacity to be married and have a family.  Just because we now have longer lifespans, we are expected to withhold our sexuality when it presents itself biologically?  I find this hyper-puritanism and christian doctrine appalling.  Egypt, Greece, Rome, Israel, India, China - all ancient "civilized" societies had marriage and sexual relationships typically when girls reached puberty (had their first period).  What changed, I contend, was not just the medical knowledge to expand life, but the entire christian doctrine that has evolved over the past 1500-2000 years to make sex seem to be like this dirty, awful thing that should be done solely for procreation.  It is these types of philosophies and policies, I believe, that actually lead to MORE deviant behavior, not because of conflicting messages, but because the WRONG message is being taught to men and women.

I could write a 50 page essay on the topic, but suffice it to say we are mostly screwed up because of the puritanical shackles of restrictive christian dictatorial doctrine.  On what authority do I make my statements?  Well, a BA in psychology for one, a lot of common sense for two, for a third I will attribute to my own independent study of evolution, biology, power and seduction, and hell, why not some actual facts to back up my point?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/health/05baka.html

"Girls who have sex at an early age are at slightly greater risk than their peers for feeling depressed, a new study has found. But their self-esteem suffers only if the sex occurs outside a romantic relationship.

For boys, having sex at an early age does not increase depression or decrease self-esteem.

“I suspected that there might be negative effects of early sex for some groups,” said Ann M. Meier, the study’s author and an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota. “And that’s what I found — but only under very specific circumstances.”

...Dr. Meier said that there were well-known negative effects of early sex, like early pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. “But over all,” she said, “there are very few effects on mental health, either negative or positive.” "

 

"It is better to be a dog in peaceful times than a man in turbulent times" - Chinese proverb (that has been incorrectly attributed as "May you live in interesting times.")

Report this comment
#6) On July 04, 2008 at 3:37 AM, FleaBagger (28.77) wrote:

I see where you get your screen name, Doug. You think it's okay for men to have sex with 12 yr old girls - or boys - and you think capitalism needs to be tightly controlled by government? Your thinking is so backwards! Do you really not know that girls in ancient Greece frequently died before their second pregnancy because of the trauma of bearing a child while still a child? Did you miss the fact that Litorneau's "lover" is a despondent alcoholic now, not an alpha dog looking for his next conquest? (Though perhaps he is a despondent alcoholic looking for his next conquest.) Do you think that 12 yr old girls who were abandoned to the streets by their parents are in a position to give consent?

The study you link to has no scientific value whatsoever, quite apart from the fact that it is reported in the infamously unreliable NY Times. They do not have an adequate time frame, adequate sample, or any way of preventing lying to the interviewers.

Think about this: abstinent teens don't get pregnant, don't get gonorrhea, and are much less likely to get AIDS than sexually active teens. And I suspect AIDS can cause depression. (Though, if they are diagnosed after the end of the short time frame of the study you quoted, that's not likely to show up in the numbers, now is it?)

You mock Christians for our beliefs, but you are a hypocrite if you say that abstinence has ever failed to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Only Christians are supposed to believe that an abstinent girl ever got pregnant. But seriously, no one ever got an STI or STD while abstinent, and if two people who practiced abstinence get married, they stay STD-free for life! Talk about common sense! 

Do you not know that teens who grew up without their father living in their home are far more likely to be sexually active, infected with an STI, unable to complete high school, become addicted to controlled substances, and remain below the poverty line? And to top it off, their children are far more likely to grow up in a home without a father! Think about the ramifications of that, Doug.

The hedonistic utopia you envision is being tried - it has been tried in many places all over the world throughout most of history, as you yourself imply. What you leave out is that the "oppressive" Christian doctrine of faithfully monogamous marriage (not actually unique to Christianity) is the only system that has produced widespread happiness, health, and prosperity.

I'll admit that it isn't all about age. It isn't about age when you read the Bible, either. But it's two totally different things when you talk about, on the one hand, teens having sex with each other all the time and trusting in condoms and pills to save them, and on the other hand two 16 yr olds who were raised well, each by both parents, marrying in a context of loving, devoted monogamy. Or even younger adults, if they really are mature enough to be considered adults. But the laws of this country protect <18 yr olds because the overwhelming majority of them, in this day and age, don't have anything like adult-level maturity. 

Also, I think it's telling that you say nothing about love in your whole rant. When sexual deviancy in this country (U.S.A.) was first being advanced in earnest (in the 1960's, if I understand history right), it was being sold on the basis that it was an expression of "love." Well, that was a smoke-and-mirror trick. Now you don't even disguise your nihilism.

Yesterday I thought that the one area where even atheists and other irreligious people would draw the line was sex abuse of minors. But now even that line is fading. Where to next? 

Report this comment
#7) On July 04, 2008 at 10:10 AM, alstry (35.88) wrote:

Flea and Demon,

Regarding teen sex, both of you present your positions well.  As parents, when we send our kids to school, regardless of our personal beliefs, we should be able to expect that our kids will be "safe".  That is what makes America so wonderful, we can all have differing personal beliefs, but live in a system where all are protected.

Back to the corporate executives....it is an unfair playing field.  Most Americans who put their trust in their leadership cannot protect themselves from their deceit.  You can't protect yourself from misrepresentation....that is why it is a crime.  Most Americans are not forensic accountants so interpreting the data correctly is not reasonable.

The problem is when we all finally find out what really happened.....it will be too late.  Some of us tried to warn, others thought we were just doom and gloomers....in the end it won't matter.....nobody really wants to listen.

Report this comment
#8) On July 05, 2008 at 3:06 PM, DemonDoug (60.67) wrote:

I can't agree alstry.  Flea stated that my article was flawed, yet brought no alternative study or data to back up any of his points.  As an atheist, I'm 100% against all forms of child abuse and sexual assault, and as such, I'm extremely anti-christian - how did all that abstinence work for all the preachers who molested all those young boys and girls out there?  Most of those preachers never served one second in jail.

He also made many points that were completely non-sequitor to any of my arguments, and if I had the inclination to keep this going much further, I'd refute all of them, but suffice it to say, ignoring basic biology and evolution and using revisionist history or having false knowledge of history doesn't make those arguments right in any way.

Report this comment
#9) On July 06, 2008 at 1:40 AM, alstry (35.88) wrote:

Demon,

As an atheist, you are 100% against all forms of child abuse and sexual assault.....really now, don't you think an equally high percentage of people of faith whether it be Christian, Moslem, Jewish, or most any other mainstream religion would hold similar views?

How may  atheists have commited horrible crimes?  Crimes are committed regardless of faith and to generalize is simply unbecoming of one who fantansizes himself an intellectual.

And to be totally secular with logic, aetheism can be as extreme as right wing christianity or any  other extreme perspective on any faith....to assert the absence of a higher power without proof is the logical equivilent of a postive assertion based simply on faith.

From my view, and a purely logical perspective, those who assert they are agnostic are truly the most intellectually honest.

Let's keep this topic off CAPS as investing is the topic and too many collateral and emotional issues will cloud the issues.  I intended it to be light hearted with focus on the babe vs. non babe teacher.....let's let it pass and maybe one day I will convert you to a person of faith.......at this point I am just not certain what faith I think you should be yet:)

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement