B.C. teacher may get jail for sex with student

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
The Bish

Stargazer wrote:

So do you think it is a good thing that 30 year old men can date 15-17 year old girls? Obviously there is a vast difference between the maturity of a 17 year old compared to a 30 year old.

Whether I personally happen to think it is a good thing is irrelevant to whether or not criminal prosecutions are the best course of action.  If, as in Michelle's case, no one views themselves as being hurt or victimized, then there is no reason for law enforcement to get involved.  I don't understand why a 30 year old man would want to date a teenage girl, and I find it kind of creepy, but unless someone is clearly being harmed there is no reason for the government to get involved. Also, I don't think there is a clear difference between the maturity of a 17 year old and a 30 year old. I have met exceptionally mature and intelligent teenagers and exceptionally immature people who are middle-aged. Age is not an accurate indicator of maturity.

Quote:
I'm not agruing for "control" over anyone. I'm explaining a reality. Do you have any suggestions how how we can program men to stop abusing young girls? because that sure is a big problem.

This is a straw man because no one is arguing that men should be allowed to abuse young girls (or, for that matter, women of any age).

Quote:
Perhaps the fact that they are dependants, they are not-fully-developped children who require guidance, financial protection and every other bit of care under the sun?

Sounds to me like exactly the same arguments that have been used for centuries to keep women under the control of men. Oh, but with children those statements are really true, right? I'm not convinced. Those are social roles we put people into, not natural biological categories carved in stone.

Quote:
Youth are also not allowed to drive until age 16. Is that controlling behaviour by adults? Definitely and it is necessary!

Laws preventing younger people from driving may be necessary to prevent them from harming other people, but they should not be used to prevent them from harming themselves. That being said, I don't see why we couldn't allow someone under 16 to drive assuming they could demonstrate the necessary competence.

Infosaturated

Stargazer wrote:
So do you think it is a good thing that 30 year old men can date 15-17 year old girls? Obviously there is a vast difference between the maturity of a 17 year old compared to a 30 year old.

I'm not agruing for "control" over anyone. I'm explaining a reality. Do you have any suggestions how how we can program men to stop abusing young girls? because that sure is a big problem.

Exactly, and it is the adults behavior that the law addresses. 

Also I don't see what it has to do with youths accessing health services.  Seeing as it is legal for them to have sex why wouldn't they access help?  If it is that they don't want to be pressured to name sex partners I imagine that would include all sex partners not just those 6 years older than them. 

I agree there are exceptions in that some people have had positive experiences with significantly older partners when they were teens. But would anyone suggest that this is common?  More common than youths being emotionally harmed and sexually exploited by relationships with partners 6 years or more their senior?

Unionist, I'm flattered that you remember me, and I do remember your tag, but I do not remember your stance on everything.  In addition I tend to focus on what is being said rather than who is saying it.  Because of that I often forget who said what on a message board.

 

Infosaturated

The Bish wrote:
Laws preventing younger people from driving may be necessary to prevent them from harming other people, but they should not be used to prevent them from harming themselves. That being said, I don't see why we couldn't allow someone under 16 to drive assuming they could demonstrate the necessary competence

Because competence to drive includes having a mature sense of judgement which can't be measured.  There are lots of adults with poor judgement too but we have to pick an age at which we think the majority of people will make the appropriate decisions when determining risk. 

We have to have laws preventing young people from harming themselves.  For example, 10 year olds are not allowed to just leave home and go live with whomever they want even though it wouldn't hurt anyone else.

martin dufresne

I doubt we can achieve any consensus given the range of issues touched upon, straw men put up, etc. But I am looking at this thread as a fascinating trove of denial and histrionical hostility nuggets re: acknowledging sexploitation and doing something about it. (I won't be so ungracious as to quote anyone.) 

 

Snert Snert's picture

Nor courageous enough to name them.

Smear.

Caissa

An excellent way to smear all in the thread...

