Is It Wrong to Joke?
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Now, first, this example of vigilantism is just plain wrong. But my personal question is, is it wrong to joke about it?
But let me give you the background. A father in Germany learns his seventeen year old daughter is dating a fifty-seven year old man and… well, let’s let the UK’s Metro explain:
German dad castrates daughter’s boyfriend with bread knife
After learning that his 17-year-old daughter was having a relationship with the older man, Seifert went to the town of Bielefeld to speak to the police.
Having learnt that they were powerless to help him, the enraged father decided to take matters into his own hands.
Police said: ‘The man recruited two work colleagues at his factory and then went to the house of the victim.
‘The man was forced to remove his trousers and, fully conscious, he was castrated. The severed testicles were taken away by the perpetrator.’
So I am sure Patterico would not approve of this kind of misconduct, because it is taking the law into your own hands. And I agree. But I couldn’t help but think, “if they ever let this man out… do you think we could give him Roman Polanski’s home address?”
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
You can take more than the law into your own hands, apparently.
Attila (20668a) — 12/15/2010 @ 6:11 amLOL!
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 6:31 amYes.
Ira (28a423) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:13 amThats what I call a real hands on approach…
The Emperor (e0e3b2) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:16 amWhat is the saying about waiting for the inevitable? waiting for the other…. to drop. Oh, its “shoe”. Nevermind.
Californio (ce0726) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:17 amThe Scriptures have been fulfilled. Jesus said “If thy little prick will cause you to sin, have someone cut it off for you..” (paraphrased..)
The Emperor (e0e3b2) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:18 amWhile laughter is a core personal priority for me, my own standard for physical-injury-loss-or-mayhem stories is: Would I like it if my brother’s or sister’s pain were being made fun of this way? (And in this story that seems to apply to all sides, come to think of it…)
OTOH, self-important, arrogant twits simply making fools of themselves or getting their pride punctured? Why, then, schadenfreude rules and I have no conscience whatsoever in these matters. 😉
no one you know (325a59) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:24 amGotta hand it to him…..
BT (74cbec) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:27 amNOYK
I think the difference between this and other stories, is that on some level the perv deserves something bad to happen to him. maybe not this, and certainly not without a trial and conviction, but he does deserve it.
Emperor
i could be wrong but i think he kept the um, frank, and only lost the um, beans. which kind of screws up your biblical paraphrase.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:33 amAW, it is the beans that is the problem.. Cut it off and the um, frank will be, um, just frank!
The Emperor (e0e3b2) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:44 amI think the difference between this and other stories, is that on some level the perv deserves something bad to happen to him. maybe not this, and certainly not without a trial and conviction, but he does deserve it…
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 12/15/2010 @ 7:33 am
Good point, and he absolutely does deserve something bad happening to him. Also completely understand the father’s rage and frustration. Whether sudden and anesthesia-less castration was the right way to accomplish justice, am not so sure.
And not to put too fine a — no pun intended — point on it, it perhaps was not the best way for him to communicate to his teenage daughter how much he cared about her welfare, since he physically damaged someone she (albeit foolishly) cared about. I remember being a female teenager in love, and such an act IMO would have cast my sympathies over to the boyfriend instead of helping me see what a villain he really was.
no one you know (325a59) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:44 amEmporer,
imho, the best way to disarm a fencer, is to take away his sword.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:06 amSexists – Condemned and denounced!
If it had been the father’s 17 year-old son enjoying carnal relations with a 57 year-old woman I would wager there would have been no such physical intervention.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:15 amdaleyrocks is right. lol!
The Emperor (e0e3b2) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:21 am@AW, LOL! Ah yes, but you have to kill him first.
daleyrocks,
I wouldn’t see the same problem with that.
It’s still an imbalance of power, but the risk of leaving a young woman as a single mother isn’t there. there’s some risk to the young man in your scenario, but IMO it’s a lot less. Young ladies actually do need dads to protect them from would-be impregnators.
Is that protection up to this level? I’m not sure. Seriously. It depends on the situation, but the father does his daughter no good in prison. In this case he had no realistic legal recourse, and I wonder if he knew that the older man had a relationship with his daughter for many years.
I would have a very hard time being in-control in that situation, though I don’t have it in my to actually mutilate someone. When you can get a couple of law abiding citizens to help you with your vigilante mission, that’s a good indication that the justice system has truly let you down.
And what do you do that would protect your kid? Move? She’s old enough to rebel, easily. Accept the horrible situation? Some fathers really can’t. Seems like all the other alternatives are serious crimes. I’d say roughing up the 57 year old man (without permanent damage) would be among the better options.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:26 amYou might not like his behavior, but it seems it was quite legal in Germany.
Gazzer (1b7d21) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:30 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
Gazzer
that is why the cops wouldn’t do anything.
Personally i prefer a tiered approach. no sex before 14, period. then from 14-18, sex, but only if they are within two years age difference. then when 18, do whatever you like. That way most of the time you aren’t going to bust a teenage boy for having sex with his teenage girlfriend.
But the german laws aren’t crazy. i disagree with them, but they’re not completely off the reservation like they are in Holland.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:33 amI don’t know the legal age there but as the police could not act it would seem she was of legal age. –Would this still be funny if the two were married and the father did it anyway?
–How is this different from an “honor killing” because the father disapproves of the relationship?
–Would that be funny?
This is nothing like Polanski raping a 13 year old as she cries for him to stop. Would this still be funny in a few months when she turns 18? When does it stop being funny?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:39 amI think there should be a ‘within 2-3 years’ exemption to these statutory rape laws, but it’s hard to work out a fair system that satisfies me.
I don’t like a 57 year old with a 17 year old, but then, how can I justify a 58 year old with an 18 year old? I would probably say an 18 year old is not an adult (I don’t think they should vote, either).
I’m just out of step with the rest of society on this.
Anyhow, if I were in the father’s shoes, I would have a hard time not being a criminal. I wouldn’t cut him with a bread knife, which is extremely nasty behavior that suggests the daughter may have been screwed up before the relationship even occurred (I know, rampant speculation).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:40 amHe didn’t harm his own daughter, who is the quasi-victim in a relationship where there’s such a drastic difference in status.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:41 amGazzer beat my slow typing.
If the man forced himself on the daughter that is a different matter, but if this is funny than I don’t see that there is much of a line drawn anywhere.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:44 am> How is this different from an “honor killing” because the father disapproves of the relationship?
Well, first both are wrong, the honor killings and this.
Second, this is not mere disapproval, but this guy dating his daughter is an out-and-out perv. it might be legal, but it is wrong.
by comparison, honor killings are like that crap in texas where the guy killed his two teenage daughters for dating hispanic catholics.
There is justice in this german father’s rage, even if his reaction to the situation was wrong. there is no justice in that texas example.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:46 amDustin,
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:46 amWhat about a Muslim father maiming a man because he disapproves of the boyfriend’s religion?
How is this different from an “honor killing” because the father disapproves of the relationship?
Um, Machinist, in honor killing, the victim would be the daughter and she would be dead. Not castrated.
The Emperor (e0e3b2) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:46 amWell I wouldn’t have used a bread knife. A couple of good whacks with say, a sand wedge, would have left the perp with “refried beans” as it were. He’d still have them, but wouldn’t feel like using them for a while.
Mike Myers (0e06a9) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:47 amIt’s only funny in the abstract, Machinist, because of the common stereotype of ‘if you mess with my daughter I’ll cut your balls off!’ father. Obviously, it really happening is incredibly horrible.
Even if it happened to Polanski, it would be disturbing, despite the fact Roman’s crime(s) were more heinous.
I think there’s more to the story. Could you get two of your friends to help you do this? Only if you had more to the story, such as ‘this older man was my daughter’s babysitter since she was 13, and he’s been sleeping with her’. I have no idea what the rest of the story is, but there’s something.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:48 amHarrison Ford and Micheal Douglas both took much younger lovers. Are they perves and would the fathers be justified in maiming the men?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:48 amCan someone tell me at what age for the daughter this stops being funny?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:52 amMachinist, there’s a big difference between a woman who is very attractive, in her 20s or 30s, and able to make adult decisions, has her own life, etc. That’s a good example of an attractive person to most men.
Then there’s a teenager who is physically attractive, but too young and inexperienced to make adult decisions, has little power, etc. That’s not a conquest a mentally normal 57 year old man would ever consider. That’s prey.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:53 amAnd again, if they were legally married without the father’s approval would it still be funny for the father to do this?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:54 amDustin,
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:55 amSo the line falls between 17 and 20?
Didn’t I already say it wasn’t really funny, except in the abstract?
So the ‘funny’ line is simply in realizing this is real.
As far as the line between the relationship being disturbing or not, that’s what I explained in 29. It’s not just about age, but about power. And I’d say this would probably still be a pervert relationship if the woman was 20, if she wasn’t adult.
There’s the legal bright line, that I think we err on the side of more rights for young adults, and then there’s the moral line, which is gray and relates to finer details.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:57 amPosts like this make me wonder about the wisdom of Patt putting the blog in Aaron’s hands… while the overall quality of posts has been high, this is a shocking miss.
The first thing wrong is that this is labeled an “example of vigilantism”; the problem here is that a vigilante punishes crime, which leads to the second problem…
The age of consent in Germany is 16; thus, the police couldn’t help the father because no crime was being committed!
So, let’s be crystal clear here: this wasn’t a case of vigilantism, this was a case where a father disapproved of the legal and consensual relationship between his daughter and a man.
The father then gets two other people and attempts to murder the boyfriend by means of torture.
Remember, not because something illegal was going on, but because he didn’t like something about the boyfriend.
SO, is it okay to laugh? I dunno, would it have been okay to laugh if the thing about the boyfriend was race? Religion? Nationality? Gender?
For that matter, what exactly is the cutoff between “May-December romance” and “castrate the monster!”?
Here, the boyfriend is 40 years older; John McCain is 18 years older then his wife Cindy. That’s about half, so would it have been funny/kinda-sorta-justified if James Hensley had gotten a bunch of guys from the brewery and cut off just one of McCain’s testicles?
Is it wrong to joke… Hmmm. Well, let’s run this thought experiment: suppose, just suppose, for a moment, that Phillip Genscher (who I have not been able to find any pictures of), is, in addition to being 40 years older, happens to be Black.
How funny would it be then?
Marashir (b6091a) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:00 amThe whole question of this post was “Is it wrong to joke?” Given the responses it seems it is. I am not defending the relationship but I find it more disturbing that a father feels such ownership of his legally adult daughter that he can mutilate a man he disapproves of. Again, would this be the same if it was the man’s religion instead of his age that the father disapproved of?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:05 amMachinist
> Can someone tell me at what age for the daughter this stops being funny?
18. imho.
Dustin
> the common stereotype of ‘if you mess with my daughter I’ll cut your balls off!’ father.
Is it a stereotype if it is true? I mean, okay, my Dad only threatened this sort of thing and truly never meant it, and made sure he just “happened” to be cleaning his guns when my sister brought a new guy home. But that isn’t far from the “stereotype” now is it?
And i can say for a fact he didn’t mean it, because when he had to pick up my sister after her husband hit her for the last time, he didn’t lay a hand on her husband.
But then I am betting that her husband (now ex-husband, thank God), avoided my father that evening. my dad was a marine, after all, and even if he had something like 30 years on the guy, i am confident he would have beat that drunken hillbilly like a bongo drum.
But i don’t even have a daughter, just a niece and a little cousin i love dearly. but i totally understand this german father’s feelings on the subject, which is why it is funny, in the abstract.
Also i would add that part of why it is funny is because it is so horrifying you almost have to laugh.
I mean that is why we had all that laughter when bobbit had his, um, sword removed. now maybe he was raping her and she felt trapped and all that, like she claimed. the manassas jury kind of declared it was a wash, deciding she was not guilty by reason of temporary insanity in the amputation, and letting him go on rape charges, if memory serves. apparently they decided they didn’t know WHO to believe on that. but we still laugh and its not out of a feeling that Bobbitt necessarily deserved it, but because the whole thing makes us uncomfortable.
Like my brother has a funny observation about that Bobbitt thing. he says what kills him is this. okay they found his, um, sword, in a vacant lot. using dogs. he says, “and you know what happens with dogs when they retrieve something and have it in their mouth, right? They won’t just let go. you have to shake it until it comes free.”
And yes, i do live in the same city as her. no, i have never met her.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:06 amAaron already explained that it was against the law.
You’re wrong to say it can’t therefore be an example of vigilantism. It actually is an example of vigilantism against something the state (And you) do not think should be a crime.
Your comparison to Mccain is freaking bizarre. Cindy Mccain is a very powerful woman, not some teenager with no power whatsoever. Do you really not understand why people object to this kind of sexual relationship?
Remember, Aaron clearly said he didn’t approve of this measure, so your entire line of attack is unfair.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:06 amA lot of people (not Machinist) sound like they actually wish they could have relationships with kids, just because 60 year olds have relationships with 40 year olds.
This young lady is a kid. If you approve, I hope you don’t have access to kids. Like Aaron, I have loved ones who are young ladies, and I wouldn’t be capable of tolerating a 57 year old predator.
Wouldn’t cut his balls off, but I would act. Thankfully, I live in a civilized place where the law would be on my side.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:10 am@Marashir,
The Emperor (e0e3b2) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:13 amlittle advice, anytime you get to a post by my friend, Aaron W, just flip past it. You don’t have to read it.. No one is forcing you to. Ok? Now run along!
That’s an interesting point.
I mentioned earlier that this is such a disturbing way to handle the situation that I wonder if the father is part of the reason his daughter was screwed up in such a way that she was in a relationship with a man so much older.
It’s a legitimate worry.
I don’t see the correlation to religious intolerance. And if the father and his pals had simply beat the man up instead of sexually mutilate him in a disturbing way, I would not be alarmed at all.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:14 amSince Aaron clearly said that it wasn’t against the law (the relationship), I’ll just chalk this up to fatigue and confusion on your part. Unless you mean the father’s actions… then you just plain doesn’t make any sense.
Fwew! John McCain is safe by six months… Oh! Dang, but Fred Thompson better be watching his gonads when Aaron comes to town (He’s 24 years senior to his current wife).
Marashir (b6091a) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:15 amMachinist, a friend of mine did have a situation like this to deal with, though he did not use violence. His daughter was 22. Past the age of consent.
She was living with a fellow much older than she was, clearly in a boyfriend/girlfriend way.
It turns out the guy was 58 years old.
Her business, right? I can see that point of view.
But my friend was worried about his daughter, and hired a private investigator. The PI found that the fellow had been in and out of federal prison since he was eighteen (I think the longest time he spent out of stir was four years). Twice for assault. Once for robbery. Several children out of wedlock, no child support (and he had an assault conviction against one of those women). That kind of thing, over and over again.
So what to do? I mean, she was over eighteen.
My friend and the PI went to the state where this was taking place. Sat the daughter down. The PI plunked down the folder.
My friend had a U-Haul truck ready, and got his daughter moved. She didn’t like it, but she saw that she had been lied to over a year and a half.
She never really forgave her father for getting her to see the truth.
So no, this kind of post isn’t funny. But these kinds of situations are just awful. And I don’t have a solution.
My own response to this guy (who I met, and gave me the heebie-jeebies) would have been much less legal. And still the father was not thanked for his role.
Sigh.
I’m not disagreeing with anyone. This kind of thing just makes me sad, and delighted that I don’t have daughters. Because I don’t know what I would do in a scary situation. Which may be a problem with me, of course.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:15 am@The Emperor;
Read my first line one more time, slowly;
Read it again. Then a third time. ‘Kay? Now explain why you think my problem is with Aaron on the whole, rather then this “shocking miss”.
Marashir (b6091a) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:18 amNo, chalk it up to a typo. Aaron noted the police couldn’t do anything, as the relationship wasn’t illegal.
Anyhow, you’re the one who is confused on the meaning of the word vigilante. You can still be a vigilante if the law isn’t on your side. This is not complicated.
Idiot. Aaron didn’t mean 18 years difference in age, but rather whether the girl is 18 years old.
Your incredibly uncharitable reading of everything says more about you than it does about Aaron or me.
You want some kind of bright line rule, and are offended people take exception to sex predators. Why? What is wrong with you that you don’t understand the difference between Cindy Mccain, incredibly powerful woman of means, and some teenager?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:19 amDid the same guy really write both of these?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:21 ammara
> Fwew! John McCain is safe by six months…
You asked what age the daughter should be, not age difference.
i mean in america a 17 year old girl is considered by the law to be to young to
1) vote
2) drink
3) join the army
4) make binding contracts.
The law recognizes quite rationally that minors are a special case. bluntly, they’re idiots. I was an idiot at 17, and you probably were, too. Or to say it nicer, they lack sufficient maturity to make many important life decisions.
now this german law thinks she is old enough to decide to have sex, even with a creepy old perv. i think that is mistaken, but not like crazy wrong.
and you want to pretend that a 13 year old girl having sex with a thirty one year old is the same as a 58 year old man having sex with a 40 year old woman. well, feel free to think that way, but i think you are off your rocker.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:21 am18 is two years past the age of consent for her. Would an American father have until she was 20 to main her boyfriend if he disapproved, and it would be funny, or is that 18 universal regardless of culture and law?
