Columns Mar 11, 2015 at 4:00 am

Truth Be Told

Comments

115
WTF Venn?
Don't you know you're loved. Jesus. What does a fellow poster have to do?
Say it straight?
Ok Venn. A little pissed. Catching a train from Brisbane to the SunshineCoast, I'm telling you; you're me mate. Ok?
116
Ms Sissou - You get my point. Thank you. I almost just responded to the question with "LMB", but decided the conversation needed something a bit sharp for those who think that any teen boy of any orientation is "lucky" to be the object of female desire even when he doesn't want it (either in general or just from that particular female).

***

This reminds me of an episode of That 70's Show I saw during my hotel week while I was waiting for breakfast. Perhaps Mr Hunter and Dr Sean will recall the episode in which a pair of panties mysteriously appears in Eric's car. They don't belong to his girlfriend Donna or his sister Laurie. Kelso has a great line, "I like to think of myself as the Columbo of panties," and he's certainly reminiscent of at least Columbo's outwardly bumbling manner. Donna gets herself all worked up about Eric's having some secret pantie fetish [bizarre - my spell check likes pantie but hates panty - and it's not even a Fannee Doolee for anyone who remembers the original ZOOM], and Jackie gets her all worked up over Eric's presumed cheating. Donna storms out of her house and confronts Eric in front of Kelso and Fez at that hamburger place. Eric denies having any clue whose panties they are and Donna doesn't know what to think when we learn the truth. Donna's mother Midge (played by the fourth Charlie's Angel?) rushes in and says the panties are hers. At this revelation Kelso makes a huge bow of obeisance while crying, "ERIC! You are a GOD!!!" Alas, not - it turns out Donna's parents have been getting the spice back into their marriage by resorting to unusual and/or inappropriate venues.

And now, having, I hope, restored a lighter mood, I'm deciding I've said all I intend to say on this subject.

What are people's psychic vibrations about the second letter? I'm not comfortable calling my view on that letter any more than a psychic vibration until we know if/how the letter was edited. My PVs suggest a foggy picture of someone a bit like what we've been told of Mr Savage pere.
117
Ms Lava - "Those who hoped otherwise," was intended as a sharp rebuke to anyone here whose thinking would incline to the view that Sex With An Older Woman would have Straightened Me Out - or those who in their secret hearts would hope so a little, whether or not they'd have admitted it. I fear that number is greater than zero, although I'd be as happy to be wrong as Toni Collette's Harriet Smith was in Emma about her belief that one loves but once.
118
Psychic vibrations? Shit Venn.
I have to wait till I'm not pissed and read it again.
Friday 13th here. Cosmic psychic vibrations.
119
Was Toni Collette in Emma?
Shit that girl gets around.
120
TRUTH

Tell the truth and then deal with it. This is a highly consequential issue for her. She deserves to know. I say that even though to me it's a totally incomprehensible way to view things. But it sure sounds important to her. The future ex-Mrs. J sure loves her fairy tale views on love and sex. Look how well that turned out.
121
How interesting that in a thread so passionate about consent, we see so many rationalizations for lying about an issue on which a woman is basing a large part of her identity.
122
@116; Venn.. Donna's parents had sex in Eric's car? A little suspect.
That 70's Show, is on here, just before Jimmy Fallon- which I sometimes catch.
Great that The Good Wife is back on. This week Alicia, was on flu tablets- and got lost in fantasies bout fucking some of the men , in her life.
Cracked me up. Cause of course, Alicia ain't a fuck around gal.

126
Hunter, asking about another's vulnerability can easily be seen as hostile unless you offer some vulnerability of your own first.

Specifically when asking details of another's assault, it's polite to first give some detail of your own, and context for the question. No one likes to concentrate on things they dislike. If there is no apparent reason for asking, I find it hostile.
127
Mr. Ven, you asked about psychic vibrations about the second letter. I don't have any, but as it's written I don't understand the problem and I suspect that there's something important which has been left out. The crux of the problem seems to be this: "He suggested he couldn't support the marriage unless we were monogamous," and I'm not sure what that means. Did SON mean that the dad actually said that, or did the dad only "suggest" that he wouldn't support the marriage? What does "support the marriage" mean both to SON and his father? Would his father not recognize the couple as married, but still view them as a couple? Would the father not attend the wedding? Is this an elaborate excuse dreamed up by the father to cover his not supporting his gay son's right to marry? It's hard to tell.

Then there's the motivation: Dad was hurt by Mom's affair. Again, impossible to know, based on the amount of information given, how this played out. Are the parents divorced as a result of the mother's affair, or did they work through it and stay together? The dad seems to equate being in an open marriage or a monogamish one to having one partner cheat on the other. He's offering his perspective based on concern for his son's happiness, but the end result is bizarre: deciding that since the son is setting himself up for heartache by not starting off in a monogamous marriage he (dad) won't support this marriage. This doesn't make logical sense.

I suspect that the dad is uncomfortable with his son's being gay and with the idea of having a son-in-law or sees non-monogamous marriage as part of the "gay agenda of promiscuity" and is grasping at straws to justify his opposition.