I don’t think it is unreasonable to bring religion or race into this. The issue is the father’s right to maim the man in a legal relationship he does not approve of and if it is wrong to joke about it. In the case of a Muslim father he could claim the Christian man was bringing shame to his family and damnation to his daughter.
I guess it is legal to joke but I sure don’t find it decent, and I don’t think a few months of age can change that one way or the other.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:23 am@Marashir.
The Emperor (e0e3b2) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:25 amIt is clear from that line that you doubt the wisdom of putting the blog in Aaron’s hand. You don’t think he’s the man for the job. You question Patterico’s judgment and yet act as though that wasn’t your intention. Like I said, just click on the next page.. bye.
Eric Blair,
Thanks for the story. I agree, that’s a very difficult situation. young ladies who are just older than the age of majority, but aren’t really adults, being preyed upon by much older men who are superior at deception, probably much more able to handle things like housing, etc. It’s obviously disturbing.
It’s like Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Just two adults having fun? No. One man who is incredibly powerful vs a very young woman who is nearly powerless. It raises a lot of alarms.
In Eric’s story, a loving father worked very hard to help his naive daughter, directly appealing to her intelligence with information that she was too naive to gain on her own. That’s true love. He did the right thing trying to stop a relationship between his 22 year old girl and a older man. I worry about people who don’t understand why.
A few celebrity examples of massive age differences do not overcome the reason why some very young women are preyed upon by extremely slimy older men.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:27 amLooks like some commenters here like to f*ck them really young and are mad at the thought of getting there nuts cut off for it. 🙂
The Emperor (e0e3b2) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:27 amI see your point, Machinist. The comparison just doesn’t occur to me. Sexual power is different from religious difference, in my mind.
At any rate, the maiming is an indecent joke, I suppose. Sick. But it’s an interesting issue to discuss.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:29 amAnd obviously, there’s a huge world of difference between Eric’s example, and the slap-chop example Machinist (and Aaron, and I) find immoral.
Machinist probably has the real difference pegged at respect or ownership interest in the daughter. Appealing to her with information is fundamentally different from denying her sex with the man by removing his genitals. It’s so extreme it’s hard to discuss, but I bet Machinist would also object to my solution (simply beating up the predator) on the same grounds.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:32 amViolent Jeff Goldstein would probably just stopped at snapping the guy’s ankles.
OUTLAW!!!!!
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:34 amDustin,
“young ladies who are just older than the age of majority”
She was more than a year past it and only months from our own age of majority. Where did the information indicating this man was slimy, manipulative, or deceptive come from? The only reason given for the father’s disapproval was age. Do we even know who initiated the relationship or how long it had gone on? This sounds like speculation to justify a lynch mob, “He might be innocent of this but he probably did something else”.
Emperor, care to say who you mean?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:37 am“Your incredibly uncharitable reading of everything says more about you than it does about Aaron or me.”
It wasn’t me that asked that question, but I did misread your answer to “18 is what the maximum difference in age should be” and for that I apologize.
That said, I would invite you to consider the thought experiment I suggested in my first post: what if Phillip Genscher is Black?
Now, I don’t know that he is, but I also have no knowledge that he isn’t.
Moving beyond that, I really do question, why do you call this an act of “vigilantism”, when the father wasn’t “taking the law in his own hands”, because the law wasn’t on his side at any point? That really strikes a false note in a story about a man and his two friends attempting to murder yet another man by mutilation.
Put another way, if a man finds out his daughter was raped, goes out with some of his friends and hangs the man that raped her, that’s an act of vigilantism. If he instead finds out she’s having consensual sex with a Black man and does the same things, we don’t call that vigilantism; we might call it the Klan, but certainly not vigilantism.
The difference lies entirely in the act “being avenged”; when it’s a crime, you’re a vigilante. When it’s not, you’re a thug and an (attempted) murder. Either way, it’s an action that undermines a free society; if acting in accord with the laws is no guarantee of protection from violence, is there any law?
Marashir (b6091a) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:38 amThe moral I got from the post may be different than most. It was this: how would I have reacted to a daughter of mine dating that much of an older man?
No, we don’t have the back story. There are lots of mitigators in both directions. Maybe the older fellow was a prince, and the father a bad man. Or vice-versa.
And it does remind parents that they do not own their children.
As for the story of my friend, I repeat that the daughter never forgave her father for making her see the truth about her boyfriend. She recognized the boyfriend was not a good or honest man based on the information, but you know the saying: no good deed goes unpunished.
My father, when I told him the story of my friend, remarked that people didn’t talk when they were six feet underground (“I’m sorry that your boyfriend moved away and didn’t leave a note or anything, honey”). I’m sure that was idle talk. But then, my father doesn’t have daughters.
Being a parent is not a simple job.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:43 amEric Blair,
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:47 amThat is a tragic story and I have the highest respect for the father and the sacrifice he made. That is true love for his daughter.
He’s in a relationship with someone drastically weaker. Normal men don’t want that relationship. I’m inducing (or speculating), but I’m almost certainly right.
It’s not just the age difference, but the age and legal responsibilities itself, that indicate the woman is not suitable for a relationship with an older man.
And, indeed, that’s why I say a 22 year old being pursued by a drastically old man could also be an indicator. Not quite as clear, but absolutely worth checking into and scrutinizing. Again, I guess I have to add for the 50th time that it’s not OK to cut people’s genitals off regardless of the situation.
Yes, and I did speculate, simply based on the man’s ability to get two cohorts to react so extremely, that there’s probably more to the story.
I do think, as an obvious rule, that older men who want a relationship with powerless girls are predators. It may also be an issue of availability and scarcity, as slimy guys may be unable to get a relationship with a mentally healthy adult 25 year old (who is much more attractive than her 16 year old counterpart, in virtue of her adult status).
These lines society has drawn aren’t really artificial. There’s an arbitrariness to the fact someone’s legal status changes on their birthday, but the general idea is there for good reason.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:48 amEmperor, care to say who you mean?
Comment by Machinist — 12/15/2010 @ 9:37 am
Not you Machinist.
The Emperor (e0e3b2) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:48 amSigh.
Yeah, like I said, you’re being uncharitable in a tricky discussion. No one here has indicated racism is an issue.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:50 amI have not seen anyone on this thread approve of the relationship. What was said to justify your remark?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:51 amMachinist,
Marashir is directly comparing this relationship to much healthier ones. you’re right, no one normal would approve of this relationship, and it’s more interesting to discuss the way to handle the problem, than whether or not it’s acceptable.
But quite a lot of Marashir’s points are discussing whether this relationship really should be disapproved of. How is it different from Cindy Mccain and John Mccain! or some celebrity I don’t really know anything about.
Your points are more about how to handle something you find unacceptable, in a daughter you’re supposed to respect rather than dominate. That’s a lot more reasonable, IMO.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:55 amDustin,
Does it make a difference what the father disapproves of? Does the situation become funny if you agree with his particular objection? His action is funny or understandable if it’s based on age but not if the same action is based on race or religion?
I don’t think right, wrong, or decency can be determined this way. The prime consideration people are laughing at is the father’s action, not his reason. This is what is indecent about the laughter. Unless one would equally approve of the father’s action based on anything else he personally disapproved of, this is indecent. A few months can’t change that.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:58 amHas anyone been able to reconcile the bail-extradition positions of the Euro countries on the wikileaks “rape” versus on the Polanski case?
jim2 (6482d8) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:58 amDustin,
I don’t see him justifying anything. The main difference seems to be his greater emphasis on the difference in age rather than the age of the girl.
Your summery seems a bit uncharitable at best.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:04 amWith respect, Sir.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:04 amYes, it makes a huge difference.
Granted (again), the castration response is wrong. And you’re right, that extreme application of a well worn, and usually idle, threat is why people are laughing at something that isn’t very funny if we’re honest about it. the kind of man who can actually castrate another man is … bad. The laughter is indecent, though I admit I chuckled.
True. And note: this relationship was legal in that jurisdiction, and I find it pretty similar to Eric’s example of the 22 year old girl.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:07 amThe specific quote Aaron responded to was “Can someone tell me at what age for the daughter this stops being funny?”, which was written by Machinist. Further, my question addresses the relative difference in age (which has been central to my points), rather then the absolute ages of parties.
Yes, that would be why it’s an experiment, and you appear to be missing the point, most likely because of another problem you’re having with this argument: you’re unable to be objective, because you seem wedded to the line of argument that Phillip Genscher is “slimy, manipulative, or deceptive”.