Ultimately, it's not anyone else's business, parents included, how the two people in a marriage set limits on monogamy or exclusivity. I don't think SON needs to either lie to his dad or share the details of the arrangement he and his husband have. If they were being truly poly and there were secondary partners to be included at family events, it would be a different matter, but does anyone's parent's really need to know about occasional threesomes or the odd extra-marital date?
129
As far as basing attraction on "special sex things" or "special sex times" in a shared history, that sounds utterly normal. It was bad to lie about it, definitely. Especially to have kids and get married while lying about it. I don't know why he couldn't tell her the truth. It most likely had nothing to do with her and everything to do with the inability to process what happened for a very long time. Since his kids are still dependent, he should wait for the next appropriate time to tell her, imo. I think the effect on her would be similar to him finding out that she had aborted a child of his, or had a secret bank account to leave for awhile, or had a history of incest. Destabilizing. Maybe send the kids to summer camp and spill if he needs to, idk.

Hun - Sorry if you were hitting on Venn in some way that is over my head etc.
130
@128 Attila,
My primary reason for asking is I like dirty talk.
consent
But isn't it sometimes beneficial to the discloser?
The most beneficial thing for someone who's been hurt is respecting their feelings until they feel people are not awful again. Sometimes, if you have good ideas and throw them out there, it can help too. But that's when someone seems to welcome help.
That by talking about it, they take power over the incident?
If it is on their own terms, yes.
And can't the description be helpful to others, who thereby have something to compare to their own experience?
Wrenching out descriptions doesn't yield the most accurate ones. I think your viewpoint is nice. Imposing it on others is not.
133
@AFinch: I'd be interested in what some of Dan's expert guests have to offer on this.

Check out this article published in the Stranger called "Age of Consent: Psychologist Jesse Bering on What the Law Says Versus What the Science Says."
134
@109: "clearly this is deeply personal for you, to the point that a further abstract and academic discussion is pointless."

Declaring that it's okay to rape children provided they're of a certain gender is in no way abstract or academic, particularly when this is already a widely-accepted viewpoint. Similarly, walking into a bar in Mississippi in 1950 and talking about your belief that black people aren't really harmed by being beaten is not "abstract" or "academic."

Particularly when you do it in the presence of the people on whose backs you're painting a target.

@121: "How interesting that in a thread so passionate about consent, we see so many rationalizations for lying about an issue on which a woman is basing a large part of her identity."

Look hard at the two things you just equated.
135
@Eudaemonic: The whole point of having statutory rape laws is because children are easy to convince they're not being harmed

It's hilarious how teenagers suddenly become "children" whenever someone is wagging his/her finger about the evils of sex.

In any case, I'm not arguing against the existence of statutory rape laws, just offering a non-hysterical, non-reflexive, sex-positive, evidence-based opinion about how they should be written and when they should be pursued/enforced.
136
@ven: Dr Sean is now in the lead for MRA of the Month.

Disappointed to see you using that slur.
137
I want to say TRUTH should tell his wife if but to disabuse the myth, but he had plenty of chances to be honest about his relationships and sexual history before marriage. Why didn't he address it at any point beforehand? Does it really matter at this point? If it was so important to him. He should've thought about it earlier. But it was, while a little gross, still consensual and something he felt little shame over, so that avenue wouldn't be useful to reveal the facts.
138
@99: "Bras exist because:

a) Women like to have their breasts held;

b) Men like to look at them?"

This is why people laugh at your "expertise" with women.

Seriously, how can you be married and not understand the physicalities of breasts?
139
Whether you are indeed that dumb or trying the radio shock jock routine online, you come off as a man who has not had many conversations with partners or female friends.
140
@137 undead ayn rand
"Why didn't he address it at any point beforehand? Does it really matter at this point?"

What's done is done. He made his mistake for whatever reason. All he can do now is decide whether to keep making the same mistake. Yes, it matters. Do you want to live a lie? Do you want someone else to choose that for you?
141
@undead:
"Women like to have their breasts held" is just Hunter's trollish way of saying that bras offer comfort and support, which is true enough.

"Men like to look at them?" is (presumably) Hunter's observation that many popular bras (e.g., push ups) seem to be designed to draw attention to the breasts.
142
@140: I see a little nuance here. I would've told him to correct the untruth years ago. Why didn't he? He was young and afraid of "getting her in trouble", but that excuse went away when they got married, he has so many chances to right that wrong.

Why now? Why does he even need anyone else to tell him what to do? If he thought the lie of omission was a good idea or convenient to begin with, why is it suddenly different? I wouldn't be surprised if he never mentioned this woman at all to her, so this isn't just going to be explaining the virginity "issue".
143
@141: Right, I can translate his yuk-yuk routine, but it's still a tired act.
144
Just to make it easier to refer to TRUTH's letter and its issues and nuances as I write about it, I've copied and pasted it here in its entirety:
"When I was 15, I had a three-month-long sexual relationship with a 32-year-old woman. She was a friend of the family, and my parents were going through a divorce. I stayed with her for the summer, and she initiated a sexual relationship. Looking back, I can see that she had been grooming me. We used to have conversations online and via e-mail that were very inappropriate considering our age difference. The relationship ended when I went home, but she remained flirty. As a 15-year-old, I had a hard time sorting out my feelings for her, but we remained in contact. Now we speak sporadically, and it's usually just small talk. Soon after, I met a girl my own age and we started dating. Twenty years later, we are happily married and have two wonderful children. Our sex life is active and fulfilling. The only problem is my wife is very proud of the fact that we were each other's "first and only" sex partners. When we first slept together at 16, I couldn't admit that she wasn't my first, and I didn't want to get the older woman in trouble. I don't want to hurt my wife by revealing the truth. Can I keep this secret to myself?"

This Revelation Undermines Total Harmony


Looking closely at TRUTH's letter, it's unclear whether at the time (when he was 15) he considered himself to be the victim of a predator, or whether in retrospect he now realizes that he was indeed at least statutorily raped, but he doesn't feel himself harmed by that *non-consensual sex.

It's true that he now recognizes that the woman took advantage of him, his youth, his naiveté and inexperience: ("Looking back, I can see that she had been grooming me"). It's unclear whether he felt harmed then or now, and I wish he had been clearer unraveling this thought: "As a 15-year-old, I had a hard time sorting out my feelings for her, but we remained in contact," but since the context is that the sexual aspect of the relationship had been broken off, it is possible to interpret that to mean that he was harboring romantic feelings for her and had a difficult time realizing that they were not in love. This meshes with his concern about telling his wife that she is and has been his "one and only" romantic and sexual partner.

It sounds as if this has been steadily eating away at him and furthermore, his sign off (unless it was created by Dan) indicates that he feels that withholding this information is a barrier between he and his wife and he doesn't want that barrier.

So I would suggest he tell her something along the lines of this (forgive my clumsy, wooden wording):

About a year before you and I met, I was the victim of an older woman's sexual predation. She took advantage of a situation and of me and, though I didn't consider it to be rape at the time, what she did to me was rape--I had sex with her when I wasn't able, because of the age, maturity, and experience discrepancy, to give true and meaningful consent. I don't feel scarred by that experience and I don't want to try to resurrect it for any kind of retribution purposes, but not telling you about it means I've not been fully honest with you and I want only and always for us to be completely honest with each other. I didn't tell you before, because I didn't know how; when I was young, I didn't fully understand the nature of what happened to me, and since I wasn't in love with her I didn't equate what happened to me with what you and I made happen with each other. Because the real, honest, totally true truth is that you are the only woman I've ever loved and you are the first and only woman I've ever had consensual and loving sex with. You are my first in all ways that matter to me.

*it's worth noting, perhaps, that while as a 15-year-old the law (and many of us) doesn't consider him to be capable of real consent, neither he nor any of us have any issue with him having sex with his girlfriend when both were 16-years-old. So it's not merely that teenagers aren't capable of giving consent, but we don't think the consent is legitimate if the partner is significantly older. (As for "Romeo-and-Juliet" laws, there is still a vast difference in maturity levels between say, a newly 17-year-old and an 18-soon-to-be-19-year-old.)
145
@144: This got cut off:
Of course, he's asking Dan if he can keep this secret to himself. If he thinks that no matter how he phrases it, his wife will be crushed and devastated to know that she wasn't his first sexual partner and that he has furthermore not been 100% truthful with her, then, since this is a secret that hurts no one except the man who's been worrying about it, and if he can absolve himself of the sin of lying, he has permission to not ever mention it.

Question: This woman is a family friend and still superficially in touch with the lw. Any chance that she'll ever let a provocative comment slip?
146
@133 seandr: I thought that was an interesting article.

I have often thought 18 was too high to set the age of consent. I know that in our society people aren't considered emotionally capable before then, but it also seems to me cruel to make sex illegal for a good five years longer than many people's bodies have been telling them it's go time. And honestly, I know plenty of 22-year-olds who aren't very mature emotionally, who make mistakes about sex, and presumably grow as people as a result. Why is that okay at 22 but not at 16?

I get it that we need a line. But I also think we should all realize the line is arbitrary, and the real situation varies dramatically from person to person.
147
@146: Yes, that line is arbitrary. I think it should be younger (though not 5 years younger--maybe more like 2 years), but it probably is drawn as late as it is because of the discomfort many people have with the idea of their children having sex. I guess since 18 is the age of legal adulthood in the US, it sort of makes things easier to keep a consistent line demarcating childhood and adulthood. Except that the drinking age is 21, and you can't rent a car (without paying extortionate rates) until you're 25.
148
Undead, you've just got to ignore Hunter when he gets like this.
Just like
With a child who's throwing a tantrum.
So easy to stir up, aren't you?
And I don't want to get my
Let's be polite stick out again.
149
@133 - thanks for the link; this is exactly what I was looking for. I evidently missed it, that was the week before my wedding and I wasn't slogging much then.

Nice (for me anyway) to see that he's citing Rind (same paper I linked above) and also making much more eloquently and completely, the exact same argument I am making. I also think the "debate" Bering describes is pretty much identical to the one here. I hadn't been aware of this silliness in the Congress, but it's completely (and sadly) unsurprising...kind of like the global warming debate.
150
@nocutename: it probably is drawn as late as it is because of the discomfort many people have with the idea of their children having sex

Yes, although I'd call it "anxiety" rather than "discomfort". From what I can tell, my generation's radically overprotective parenting is more about reducing parental anxiety than about benefiting kids. It's telling that scores of children have been strangled on playgrounds and in trees by the helmets that we insist that they wear.
151
@146 & @147 - I think the key takeaway from Bering's piece is did the younger person - at the time - really want or assent to the activity? That's super-hard to legislate.

Silly absolutist approaches (like declaring that all persons >=18 are predatory child molesters if they have sex with someone <18) aren't helpful, but then it's easy to imagine lots of situations where there is a significant power differential in one way or another. As a practical matter, I think 16 is probably fair, with Romeo & Juliet exemptions for an age window (eg, not more than 4 years age difference).
152
Venn, psychic vibration from
Letter 2; not getting any.