You are making what you believe is a reasonable inference based on the few facts that Mr. Genscher is of low moral character and this is an unhealthy relationship. I am making no judgment other then that the relationship between Mr.Gensher and Ms. Seifert was legal and consensual.
I then invite Aaron to make a similar leap, to ask “what if the victim is black?” Now, one might argue that this is unsupported by the facts… except, of course, for the violent and criminal reaction to a legal relationship, which is not inconsistent with either the belief that the victim is of low character, or poor racial hygiene.
Or, let’s put it another way: having responded this way to a suitor that was too old, what makes one imagine that Mr. Seifert would respond with any more decorum to a suiter of the “wrong” race?
Marashir (b6091a) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:10 amAnd I don’t accept this as reasonable.
In fact, I think it’s insane. It completely misses the point. Cindy Mccain was in her 40s, and a multimillionaire, and politically powerful. This girl was 17 and powerless, and a lot of the points you raise indicate she may have been raised by a monster (speculation, again).
I see the comparison as a defense. Is that uncharitable? I think it’s actually fair.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:10 amRather, Cindy Mccain was 26. Mea Culpa.
Still, she wasn’t powerless. She was notoriously powerful.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:12 amMachinist, thank you for your note about my friend and his daughter.
It reminds me of what my father said to me, the day my first child was born.
“Now you have the tough job, kid,” he said, cigaret dangling from his lips.
“You have to be his father, not his friend.”
It took me years to understand that my father wasn’t talking about me, at all.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:13 am“Fwew! John McCain is safe by six months…”
Marashir – The difference in age between Dennis Kucinich and Elizabeth Kucinich is 31 years if you want to throw stones, just sayin’.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:13 amThough actually, I have to admit, it makes John Mccain seem a lot sleazier to me.
It’s worth some scrutiny. Is Cindy an adult at 26? I think that’s something her family would have to consider when talking to her about her choices. She probably is. Most 26 year old women are. And Cindy’s not in a position of weakness.
Just as with Eric’s 22 year old, the real change is that it’s a bit harder to automatically know that this is wrong. You have to do a little talking or investigating.
It’s a gray area at some point, but my point is that the issue isn’t age difference, but solely the power difference of the relationship. I can guarantee there was a drastic difference in some cases, and in others, I can’t tell as quickly, but that’s what the issue is.
I find marashir’s methodology to be irrational. Unless he’s going to compare situations of extreme power difference (such as the Lewinsky example, or the Polanski example), he’s missing the point.
Which doesn’t make sense, as I explained this several times.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:17 amIf dad put his hands on the “boyfriend’s” genitals, doesn’t that make him Teh Gay?
The Dana who notices these things (3e4784) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:19 amComment by jim2 — 12/15/2010 @ 9:58 am
Polanski v. Assange…
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:24 amAssange arrived in the wrong country, he should have gone to Switzerland, not the UK.
This is a fine encapsulation of why this argument hasn’t really been able to advance: some posters are imputing motives that just aren’t there to the other posters.
I cited John McCain and Fred Thompson (Dustin’s “some celebrity I don’t really know anything about”) not to cast aspersions, but as examples of moral men, men of integrity (well, generally accepted to be, they are politicians after all) who are engaged in loving and mutual relationships with much younger women!
Which leads back to my thought experiment: I keep bringing up race because it’s universally recognized as invidious if that was the motivation. Or, put another way;
The consensual relationship between a white woman and a black man, and,
The consensual relationship between a young woman and a much older man have at least one thing in common;
They are both perfectly legal. Several people have advanced (without any evidence) that Mr. Gensher (the victim) is the bearer of a number of character flaws that by their reckoning, serve somewhat to mitigate the father’s actions.
I ask you to consider: what if the victim had characteristics that other people found objectionable? What if, for example, Mr. Gensher was morbidly obese? A Pole? A Scientologist?
What does it take for the premeditated (attempt at) torture murder stop being funny?
Marashir (b6091a) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:25 amComment by Eric Blair — 12/15/2010 @ 10:13 am
““You have to be his father, not his friend.””
And that is profound in my view. It seems you had a very wise father. That just says so much.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:27 amIs there a power difference?
If not, then this is nonresponsive and weird. You seem to miss the justification for not accepting this relationship as just as arbitrary as racism.
Why?
You keep making comparison after comparison that has nothing to do with the power difference between a young lady and an older man.
And the celebrity comparison came from Machinist, obviously, rather than you, but someone mentioned movie stars. Why in the world should I care if a movie star did something? I don’t know if those are power differences or not (I think not), but just because I can recognize a name doesn’t make an action OK. You cannot argue ethics with counterexamples unless those counterexamples share the same premise. It’s blatantly cheap and invalid.
I could play the same game as Marashir. Instead of the irrational comparison to racism, what if the older man was murdering her family and her first cousin? Of course, there’s no reason to respond to this because it misses the problem, which isn’t religious or racial or incest intolerance, but rather protecting the powerless from predators.
Sigh.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:34 amAnd I’ll absolutely continue to note the fact that comparing statutory rape to interracial or cross religious relationships is a defense of statutory rape.
Just as much as it’s a defense of cutting balls off to compare it to something we all accept, like criminal justice.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:37 am“This is a fine encapsulation of why this argument hasn’t really been able to advance”
“I cited John McCain and Fred Thompson (Dustin’s “some celebrity I don’t really know anything about”) not to cast aspersions”
Marashir – Actually there was no need for examples and I found your choices, including the glaring omission of Kucinich, very interesting. I think the reason the discussion “fails to advance” in your view is your insertion of red herrings into the thread. For the parties here, race has not entered the discussion, Seiferts or Genscher. It only seems to matter to you. Are you by any chance a liberal? They always seem hyper-focused on race issues. Also your interpretation of vigilantism as excluding Mr. Seifert’s actions. Complete BS. Have you ever heard the expression, “there ought to be a law?” Well, Mr. Seifert thought there should be and his actions fit the definition of vigilantism quite nicely.
What is your native language by the way?
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:39 amSee, like I said, the problem here is that you’re not arguing this case: you’re arguing with a straw man that you’ve constructed, where Mr. Gensher is a predatory monster and Ms. Seifert is an innocent, unworldly lamb. But this comes entirely from the difference in age: there is not one scintilla of information apart from the age difference to support this supposition.
WHile you may contend that it’s not as likely, it’s certainly plausible that there is another interpretation of this relationship. Suppose, for example;
-Mr. Gensher has severe Asperger syndrome and this is the first sexual relationship he has ever had.
-That the two are hopeless nerds that bonded over a shared love of competitive Magic the Gathering (or World of Warcraft, whatever).
-That the Daughter is the sexual instigator, and found Mr. Gensher on the German version of chat-roulette.
I could go on, but the point is simple: Mr. Gensher was engaged in a legal relationship with a woman the law regards as an adult. We know literally nothing about the substance of that relationship other then that it was consensual.
Marashir (b6091a) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:40 amThank you for being more succinct than I have been, Daleyrocks.
You make both points I wished to make.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:41 am“If dad put his hands on the “boyfriend’s” genitals, doesn’t that make him Teh Gay?”
The Dana who notices these things – I think it depends on whether he was blowing him at the same time, but I’m not by any means an expert.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:42 amReally?
You’re accusing me of burning a straw man?
Because I assume that a 17 year old girl is in a drastically different position of power from her 57 year old lover?
HAHAHAHAHA
And you’re not constructing a straw man to compare this to racism?
What’s even funnier is that you are angry about my assumptions (assumptions found in some form in virtually all modern societies) and then suppose all sorts of hysterical ideas.
The “-That the Daughter is the sexual instigator, and found Mr. Gensher on the German version of chat-roulette.”
Is the classic defense perverts use. ‘She seduced me!’
Look, your entire extremely long condemnation has studiously ignored the actual point. You simply deny it and want no discussion of it, but insist on all these irrelevant thought exercises.
The way you entered the thread, bashing Aaron while denying you did so, misunderstanding the basic concept of vigilantism, and taking an uncharitable read of someone who admitted the castration was wrong and the relationship was legal, is PATHETIC.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:45 am“See, like I said, the problem here is that you’re not arguing this case: you’re arguing with a straw man that you’ve constructed”
Comedy gold from the red herring monger.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:48 amDustin,
I respectfully disagree. We don’t know the power difference between these two but how much could it change in a few months when she turned 18? My point with the actors is that we certainly do know the power difference between people like Zeta Jones and Douglas, her career and public profile were greatly boosted by the relationship. Would it be wrong then to joke about it if Zeta Jones’s father choose to attack Douglas? Should society stop heaping celebrity and wealth on Harrison Ford because of the difference in power and influence between he and Flockart?