Except , why would a 30 yr old even listen to their father round their sexual life?
Might be time SON told Dad to butt out. Never ever talked to my Mother about my sexual life.
My Father, being dead when I started having one.
And what, Dad is suddenly going to become homophobic. That the implication? Stop fucking around in your
Relationship son, or I'll start calling you names. Look, look how tolerant I've been, all these years.
Yeah. Whatever, Dad. Go fuck yourself.

153
Wow, such generous allowances for rationality in the American system of legislating sex. Isn't it still a crime to possess a cartoon of fictional underage person? When you can do time for doodling you've got serious problems.
154
Sean @150; kids there wear helmets to climb trees?
Hard enough to get the little devils to wear them on their bikes, here.
155
107- Tranquility Dragon-- When do I hear of a man going down on a woman without expecting anything in return?
Uh, constantly.
Maybe things have changed since I was in the dating pool, but when I did meet the occasional man who didn't like going down on me or who saw oral sex as a disagreeable thing one did as part of a trade, we didn't stay dating long. The guys I had sex with adored eating me; nothing turned them on more than making me squirm with delight. They generally did come one way or the other as part of the encounter, but it most assuredly was not because the relationship was focused on his pleasure at the expense of mine.
156
@AFinch (and probably a lot more of you, but I confess to having skipped a large part of the comments about this topic): It's not only hard to legislate, but hard to determine whether the younger person--at the time--really wanted or assented sexual activity. There are far too many variables. Even if they really wanted it, we don't believe that kids as young as 10, say, could really understand the ramifications of such activity, do we? So when do we believe that people can give meaningful consent, meaning that they are aware of the reality of the situation and the consequences and that they understand fully enough what they are entering into (and I don't just mean the physical issues). If 18 is well past old enough, as I think it is--to have sex with a peer, do we really feel okay about a naive 18-year-old having sex with a very experienced 30-year-old? Most parents of 18-year-olds wouldn't! If 16, even 15, is old enough for us to think it's okay for them to have sex with a boy/girlfriend, how do we feel about that same 15- or 16-year-old having sex with a 25-year-old, even a 22-year-old? Do our feelings change depending on the nature of the initial pre-sexual relationship between the two? In other words, if the adult was the music lesson teacher, a school teacher, a coach, the youth pastor, do we feel differently than if the two had met at a convention for people with a similar hobby?

All of these variables make it very difficult to legislate consent laws and the law likes to be cut and dried. It would be impossible to allow and account for all the different permutations of relationships and the different age formulas. So we go with a blunt, bright hard white line drawn in the sand: step over this, and it's not okay. But that's just law and very few statutory rapists get prosecuted because we generally distinguish the law from our understanding of the complexity of human interactions. We tend to use the law in only the most egregious of cases, but even then, should we distinguish those underage participants who really wanted the activity from those that didn't?

A few years ago my neighboring community was rocked by a scandal: a beloved middle-school teacher had been discovered having sex with one of his 13-year-old students. Actually, it came out that he had had sexual relations with several 13- and 14-year-old girls, none of whom felt exploited, and all of whom thought they were in love. The teacher was quite young: 22, though clearly an adult and obviously the age difference, not to mention the power imbalance was significant.

When the news broke, and before he was charged with anything, or shortly thereafter, and before any kind of legal action could take place--I'm a bit fuzzy--the teacher committed suicide. From what anyone could tell, he himself felt a particular fondness for the girls he had sex with. That is, there was no indication left behind that suggested he saw himself as trying to rape the girls. He didn't leave behind a diary labeled "my secret plan for preying on vulnerable children." The consensus (maybe because he had been so well liked and respected by his colleagues, peers, friends, family, and students--including the ones he didn't have inappropriate relationships with) was that he was disturbed, that he genuinely had inappropriate affectionate feelings for these girls--that he wasn't trying to behave monstrously. Even as people felt horror and disgust and outrage, they felt sympathy for him, because they believed him to have been a nice guy. As I said, the scandal really shook up the entire community. The perpetrator was popular, wracked with guilt or shame, and dead at 22. The victims were the ones crying loudest at his death. And they didn't consider themselves to be victims.

The reaction of the children he taught was interesting: many of the kids blamed the girls for "getting him in trouble." The girls themselves felt devastated. They felt guilty and responsible for his death. None of them saw themselves as victims or him as a predator or a creep. They believed that they had had a special relationship with him. My good friend is a therapist whose kids had gone--years before--to that middle school (they hadn't had the teacher in question as a teacher) and she was the therapist who was helping one of the girls cope with the situation. The girl was tormented by the idea that she was responsible for the death of a man who she believed loved her and for whom she still felt what she considered "love."

Now, it is true that she really wanted and assented to the sex that they had. But most of us would say that regardless, it was inappropriate, at the very least. Many of us would question the psychological health or motives of the adult man who, knowing his pedophilic tendencies, would go into a career that would put him in such close proximity to and in a position of authority over pubescent girls. Whether he saw himself as a predator or felt true emotional connection to those girls might somewhat redeem him in theory, but in practice--in reality--is irrelevant, just as the fact that the girls didn't at the time consider themselves to be his victims. Don't you think?

157
@104 and others.

I see a lot of people in here going. "Oh your wife shouldn't be upset about a little thing like that!" 1) Just because you wouldn't mind doesn't mean she's not allowed to and 2) SHOULDN'T IS NOT THE SAME AS WON'T BE. This guy's marriage sounds a little conservative. To, some people, things like this are still really important. If the LW tells her the truth, it should not be in a way that dismisses her feelings.
158
@156 I would certainly agree that the fact that the girls didn't think they were victims and the perpetrator considered himself a nice guy should have no legal bearing. Just because those girls didn't feel like victims doesn't mean no harm was done them. Even if some of them experience no lasting harm, that doesn't mean it wasn't a crime; someone here put up an analogy of how drunk and reckless driving don't always kill people but that doesn't make it okay.

It's not about whether the young person wanted sex. Young people want lots of things that are not good for them. It's more about power and consequences. Of course most teenagers want sex. It's the adult's job to say no.

Other questions: Did this man's multiple partners know about each other? Did he lie to them about plans for the future or knowingly refrain from correcting their misconceptions? An adult knows how to take sweet words with a grain of salt and has a fighting chance to avoid being used. Kids usually don't.
159
@145: It may cause issues with family holiday events, I wonder how often they interact in-person and how much time the wife has spent with her.
160
About letter 2. Maybe Dad has understood that monogamish is a nice word to cover the sad reality of cheating - from which he's suffered. Maybe he's unable to understand that partners can really love another and still allow each other to have sex with thirds. I don't know, it could be because he's of the kind that is totally monogamous, of the kind that is possessive and takes possession to be love, or of the kind that is afraid of the immorality of same sexers. It's hard to tell from the letter. Anyway, the advice to the LW is still sound : Dad has no business judging his son's sex life. Supporting the relationship I don't get : does he mean he'll stop giving money, or stop from hosting and seeing them ? Whatever the case, if Dad wants son to live according to his rules he's time he's reminded he has power over an adult son, except that power of not being visited again.
161
@148: "And I don't want to get my
Let's be polite stick out again."

Oh no! :p I'm sure I'd sidestep a lot of this if there were PMs. Creating an email address for my online profiles seems a bit inartful of a solution.
162
Age of consent in Australia is 16 yrs old. When the White Terrorists came here- decimating the Aborigines, they were all ferals. All convicts.
Two hundred odd years later, their legacy lives on.
163
Undead, you love a bit of stick. You know you do.
164
@156 nocute: I agree with your assessment of the story you related. The fact that the girls thought they were in love doesn't make that situation seem okay to me. It still seems creepy as hell. But I will make one comment, and I understand if people think it's crazy: in the case discussed earlier and in the linked-to article above (the 14-year-old seduced by the much older teacher, who only got a month in jail, and then she killed herself) it seems to me just as likely that her suicide was partially due to her own (inappropriate) feelings of guilt over getting the man she "loved" in trouble (put in jail). It seems her death is being cited as proof that the sexual relationship traumatized her, but to me, it seems possible that what traumatized her was our society's reaction to that relationship.

I'm not saying what he did was okay, in any way. But I think we occasionally make victims much more traumatized by the way we react.

Not that I have any helpful alternative suggestions.
165
@LavaGirl: kids there wear helmets to climb trees?

If you're going to require a helmet to push a razor scooter, it stands to reason you'd require it for climbing trees and monkey bars. And riding in the car. And so on. One can never be too careful. Given the risks.

I was a kid back in the days before head-injury anxiety was invented, so we didn't need helmets. We practically lived on our bmx bikes, and I recall only one time where a kid did a face plant in the alley behind my house trying to jump a bunch of garbage cans. He was a bloody mess, but he was back in action a few days later, running around with a couple of grisly scabs on his face.
166
DRE @157; of course his wife will be upset when he tells her. It's obviously been a big part of Her Romance Story.
It's not true though. And, I think it might release her from this Big Romance Story..
And agree. He should be very careful how he tells her. It has been an important part of her self and him story. And he should explain, he didn't mention it at the time, because he didn't want the Older woman to get into trouble.
And he probably felt a lot of shame. Telling his wife, may reactivate a lot of repressed feelings he has. It could be an intense experience, for both of them.
Maybe, once he tells his wife, both of them could front this older woman, and let her know the extent of the damage her abusive sexual behaviour caused.
167
Sean; helmets in cars as well?
Helps with the stay bullets,
I guess.
168
Jesus: can't spell for quids..
Stray bullets..
171
Americans breastfeed with helmets. Sometimes all the way until the kid enters middle school.

You only have to see one 12 year old wearing a helmet and suckling his mother's teat to know that something has gone seriously wrong with our country.
172
Sean; well, I didn't want to be the one to say it.
Breast feed till 12? That's a little unusual. I Breast fed my last child, till he was four. Panic stations all around, bout that one. Yet, tribal women can Breast feed till a child is older..
His birth, the only birthing/ my sixth
That I felt like I finally did fully, as my birthing. Just knew, as I leant against the end of the bed, that I was just gonna push him out, Now. No midwife telling me.
Lucky though, one of those Angels of birthing turned up, when she did, or that poor baby would have landed on the floor.
173
@171: "You only have to see one 12 year old wearing a helmet and suckling his mother's teat to know that something has gone seriously wrong with our country."