You seem to be very subjective in judging these situations based on your own feelings. Let me suggest a variation on Marashir’s point that comes closer to your power difference specification. What if the father and daughter are black and the man is close in age but rich and white? Would the father be justified then? There is certainly a difference in power there.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:50 amPoor example. That was a boss/subordinate relationship. In every company for which I’ve worked that would be considered sexual harassment and a terminating offense for the boss, no questions asked. And that’s whether the relationship was consensual or not. Unlike a sexual relationship which is considered rape between a prison guard and an inmate, a boss/subordinate relationship still crosses the ‘free will’ line as it could be viewed as coercive and can lead to a major lawsuit against the company by the subordinate.
RickZ (882387) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:52 amDustin – BAM!
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:53 amPerhaps you missed this, because the thread is so heated and moving fast, but I agree that it doesn’t change in a few months when she turned 18.
In fact, she was already above the age of consent in this jurisdiction, so the strictness of the age difference is something I’m already arguing against when I say I see a 17 year old as drastically less powerful than the 57 year old.
And yes, we do know there is a power difference. That’s a simple fact. Like the sky being blue, I can’t prove the most obvious of points, but this is the central moral objection I have, so if you don’t think it’s demonstrated, just assume it as a stipulation, to carry on the ethics discussion logically.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:54 amDaddy did it stupidly.
The Chicago way. Boyfriend is putting his key in his door when a crowbar breaks his skull. Two years later, he comes out of his coma, and two years after that, in the nursing home, still remembers nothing.
nk (db4a41) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:57 amRickZ, there’s more than one thing wrong with the Clinton / Lewisnky example, but I don’t think it’s a poor example.
It’s the archetype of a power imbalance in a relationship.
Whether it’s illegal is an entirely different matter I am completely avoiding. I am not discussion legality.
At its core, you obviously understand the issue with Bill and Monica as ‘power’ and ‘coercion’. This is a very extreme example of a quasi-consensual relationship, but how is Monica to have any control over it? Just look at how she was initially called a deranged stalker by Clinton’s many powerful lawyers. even today, the line is that she seduced him. She had almost no control of the narrative. She is associated with nothing but this scandal, while Bill can easily move on.
The difference between that case and this german case is one of degree, not one of kind.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:59 am“You seem to be very subjective in judging these situations based on your own feelings.”
Machinist – Isn’t that the only way to judge things? I cannot reliably vouch for the feelings of others, can you? I can make informed guesses, but I’m never certain.
I can’t speak for how the rest of society judges people either. I can only speak for my own reaction. I think Roman Polanski is worse than pond scum.
I don’t understand why people are layering race, religion and money hypotheticals onto the basic situation in the news article A.W. linked. To me the relationship is wrong. Layering on irrelevant details is just like the old joke about we’ve already established what you are, now we’re just negotiating the price. It’s like pimping out a son or daughter for the right conditions.
I’m not condoning the violence, just saying the relationship is wrong and would discourage it even recognizing it is legal.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:02 am#
“And I’ll absolutely continue to note the fact that comparing statutory rape to interracial or cross religious relationships is a defense of statutory rape.
Just as much as it’s a defense of cutting balls off to compare it to something we all accept, like criminal justice.
Comment by Dustin — 12/15/2010 @ 10:37 am”
In fairness I was the first to mention cross religious relationships. I don’t really think I was defending statutory rape. In any case this was NOT statutory rape as she was more than a year past the age of consent.
We seem to have moved from discussion to just fighting.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:02 amAs for whether it’s ok for a 57-year old man to have sex with a 17-year old girl ….
This is Germany. They had slave brothels during WWII. Now they have legalized prostitution and require women seeking unemployment compensation to apply for work at brothels.
“The law could not help him.” Of course not. German law has always been of the perverts, for the perverts, and by the perverts.
nk (db4a41) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:03 amYou definitely did improve the scenario, and make it much, much harder for me to apply my ‘power’ rule.
I’d say, in modern society, where blacks and whites have similar legal rights, that no, the same problem largely doesn’t exist solely because of wealth.
Amending you example a little further, to Jim Crow era or Slavery era, where blacks have very little power, and I think the problem is similar (and worse than the mere age difference). As one party becomes less powerful, the problem becomes more pronounced.
Thus, Thomas Jefferson was guilty of something a lot like statutory rape of his slave, even if she consented. I think both partners in these decisions should have approximately similar amounts of power.
I also stipulate that young women have a difficult time making decisions about sex, and older predators might take advantage of this. It’s much fuzzier, but the consequences for a woman who gets pregnant are serious, warranting fathers being very worried when a young woman is in a relationship with a much older man, especially when the woman isn’t an adult.
Thanks for the much improved scenario, BTW.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:05 amAs far as I can tell, we just disagree respectfully.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:06 amWe disagree. But if I were Daddy, I would have broken boyfriend’s head.
nk (db4a41) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:07 am“I’m not condoning the violence, just saying the relationship is wrong and would discourage it even recognizing it is legal.”
That is a completely different issue than what this thread discussed. I GENERALLY agree that such relationships are usually wrong. This thread and my arguments are about the fathers actions and if it is wrong or decent to joke about them. It is frustrating to have people say that objecting to the father’s murderous actions are condoning the relationship. Is objecting to lynch mods condoning the crimes the lynchee is accused of?
The father’s actions were completely outside the law. They were a lynching, not vigilante action.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:11 am“German law has always been of the perverts, for the perverts, and by the perverts.”
nk – ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:11 amNot trying to be an internet tough guy, but if the law wasn’t on my side, I’d do the same.
But I admit I wouldn’t be laughing about it, and I wouldn’t be messing with his genitals.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:13 amWe seem to have entered Bizarro land: I have a “misunderstanding the basic concept of vigilantism”, because I point out that vigilantism is differentiated from common criminality by the perpetrator “taking the law into their own hands”, that is, acting to enforce laws as they exist?
Dustin speaks incessantly about the “different position of power”, the language of feminists everywhere and daleyrocks supposed that I am a liberal?
As to being angry, I’m genuinely confused: Dustin, can you truly imagine no circumstances other then the one you are projecting onto Mr. Gensher? You categorically declare that there are no possible alternatives? That the situations I outline simply do not happen? Not ever? Not even possible?
As for your “assumptions (assumptions found in some form in virtually all modern societies)”, I would only humbly point out what I have been pointing out the entire time: the laws of Germany simply do not agree with you. They recognize that there is an age under which a person cannot give meaningful consent; the woman in question is older then that age.
Marashir (b6091a) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:13 am96
he did – sort of
EricPWJohnson (25498d) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:17 amThank you; you have perfectly encapsulated my point without the rancor I apparently was unable to avoid. With that, I bid you adieu!
Marashir (b6091a) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:18 amIn the short time a dear dear friend of mine was an ADA – in her small city this happened several times – stabbed in the groin, shot in the groin, burned in the groin and my personal fav – industrial adhesive
no priors except for the industrial adhesive, he had several daughters
EricPWJohnson (25498d) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:20 am“That is a completely different issue than what this thread discussed.”
Machinist – With all due respect, complete bulldookey. Why are you and other commenting about the nature of the relationship and adding hypotheticals in the comments about what might or might not make the relationship right or wrong.
A.W. in his post specifically condemned the violence and I agree, but the predator got what he something he deserved and I can laugh about it from transatlantic distance, schadenfreude. It was vigilantism, not a lynching, IMHO.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:20 amMara
Let me stop you right here.
You are debating whether or not I am a bad person for finding this funny. What one person finds funny is often very different from another. I can even find humor in sympathy. Call me weird that way. Humor can be mean, schadenfruede, for me, or it can be a coping mechanism, or whatever.
That will either bother you or it won’t. But dissecting to the umpteenth degree what is and is not funny or why actually can get pretty tedious pretty quickly especially because the laughter response is humanity at its least rational. I mean if there is an evolutionary explanation for laughter, damned if I can see it.
> Moving beyond that, I really do question, why do you call this an act of “vigilantism”, when the father wasn’t “taking the law in his own hands”, because the law wasn’t on his side at any point?
Its exactly what dustin says. I consider taking the law into your own hands to include deciding for yourself what “the law” should be. Feel free to disagree with me, but then you are getting into another tedious issue: the definition of words.
> If he instead finds out she’s having consensual sex with a Black man and does the same things, we don’t call that vigilantism
See, actually I would. I don’t believe vigilantism is a term of approval. So the KKK lynching a black dude is, in my mind, vigilantism. But that is an argument over the definition of words. Whatever you call what this father did, it was wrong. It was an act motivated by his sense of justice, which didn’t correspond to the law in any respect.