What makes you think this is unique to the US? There are definitely cultures that wean past being able to ask for the breast in complete sentences.
174
Though 12 is an obvious outlier/exaggeration. I'm sure it happens, but is not representative of a common practice here.
175
Hunter, dear Hunter.. He talks of being groomed. He says he had a hard time sorting his feelings as a 15 yr old. He's lied to his wife, hidden the truth.
And it's an issue for him all these yrs later.
Projecting myself, as a 15 yr old .. I'd say it was damaging for him. His parents were divorcing, he was vulnerable. She preyed on him. A young boy in pain.
Id like to front her. Give her a serve. The Bitch.
176
@156 - I really like the way you've framed this. I don't have an "answer" - and I don't think eliminating the statutory laws is appropriate. I do think an age gap window would address this a bit better, and even a very generous five year window would address the situation you relate, which is pretty clearly out of bounds and obviously wreaked catastrophy on everyone involved.
178
Re age of consent.
You could give an argument that traditionally and with our closest species, the 'normal' age to begin sex was around puberty or right beforehand, maybe around 10. Or you could give an argument that adult risk assessment isn't possible until the mid 20s when the brain stops growing. Drivers license is 16, legal adulthood 18, really there are no rights withheld past 21. In this culture, 18 as a line, and +/-2 or 4 years in romeo and juliet laws makes sense.

The laws don't affect the minor much, except necessitating discretion. I think that the harm prevented by statutory rape laws is far more important than the inconvenience they cause.

I say that knowing there are probably teachers in jail, accused of assaulting students, who are guilty of no more than bad judgement. I believe there are far more that used their position or experience to extort sex, and I have no good solution to an imperfect justice system.
179
Hun,
the colorations added by the victim offer insight.
Into how people hate to be interrogated, you mean? It's interesting to see how often people lie under pressure. Creating that pressure is unethical. I disagree, I think it's common and normal for people to offer something when they ask for something.

And no, the usage of "grooming" in terms of a sexual relationship is a manipulative behavior.
180
@seandr: It's not so much the helmet that is a problem with breastfeeding as it is the fact that at 12, most kids are packing a serious amount of orthodontia. Not to mention that my daughter's soccer cleats often dug into my ribs as I held her in the football hold. I pretty much had to stop when she went to her junior prom, because the stiletto heels she was wearing poked a hole in me. And anyway, the beer she was kegstanding was curdling the breastmilk.

Fortunately, I was able to wean my younger daughter much earlier, at age 10, and then only had to do this.

181
@undead: There are definitely cultures that wean past being able to ask for the breast in complete sentences.

That doesn't lessen my mock outrage! Not one bit!
182
Hunter, where you been?
Grooming , as Mr E said way up thread, is what
Creepy people do. To young, vulnerable, innocent people.
With the intention of violating their sex.
183
@177: "Grooming is what animals do to each other for social interaction, and for hygiene. I was once groomed by a good boss for his job."

You may not be aware, but words carry meanings that vary on context. Grooming someone for a position contains a positive context. A child-rapist who grooms someone for sex-play contains a very negative context. Same word, different outcome.
184
Hunter, way different meaning for grooming you are using.
A 15 yr old boy, just a kid. Well, my boys were at 15.
185
@181: Heheh. My mother was La Leche, but she was far less militant than some of my friends, thankfully I don't know anyone too cringe-worthy in their practice, but I don't hang out with many new parents at the moment.
186
@179: "And no, the usage of "grooming" in terms of a sexual relationship is a manipulative behavior."

Exactly. The root is in training, and in this case manipulation. Not teaching children valuable life skills or picking nits off their coat.
188
Getting into the second letter, I have no idea why the guy told his dad about being monogamish. Was he concerned for his parent's relationship? Did he want talked out of being open? If he figures out why he opened his mouth to his dad, maybe he can deal with whatever it is.
189
@187: So when are you going to get featured in Dan's Youth Pastor Watch?
190
Not saying my boys weren't out feeling up girls their own ages, at 15.. And then some.
Not an area of their lives , thank god, they have felt it necessary to share with me.
Girls of 15, are not grown women of 30 plus.
She stole his youthful sexual adventures. Traumatized him, no doubt.
Some older chick ever have tried that sort of shit on my sons, she'd have heard from me big time. Straight to the police.
Maybe, that's what he should do, now. Charge the Bitch.
191
Hunter; wtf? You are in worse shape than I thought.
Boys,Girls and Teachers- dangerous zones ..
192
@191: It's probably not the best thread for him to reminisce about his sexual fantasies for 12 year olds.
193
But it does explain why he doesn't see "grooming" as having negative connotations :(
194
Dr Sean - Most people who wear the MRA label with pride wouldn't dream of going so far as to call the 32-year-old woman a hero. By the way, we are behind the times; you have dropped to about third place. The MRA line on this, by the way, is a bit variable. If you recall the case of the 18-year-old girl with the 14-year-old girlfriend that had Mr Savage so upset, the women MRAs of note who discussed the case all came down heavily in opposition to Mr Savage's support for the older girl on the grounds of not wanting a woman to get a lighter sentence than a man would have received for the "same" offence (ignoring that whether the case is OS or SS has a lot more to do with sentencing discrepancy than whether the older party is M or F).
195
@Philophile: Puberty is earlier now than any time in the last 150 years. In the 1930s, menarche began, on average, at age 16.
196
@187 - Hunter.... we have winner! haha. Damn. Hard to just skim over that comment in light of all the angst and venom the truth letter has generated. Personally...i enjoy your participation on this board... I find it impossible to get to the bottom of a philosophical argument without all sides being represented...even if i still believe you are a devil's advocate and not a devil. Seems many here can take things quite personally in an instant....
197
Somewhat disagree with the advice to TRUTH: The conversation can be simple (at least, simple to write) "honey, i have to tell you something. Before we ever together, I was raped by a woman. For all intents and purposes we are each others first, but I felt horrible hiding this from you for so long".

Only a major, should-be-dumped-anyhow asshole wife would have a major problem with this.
198
Put me on record that I suspect BLUEBALLS is in fact a 30-year old woman married mostly-sexlessly for 8 years to a 38-year old depressed, overweight man.
199
Hunter, two of my sisters were violated in the sex by older men, Fucking Catholic Priests, no
Less.
One of them is Dead. Her sex life was a mess. Totally over eroticised.
The other, chronically ill. Dying really.

Me, I was spared, of abuse. Think I just went the other way though. Didn't trust the sexual environment around, so kept it all under wraps.

Yet, here I am, sex still working fine. Got myself stuck with dick males too often, but I put that down to my Mothers' shitty patterns. Just picked Men, till now, just like her. Thrown all that off, finally, over the last four years.
Young girls and young women, can be over erotised by their Fathers, Uncles, Brothers-
So they of course, go looking for older Men, to continue that mugs' game.
Up to the older Men, as I see it- to help heal the damage done, by said inappropriate Fathers.
200
@196: "even if i still believe you are a devil's advocate"

Why pretend to be dumb and oily so immersively, though? It's creepy as hell. There are so many people like him on the internet and off that when he talks about leaning close to smell the women he encounters in public, I'm inclined to believe he's ferreal.
201
I hope you're right, though.
202
@171 Did you knowingly link to a thread from a forum for mothers of kids with "Plagiocephaly and Brachycephaly"? The helmets those kids are wearing aren't to protect them from some sort of breastfeeding 'injury', they're to reshape their heads. Disingenuous, Seandr.
203
@200.... i dunno... just my read of him. More of a Colbert than a Limbaugh. It just doesn't ring as legit.... more tongue in cheek... like the intent is to provoke a less PC discussion....rather than burn a cross in my yard. Its just never bothered me.....AND.... i get really tired of discussions getting sidetracked by the WAY they are being discussed than for the actual content. The phrase "dont shoot the messenger" is in my head frequently when i am reading savage love comments.... Like Eud calling Afinch all kinds of names instead of discussing something that ISNT black and white no matter what the laws say. Laws change with opinions.... but i digress.....
204
Chairman, where you been?
Remember that cat story, all those weeks ago? Was getting organized for the vet, money got etc. then she went on heat.. One of my less that on the ball sons, left a window open. And guess what?
She birthed six kittens last weekend. Only two survived. Sort of good really. Not for the kittens, of course.
205
@203: Derails are one thing, but you expect someone discussing their desire to fuck a child to not be called out?

Colbert performs with a wink. Hunter isn't a Poe, there's zero laughs to be found.

I can see someone like Sean attempting to yank people's chains with stuff he may not fully believe, but if this stuff is an act, it's pretty immersive.

" like the intent is to provoke a less PC discussion..."

There are attempts to discuss this with nuance already in the thread, so this rationale falls pretty flat as a justification for bringing up fond memories of wanting to fuck a preteen.

That's definitely a troll, but would in no sense bring about "new insight". All it does is justify our opinion of anyone who uses the phrase "political correctness".
206
Hey Lava.... i've been here... just not in such a great place emotionally myself... so havent felt like participating. Some interesting discussions though. So... your cat had kittens, eh? you're knee deep in pussy... better than i can say for myself. Ha.

@205.... yeah...i guess i picked a bad time to state my opinion of him.... but i wasnt trying to defend this particular fit of philosophical tourette's.... my statement was a generality.... based on a year of reading... But i have to ask... how do YOU know Hunter isn't performing with a wink? He could be reading replies and laughing "this shit is too easy".... whilst still making his points... (just a thought). A no... i don't believe that alone makes him a troll. I don't think he trolls anywhere near hard enough to know what his real motivation is.... haha
207
@48 I have respectfully disagree - law or no law, the important determination for our purposes is if there is a _victim_. It's not really relevant if the older woman was a pedophile or pederast or any other type of horrible person - they're horrible (or not) with or without another person to exercise their animus on. LW is a victim (or not) regardless of if his older partner "groomed" him, or in fact developed age-crossing but otherwise legitimate emotional connection. We know nothing reliable about the woman, and LW doesn't see himself as a victim. That's it. We're here to Judge using our values and the values that we perceive our society to have - not to interpret the law.

No victim, no crime. I smoked some pot last week (and I'm not in WA or CA) - is it import to you that a crime was committed?
208
@ven: Based on how I've seen it used, calling someone an MRA seems the approximate gender-swapped equivalent of telling a feminist she's just mad because she's ugly. Which is probably true as often as it isn't, in both cases.

I've dropped to third place? Are you suggesting I once held a place higher than that?
209
@Cat in fez: It seems my claims about 12 year old helmeted breast feeders have been discredited.
210
@AllisonM If you don't have children, or a marriage, or depression, please keep your "lets take her kids from her if she doesn't do what the doctor says"opinion to yourself. (I know that is not a direct quote) That is the main reason moms don't seek help. Duh. You are shitty for saying that. And I don't think it applies here, because my take is its an excuse. She was hot for a twentytwo year old eight years ago. Shes not anymore. Pretty standard, and all the more reason for you to shut your face about taking someones kid.
212
Hunter, the rights' of Men to be
.... The list is long. Benefits of living in a Patriarchy.
Being a minimalist, I'll reduce it all to one.
The rights of Men to be ShitHeads.
213
I love that everyone's glossing over the fact that LW, and Dan, are both "allowed" to determine their own levels of victimhood and in fact have "allowed" them to decide they're not victims. That they aren't "survivors". We don't afford this opportunity to teenage girls - as hinted at by @49, (evinced by hundreds of revelations in the comment thread of that link), attraction to older men is probably more normal than abnormal - but instead they are either victims outright, or if they deny their victimhood, they are victims of a controlling society.