And imho, it’s a little funny. And horrifying. Which imho makes it funnier. Think of that what you will.
> The difference lies entirely in the act “being avenged”;
But one thing that underlies your logic is that justice is purely a matter of law. This ignores a whole strain of American thought that sometimes a thing that is legal can still be wrong, and that sometimes something can be illegal, but right. For instance, we tarred and feathered tax collectors during our colonial days. That was not legal. And the action was cruel; often when you removed the tar, the flesh came with it. But the founders felt that it was necessary to resist an unjust law. Sometimes things go wrong and the law fails.
I mean in Iraq, under Saddam, Uday Hussien would regularly round up girls as young as 14 and have sex with them if they “consented,” and rape them if they refused. Twice he broke into a wedding and raped the bride, while the rest of the party had to listen.
Now imagine the groom in that situation one day did what this german father did, but to uday hussien. Would that be unjustified? It would be illegal, because after all this was Uday Hussien, son of the dictator. But in my mind the very fact that the groom couldn’t appeal to the law makes it MORE justified to “take the law into his own hands” (as I understand that term). And while castration as a punishment for rape is a bit extreme, its not that clear cut that his resort to private justice is wrong in my example.
In my mind, you really have to have a fundamentally unjust situation, far worse than the german rule on the age of consent, to justify any of this kind of thing. I mean imagine it is Alabama in the 1930s, and you are a black man who just found out that your daughter was raped by KKK idiots. I suppose it is not quite justified to castrate them under those circumstances, either, but I would probably give the dude a mulligan at the very least. But if it that kind of vigilantism is justified, it has to be due to a system that is THAT broken, like justice for black people in Alabama in 1930. Or for jews in germany… in 1930. Or for an Iraqi prior to Saddam getting kicked down.
The correct response for this german, in discovering that the law allowed this outrageous thing, would have been to take to the streets urging for the law to be changed. And it is precisely because he has options like that that his vigilantism is wrong.
But its still kind of funny.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:23 am“With that, I bid you adieu!”
Marashir – Don’t go. You never answered the question of whether you are a liberal and why you keep interjecting race into the discussion.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:25 amBecause sexual violence against women is horrible, but sexual violence against men is hilarious?
/devil’s advocate
carlitos (a3d259) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:26 amComment by Aaron Worthing — 12/15/2010 @ 11:23 am
As I understand the story, he fessed up and will get what the law gives him. And he refused to rat out his friends. Not much more a man can do.
nk (db4a41) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:33 amcarlitos – See comment #13
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:34 am“You are debating whether or not I am a bad person for finding this funny. What one person finds funny is often very different from another. I can even find humor in sympathy. Call me weird that way. Humor can be mean, schadenfruede, for me, or it can be a coping mechanism, or whatever.
That will either bother you or it won’t. But dissecting to the umpteenth degree what is and is not funny or why actually can get pretty tedious pretty quickly especially because the laughter response is humanity at its least rational. I mean if there is an evolutionary explanation for laughter, damned if I can see it.”
Aaron, didn’t you in fact ask us for our opinion on this? Did you mean only if we agreed with you?
-From the original post…
“But my personal question is, is it wrong to joke about it?”
What were you asking of us if not our personal opinion of rather it was right to joke about this. You did not ask if the crime or the relationship was right or if you had the right to joke or laugh about it. You asked if in our opinions it was wrong, and now you knock us for having different personal opinions? Please just tell us in future if you don’t really want our opinions.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:49 amHe didn’t say he didn’t want you opinion just because he defended his point of view. He gave you a very thorough and polite response, and I think that shows he welcomed your answer to his question.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 11:52 amHe may give lip service from time to time, but he doesn’t honestly want differing opinions. That’s why he seeks out echo chambers and sycophants.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/15/2010 @ 12:01 pm““You are debating whether or not I am a bad person for finding this funny.” Dustin, I have not called him a bad person. I have tried to answer the question he asked. I know never to answer certain questions from my wife. I am asking if this is the same thing, that I should not answer.
“But dissecting to the umpteenth degree what is and is not funny or why actually can get pretty tedious pretty quickly especially because the laughter response is humanity at its least rational.”
Then what were we being asked to do?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 12:05 pmThat’s all I need, an jerk troll jumping in.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 12:06 pmA jerk troll…
Sorry, I started to use a word that starts with a vowel.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 12:07 pmYou’re right, Machinist. Aaron is in error to that point as far as I can tell (I can’t remember the long thread, but you’ve been nice).
As I said, this thread is bumpy. I am very confident Aaron welcomes your thoughtful disagreement, and simply wishes to also disagree.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 12:11 pmkman
a bit unfair – also he’s not a trekkie – there is not Spock – Obie divide here
Also the guys a Russian
EricPWJohnson (25498d) — 12/15/2010 @ 12:12 pmMeaning the German father isnt german not that Aarons a russian or is he?
EricPWJohnson (25498d) — 12/15/2010 @ 12:19 pmAll hope is not lost for Mr. Gensher.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 12:23 pmDaley
you,. actually… googled…. that….
never run for office – its out there is space for EVAH!
question – do they clack?
EricPWJohnson (25498d) — 12/15/2010 @ 12:34 pmI think the idea of a vigilante castration is funny in the same way the Bobbitt case was funny. Neither is truly funny but we find them humorous in part because the situation makes us uncomfortable and in part because it seems like creative justice.
One problem for me is that vigilantism is not justice and it’s unfortunate to paint it in that light. As for this case specifically, it helps me to compare it to similar situations, as some commenters suggest above. IMO the best comparison would be if the father and his friends (or better yet, the mother and her friends) had cut out the uterus of a 57-year-old woman who seduced a 17-year-old boy. With or without the bread knife, would that be funny?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/15/2010 @ 12:49 pmDRJ…
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:03 pm“…cut out the uterus…” would be the most direct analogy; but, symbolically, I would think an involuntary double mastectomy would be better?
Our Windy City barrister wrote:
Daddy did it in a way so that the “boyfriend” would know exactly what happened and why it happened; he wanted said “boyfriend” to live with full knowledge of why he was living without his testicles.
The Dana who thinks that this was a testament to dad's ire (3e4784) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:03 pmNo, that wouldn’t be funny.
Maybe I’m sexist for seeing a difference here.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:05 pmOf course, the boyfriend still has more balls than President Obama.
The Republican Dana (3e4784) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:11 pmSome people seem to be taking this thread too seriously.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:12 pmUsing a bread knife was just wrong, of course.
One rancher was complaining to another that the new stallion was simply way too unruly The more experienced rancher suggested that he geld the stallion with two bricks.
“Won’t that hurt?”
“Not if you don’t get your thumbs in the way.”
The Dana whose father had a ranch in Nevada (3e4784) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:14 pmDRJ – Wasn’t there an incident a few years back when several women discovered that the same man was sleeping with all of them. They lured him to a motel and super glued his junk to his leg or some such punishment.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:15 pmDRJ wrote:
I’d suggest that sometimes vigilantism really is justice. Simply go back to a couple of the Fred Phelps threads. The law couldn’t do anything, but who here didn’t think that the “church” vans getting their tires slashed wasn’t justice of a sort? How many people here wouldn’t have seen a few bikers expressing their displeasure with the Westboro Baptist “Church” members as a form of justice?
The Dana getting serious this time (3e4784) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:19 pmmachinist
> What were you asking of us if not our personal opinion of rather it was right to joke about this. You did not ask if the crime or the relationship was right or if you had the right to joke or laugh about it.
Perhaps i was less than clear when i said. of course your opinion is welcome, i just felt that getting down into too much detail about it, jousting on this technicality about it or not, well, can be boring, for the same reason as trying to explain a joke can be boring.
i mean i am with SPQR. You guys are taking this waaay to seriously. but that’s just my opinion. but when we are debating what the meaning of vigilantism is, i think its a bit much.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:20 pmAs ever, DRJ makes my point a bit more eloquently.
carlitos (a3d259) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:31 pmRegarding the gelding, this video is really thought-provoking. The Dirty Jobs guy talks about castration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-udsIV4Hmc&feature=related
carlitos (a3d259) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:34 pmI am sorry if I have taken this too seriously. My first thought when I heard of this was of a white father doing this to a young black man because he was offended at his daughter seeing him. This has happened more than once. I don’t find it in the least funny or suitable for mirth. To say it is funny because one thinks the relationship is wrong misses the point. The white racist father and possibly much of the local community felt the same way about the daughter and the black man.
The girl was more than a year past the age of consent and no law was being broken. The father took it upon himself to force his will on the daughter and her boyfriend in a horrible way. If your mother had disapproved of your girlfriend would it have been funny for her to disfigure or mutilate the girl friend?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:38 pmRemember when the school kids laughed at the scenes in Schindler’s List? Should we just laugh off the Holocaust and death camps?
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:43 pmA.W. – I for one love movie scenes like the one near the beginning of Armageddon of Bruce Willis driving golf balls off his oil rig at the nimrods on the Greenpeace ship, but that’s just me.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:44 pmShould we just laugh off the Holocaust and death camps?
WOW
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:46 pmmachinist
all fair points, but let me say something to this:
> To say it is funny because one thinks the relationship is wrong misses the point. The white racist father and possibly much of the local community felt the same way about the daughter and the black man.
And needless to say I would think the people laughing would be the d–ks in that situation.
But one unstated element in my thinking is i am not a moral relativist. So in my thinking the fact a 57 year old screwing a 17 year old is wrong, but interracial sex is okay, is the vital difference. i don’t believe that all morality is created equally or is equally valid.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:47 pmReally?
The comparison seems so … out of nowhere to me. Granted, there was racism in our recent history, but race didn’t seem an issue here at all. We can’t just inject that.
I think I have proven that you are leaving out a major component of the situation. And you’re injecting a component that didn’t exist, because of your preconceptions.
It’s OBVIOUSLY wrong for a 57 year old to sleep with a 17 year old. That is the truth. Add that into your analysis, and the problem is that his reaction was too extreme. I think you need some very good explanation for why it’s not wrong. And this explanation should be far more concrete than ‘german law doesn’t forbid it’. Screw Germany. They are not an authority on anything.
And so what if people laugh? People laugh at ugly things, all the time. In fact, a lot of the reason they do that is because they are so sympathetic that the only way to cope with their feelings is gallows humor. That’s why Aaron noted the wrongness of joking.
And you’re right, let’s not take this so seriously.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:47 pmHoly moral relativism, Batman!
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:50 pmAaron,
I should be clear that I consider the father’s crime as being against his daughter as much as against the boyfriend. How does she deal with this? If she wants to stay with the man out of guilt is this the father’s fault? Has he really protected her by saddling her with this guilt? Does she live in fear that this man or any other person she is attracted to might be killed because of her?
“So in my thinking the fact a 57 year old screwing a 17 year old is wrong, but interracial sex is okay, is the vital difference.”
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:58 pmSo this is risible now but in a few months when she turns 18 it would be a terrible thing? You really feel qualified to judge the whole worlds standards by what seems right to you. Would every man who has married a 17 year old be fair game? I don’t really consider myself a moral relativist but I certainly don’t go to your extreme. If someone else has different values than you, how do we decide who defines decency?
I think any intellectually honest participant in this thread has to admit the distinction between this mythical racist father and what actually happened here is well proven. The former being wrong is irrelevant.
It’s annoying that it keeps being mentioned, as though it wasn’t demolished repeatedly.
Anyone who does not include the fact that a 57 year old screwing a 17 year old is very wrong is far more confused about morality than the people laughing at this sad story. It’s called gallows humor, and it is unseemly, and it’s small potatoes.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:59 pmAnd let me add that I resent being compared with a holocaust laugher.
And yes, that’s exactly what just happened.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 1:59 pmMachinist
> Should we just laugh off the Holocaust and death camps?
Then, um, you won’t find this South Park episode funny, not even a little bit. Especially not at the 12 minute mark.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:01 pmReally?
I think the crime was mainly against the person horribly mutilated. Sure, the daughter was victimized too, but oh well.
You ask if she should stay with the man. He’s a pervert and, no, she should not. In fact, this eunuch did her wrong, and she should hopefully come to understand that.
Why not?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:03 pmYou still keep going back to the relationship but the real crime here was the father’s action. Does a father have the right to try and kill an adult daughter’s boyfriend if he does not approve of him? At what age does he lose that right?
Is a brutal mutilation and attempted murder really something to joke about? If I must pick an absolute standard I vote no.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:03 pm“I don’t really consider myself a moral relativist but I certainly don’t go to your extreme.”
Machinist – WTF? Extreme? The first image that pops into your head is about miscegenation and you claim you don’t go to extremes.
Take a few breaths.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:04 pmThis man is so not equivalent to an innocent Jew or Roma being burned alive by the SS.
He’s a bastard who got an overly harsh penalty, but should have known better than to screw someone’s young daughter. Anyone who does what he does should know they are crossing the line and could face severe retribution. What did the Jews do that is similar to that? Nothing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:05 pmComparisons to death camps? Seriously?
Somebody had too much caffeine.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:05 pmAnd I’ll admit, it’s a very good thing that there is a public story about how dangerous it is for German perverts to screw young kids, even if it’s technically legal. They are still playing with fire, and hopefully a lot of them reconsider.
Not really like the Holocaust.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:07 pmAn example: If I were to compare holocaust victims to perverts, in many circles, someone might just beat the crap out of me.
That’s not OK. That’s too much retribution. It’s extralegal, and it’s not even a crime to make disgusting comparisons.
But it’s also pretty funny for such people to suffer.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:10 pmAaron, Sorry, I don’t watch South Park.
Dustin, I did not mean to imply you are a holocaust laugher. I meant to suggest there are subjects that are just not funny. Sorry if I came across wrong. I am rather out of my league on this forum.
“You ask if she should stay with the man.”
NO. I asked, what if she does so out of guilt over what her father did to him.
“I think any intellectually honest participant in this thread has to admit the distinction between this mythical racist father and what actually happened here is well proven.”
I have seen no proof. I guess that makes me intellectually dishonest? Saying the issue is settled or proven does not make it so. I have not seen a compelling or convincing argument that they are not comparable except ‘I think this is wrong and that wasn’t’. That is the same argument the racist father would make.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:15 pmMachinist
> I should be clear that I consider the father’s crime as being against his daughter as much as against the boyfriend.
I am going to go out on a limb and guess the boyfriend suffered more.
And i am sure this is very damaging to their relationship. But its exactly the same problem with any attempt to stop sex with an underage child, unless it is done without “consent.” The child thinks she wants it, you know.
> You really feel qualified to judge the whole worlds standards by what seems right to you.
Yes, i make judgements. this is the whole “i am not a moral relativist” thing. As martin luther king said in a sermon:
No, its not a popular view, but it is my view. some things are just plain wrong. a 57 year old screwing a 17 year old is just plain wrong.
And that isn’t to say that at 18 its automatically right. its just not so obvious that i can say that sex with an 18 year old should be out of the question.
> Would every man who has married a 17 year old be fair game?
for what? being castrated? i don’t know how much clearer i can be in saying it shouldn’t have happened.
but i might still laugh if someone else castrates him. i guess i am evil like that.
> I don’t really consider myself a moral relativist but I certainly don’t go to your extreme. If someone else has different values than you, how do we decide who defines decency?
You instead go to the extreme of saying that its like just like laughing at the thought of racist castration.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:15 pmFor the record, I am not being serious.
But come on… when people go on these detours, it’s not exactly fun.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:16 pmOh NOes! Teh thread got all Godwinned.
carlitos (a3d259) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:16 pmNow I’m justifying the Holocaust? I don’t even know how to reply to that ridiculous reach. I give up.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:18 pmShould we start referring to him as Miss Polanski?
Icy Texan (d9d345) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:22 pmJust kidding, Machinist.
I don’t know why you see this issue differently than I do, but I know you’re not trying to be a jerk by injecting a couple of issues that seem really unneeded (even after they have been repeatedly disposed of).
Just relax!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:23 pmSchadenfreude would have had the Nuremburg defendents who were convicted of activities in the Holocaust to be put to death in an Auschwitz gas chamber, rather than the hanging they got.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/15/2010 @ 2:30 pmnk: That’s never happened.
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp
Aaron (0f4d98) — 12/15/2010 @ 3:13 pmWhat’s the difference between a Joooo and a pizza?
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 3:31 pmIf you compare slicing someone’s pizza up to this German pervert, it makes some sense?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 3:48 pmWhat’s the difference between a Joooo and a pizza?
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/15/2010 @ 3:31 pm
b/t a Jew and a pizza: mixing meat and cheese is OK for one but not the other
but b/t a “Joooooo” and a pizza: one won’t refund your money if he’s late
/anti-anti-Semitic snark hopefully clear
no one you know (d71b08) — 12/15/2010 @ 3:51 pmnoyk – I don’t think you can put shrimp on it, can you?
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 3:53 pmnoyk – I don’t think you can put shrimp on it, can you?