I'm veering heavily into MRA territory here, but we ought to allow these girls /some/ agency here, at least, say, half as much as we afford boys in terms of their ability to not just consent, but DESIRE AND ENJOY SEX. Jesus. I'm not a proscriptivist, I think we should allow people to feel how they want to feel. I knew a number of girls in HS that got off on the idea that they were attractive to older men who could just as readily* be with the college girls or the 20-something girls; I also knew two girls in high school that endured traumatic rape. The only real difference is that the latter girl's were able to share their story and have their feelings validated, the former were liars/traitors/victims-even-if-they-didn't-know-it.
214
Hunter performing with a wink, Chairman? More like a Sinister Sneer.
They have to lock him in at night, you know. Dogs guarding the windows and doors.
Only In America.
216
@213; Males are expected not to be upset by such violation. Hell, Men here have gone yoohoo at the thought of being 15yrs old and being seduced by a much much older woman.
Decide not to be victims? You think people get to choose that experience?
As I read the letter, I see his suffering. His hurt. He just, you know, gotta be a Man. Put the whole thing onto his wife's head.
Cause, you know, boys are tough.
217
And Sean. What, no shame for that link? Again, my point is made.
218
@LavaGirl: Here I am, hat in hand, head bowed, humbly offering my apology. I only meant to give your Aussie pigtails a little tug.
219
I don't think that the "victim" of statutory rape has necessarily done anything wrong. They could be using the law as a tool of manipulation, though. I don't think the "victim" is necessarily harmed by anything except intimate exposure to an unethical adult. Some minors may be mature enough to recognize the fallibility of their partner and only appreciate the sex, though.

I think it's reasonable to expect adults to be able to decline the attention of minors. Romeo & Juliet laws of about 4 years are also reasonable; to accommodate a freshman/senior relationship.

And Hunter, I hope that some part of you is sorry for hurting a young girl. I'm sure she appreciated your attention. I'm also sure it left harmful ideas in her head, when you let the situation continue.
220
Dr Sean - I know of so many people who proudly present as MRAs (and you certainly gave an excdellent impersonation of such a person during the week Mr Savage told all the men to shut up) that it strikes me as more the opposite number of, say, a Radical Feminist (but not a TERF, such as somebody here I shan't name).

There was also a little deliberate blurring of MRA with PUA, as that is one of the ad nauseam complaints I keep seeing, especially from MRAs, that they and PUAs are being merged together inappropriately by an opponent.

If you and Mr Hunter (who is acting lately as if he just wants to make me say LMB) want to change the competition from MRA of the Month to PUA of the Month (which probably suits at least you better), I have no objection.
221
Sean; Yeah well. I ain't got no pigtails anymore. A couple of dreads. You could yank those. I'm such a lazy bitch, forget to even comb my hair. And then, voila, couple of dreads appear.
luckily, they nicely Hiden in my ponytail.
222
Chairman, hope you feeling a bit better. You know, the team will always look after you, if you pop your head on. Just wave the white flag first, stating your vulnerable state. You'll get five minutes of love, before the blood suckers come after you.
So. Just hang for five minutes, then run.
223
TERF! Venn,
Terrific
Elegant
Refined
Female. That right, Venn?
Oh. Can I be one of those.
224
I think the TERFs they're referring to are more Cathy Brennan-ish. But yes! Be all that.
225
I think it's reasonable to expect adults to be able to decline the attention of minors.


Philophile is right on with this at 219. I was one of the people saying 'hey, that woman is a rapist' at the beginning of this whole thread, and I just want to say: It is absolutely great that some people don't take a lot of harm from having been preyed on by an adult when they were teenagers. That is wonderful, and they're lucky, and I'm happy for them. But it can't be counted on, and we can't build laws or ethics based on it. We as a society come up with rules we expect adults (not fellow teens, Romeo & Juliet laws are a must) to follow, and yeah, we do expect adults to be able to keep it in their pants based on them, even if sometimes it's arbitrary as hell.

It's like the most stringent campsite rule in the world. The Park Service says: DON'T CAMP HERE. And it doesn't matter if you think it would be the time of your life, it doesn't matter if the birds are singing and the flowers are popping up as you watch, it doesn't matter if you think you'll leave everything just fine -- the Park Service thinks you have a good chance of doing harm to the landscape, you're not an ecological magic-8-ball, and you're a grown-up, so put your tent back in the car and drive the fuck away. If you don't, you're breaking a law that's called 'statutory rape'.

Personally, I'm fine with calling a woman who breaks that law a statutory rapist. In fact, given how many voices -- media, culture, and even commenters here -- are saying 'boys can't be raped by women because [bullshit masculinity-policing here]', I think the power of the word is pretty important to use as ammo against that charge. Arbitrary? Yes. Varies by jurisdiction? Yes, welcome to legal codes in America. But it's better than letting 32-year-olds fuck their way through every hormone-washed 15-year-old they can sweet-talk.
226
Ms Cute - I cannot engage the breast-feeding question seriously ever since seeing a long thread at a site more feminist than this on which the vast majority of participants thought it perfectly appropriate for a five-year-old to approach one's mother during a dinner party with the request, "Mama, I tirsty," and breastfeed while the adult interactions proceed without notice of the beverage supply. When I was five years old, I was winning chess tournaments.


    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.