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/15/2010 @ 3:53 pm
Uh oh. Once again the joke flies over my head. 🙂
no one you know (d71b08) — 12/15/2010 @ 3:58 pmnoyk – I was addressing your meat and cheese issues.
I didn’t finish the joke. Somebody suggested we should laugh at the Holocaust, so being a smart azz, I pulled out an old old chestnut. Figured everybody had heard that one. Spelling should have been clue to snark.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 4:06 pmdaleyrocks, Hitler probably would have laughed. I can’t help but think of the KKK, and how they made jokes about pizza. How can you find the KKK funny?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 4:07 pmHow about priest jokes?
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 4:07 pm“How can you find the KKK funny?”
Dustin – Lotsa KKK jokes, but it will take some dredging. I hate Nazis too, especially Illinois Nazis.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 4:10 pmSorry for getting so serious. Apparently “But my personal question is, is it wrong to joke about it?” was a rhetorical question.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/15/2010 @ 4:53 pmHere is that Super Glue story I referenced. Strange things happen up there north of the Cheese Curtain.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 5:03 pmComment by The Dana whose father had a ranch in Nevada — 12/15/2010 @ 1:14 pm
The daughter and I bought matching stockman knives. The third blade that is like a scalpel is called the spey blade. 😉
nk (db4a41) — 12/15/2010 @ 5:08 pmLink: http://www.discountcutlery.net/en-us/dept_22266.html
nk (db4a41) — 12/15/2010 @ 5:08 pmKKK? They are hilarious. Did anyone watch Blazing Saddles?
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/15/2010 @ 5:13 pmNazi!
Just kidding.
I don’t know exactly where the thread went wrong, but it’s difficult to inject humor into it at this point.
As your analogy makes very clear, this kind of retribution is actually horrible. But is it wrong to joke about things that are horrible?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 5:15 pmMankind has been joking about things that are horrible since one Cro Magnon told the campfire about the other Cro Magnon zigging when he should have zagged while hunting mastodon.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/15/2010 @ 5:28 pm“it’s difficult to inject humor into it at this point.”
I thought the link at 170 was funny.
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 5:36 pmI thought the link at 170 was funny.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/15/2010 @ 5:36 pm
Saw that story when it happened and thought ow – how could any guy find that funny? But hadn’t seen this multipun-pileup version, so by the time the end comes around you can’t help it:
Will criminal charges stick?
OK, LOL’d.
Mankind has been joking about things that are horrible since one Cro Magnon told the campfire about the other Cro Magnon zigging when he should have zagged while hunting mastodon.
Comment by SPQR — 12/15/2010 @ 5:28 pm
Yep, so true. Is it really true that of all the creatures, only man has the ability to laugh? Always found that fascinating and have wondered if it’s the combination of ability and need (human self-awareness + coping mechanism) that it seems.
no one you know (d71b08) — 12/15/2010 @ 6:01 pmno one you know, only man has the ability to laugh? You’ve not been to the monkey cage in the zoo lately?
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/15/2010 @ 6:06 pmno one you know, only man has the ability to laugh? You’ve not been to the monkey cage in the zoo lately?
Comment by SPQR — 12/15/2010 @ 6:06 pm
You’re right, forgot about the monkeys. Was thinking of the hyenas whose (I guess) laugh isn’t really a laugh, or something. It’s true haven’t been to the zoo in a loonng time, so had thought monkeys were capable of literary-hipster ironic humor and nothing more. /
no one you know (d71b08) — 12/15/2010 @ 6:31 pmSo a priest and a nun, traveling together, get caught by a snowstorm and need to check into a motel. There is only one room left so they agree to share, but it has twin beds.
They tuck, each in their own bed, and turn out the lights.
A little time goes by and the nun says, “Father, I’m cold. Could you bring me a blanket?”
The priest says, “Sister, we’re alone in a snowstorm, in a motel in the middle of nowhere. Why don’t we pretend we’re husband and wife”?
The nun says, “Yes. I would love that”.
And the priest says, “Ok, then, get up and get your own damn blanket”.
nk (db4a41) — 12/15/2010 @ 6:55 pm“Saw that story when it happened and thought ow – how could any guy find that funny?”
noyk – Philandering slimeball looking for love is ambushed by a bunch of angry women instead. How is that not funny?
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:41 pmI’d forgotten that story, daleyrocks. I wonder what happened to those women?
Frankly, Dustin, I think people can joke about anything they want. There’s always someone that will be offended about something, so I wouldn’t make that the standard. But I’d counsel my own kids not to joke about things if they would feel awkward having to defend themselves should someone object.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/15/2010 @ 7:44 pmI have a much looser standard, to be honest.
I am the king of awkward defenses.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:15 pmThough I was always taught the ‘would your mother or grandmother object’ standard. And this would certainly fail the hell out of that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:21 pmI’m with Machinist on this one. And frankly I’m flabbergasted at all the people here who seem to think that the fact that the relationship was legal in Germany is somehow peculiar or unusual. I noticed at least two commenters specifically attack the Germans for it. “German law has always been of the perverts, for the perverts, and by the perverts”, says nk. And Dustin says “Screw Germany. They are not an authority on anything.”
And here I am wondering where the hell do you people all live, where the relationship would be illegal? This relationship was perfectly legal and acceptable not just in Germany but almost everywhere in the civilised world. It would certainly be legal where I’m sitting in New York. And across the river in New Jersey. I don’t know about other states, but I know it would be legal wherever federal law controlled. If you live in one of the few benighted states where it would be illegal, screw you. What makes you and your backwoods neighbours authorities on anything? You think it obvious that 17 and 57 is wrong? Well, far more people than that think it’s obvious that two men together is wrong; and to this day a hell of a lot of people think black and white is wrong. What makes your opinion better than theirs?
It is very very far from obvious to me that there’s anything at all wrong with the relationship. I get my morality from the Bible, and that authority has no problem at all with it. And as far as I’m concerned, if you think this story is funny then you’re the pervert, not the poor victim.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:34 pmDustin, my grandmother had a mean sense of humor actually…
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:38 pmHow am I specifically attacking Germany? I said they aren’t a moral authority. Their legal concept have absolutely no relevance to whether I find it wrong for a 57 year old to sleep with a 17 year old.
And if it’s far from obvious to you that there’s anything wrong with the relationship, that’s really sad.
And thanks for calling me a pervert, judgmental nut.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:39 pmIf I wanted to point out why Germany is not a moral leader, it wouldn’t be hard, but the mere fact they don’t outlaw something is meaningless anyway, so I don’t need to go that far.
Anyway, New Jersey and New York are not authorities either.
It means nothing.
If some 57 year old man tried this with a teenager in my family, I would have a problem with it. I guess Milhouse thinks it’s OK and I’m a pervert, which is obviously projection and quite disgusting.
As to Milhouse’s tired recitation of ‘how are you different from a racist’, I think it’s extremely lazy for this asshole to ask that after I explained the difference at least 3 times in this thread, while calling me a pervert.
What a creep.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:45 pm“This relationship was perfectly legal and acceptable not just in Germany but almost everywhere in the civilised world.”
Milhouse – I see evidence of legality due to the woman being over Germany’s age of consent. I missed the evidence of acceptability you seem to have found.
Can you point to it please?
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 8:58 pmDustin:
Heh. We’ve all felt that way. It’s part of being human.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:16 pmI like the way that the article has a helpful illustration showing what a bread knife is supposed to be used for.
That was funny.
Dave Surls (18e598) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:21 pmDaleyrocks, if it weren’t considered acceptable by the vast majority of people, there would be more places where it was illegal, or at least we’d see attempts to ban it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/15/2010 @ 9:52 pm“Daleyrocks, if it weren’t considered acceptable by the vast majority of people, there would be more places where it was illegal, or at least we’d see attempts to ban it.”
Milhouse – Regulate the differential in ages between parties in consensual sexual relationships as a method of measuring social acceptability? Surely you jest. Opprobrium usually serves quite well. As I said, I would like to see actual evidence that you claimed of the relationship’s acceptability. Do you have any or not?
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:22 pm“It is very very far from obvious to me that there’s anything at all wrong with the relationship. I get my morality from the Bible, and that authority has no problem at all with it.”
Yeah? What bible are you reading that doesn’t have a problem with fornication…no matter what the ages of the fornicators are?
“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”
That’s out of Corinthians, btw.
Dave Surls (18e598) — 12/15/2010 @ 10:45 pmnk: And have you informed her for what spey blades are used, and passed this story along to her? 🙂
The Dana with two daughters of his own (3e4784) — 12/16/2010 @ 7:02 am