Stargazer

I believe martin is speaking the truth here. He is absluetly correct when he says this:

"But I am looking at this thread as a fascinating trove of denial and histrionical hostility nuggets re: acknowledging sexploitation and doing something about it."

The Bish is doing his best to not acknowledge the sexual exploitation. Almost always men, almost always seem to view 17 and 30 year olds in the same light and almost always an excuse that these older creeps give when using a teen's body.

 

I'm not saying The Bish is doing the latter but he certainly is doing the former.

 

Anyways, I've said enough in this thread. Women never win in these arguments. It's pointless.

Unionist

Stargazer wrote:
Women never win in these arguments. It's pointless.

Well, this thread has drifted around a fair bit, but it is still in the Youth forum. That's why I made reference to the clear stands of activist groups who deal with protection and defence of youth - the Canadian Federation of Sexual Health, the Canadian Aids Society, and the NDP Youth and LGBT caucuses, in their uncompromising opposition to the increased criminalization of non-exploitative sexual activity via the Toews bill. You can look up the positions of many others, such as Justice for Children and Youth and the youth-led Age of Consent Committee, besides many LGBT organizations. Their arguments are worth reading and (if you like) rebutting - but they're certainly not founded in a desire to facilitate sexual exploitation of childen.

 

remind remind's picture

Quote:
Weeping and muttering to himself, perhaps in prayer, a private Catholic teacher was carted off to jail yesterday for having a sexual tryst with a student.

Noting the important role teachers have in the lives of our children, provincial court Judge Barb Veldhuis said a stern sentence was warranted.

Veldhuis ordered Blaine Harrison to serve an 11-month period of incarceration followed by a year on probation.

Harrison's actions were even more aggravated when maintenance staff caught them and reported what they saw to the authorities and he convinced her to cover up for him.

 

 

"He sent e-mails asking the complainant to "please, please save me," a heavy guilt trip to impose on a young student," Veldhuis said.

 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/07/22/10216986-sun.html

Notice how it is called a "sexual tryst" by the male reporter?  What absolutely disgusting wording. It was sexual exploitation not a fucking tryst.

 

 

Stargazer

Unionist I have absolutely no problem with you or the information you've posted up. Sorry I didn't mean to involve you in my last post.

The Bish

Stargazer wrote:

The Bish is doing his best to not acknowledge the sexual exploitation. Almost always men, almost always seem to view 17 and 30 year olds in the same light and almost always an excuse that these older creeps give when using a teen's body.

I'm not saying The Bish is doing the latter but he certainly is doing the former.

If you could accompany your personal attacks on me with some sort of evidence that I could either respond to or apologise for, it would be helpful.  I'm not seeing anywhere in this thread where I've refused to acknowledge sexual exploitation, so if you could point out a particular passage or idea that you think indicates that, I'd appreciate it.

remind remind's picture

The Bish wrote:
Stargazer wrote:
The Bish is doing his best to not acknowledge the sexual exploitation. Almost always men, almost always seem to view 17 and 30 year olds in the same light and almost always an excuse that these older creeps give when using a teen's body.

I'm not saying The Bish is doing the latter but he certainly is doing the former.

If you could accompany your personal attacks on me with some sort of evidence that I could either respond to or apologise for, it would be helpful.  I'm not seeing anywhere in this thread where I've refused to acknowledge sexual exploitation, so if you could point out a particular passage or idea that you think indicates that, I'd appreciate it.

Well how about your first post in this thread for starters?!

As follows:

Quote:
Presumably, then, we should also prosecute 50 year old men who seduce 30 year old women, right? There are plenty of adult women with self-esteem issues who are taken advantage of by manipulative men. Certainly if we're throwing in jail men who take advantage of young women's self-esteem, we should also be throwing in jail men who take advantage of slightly older women's self-esteem as well, right?

The Bish

How does that indicate a refusal to acknowledge sexual exploitation?  I was asking why exploitation of young women and older women should be treated differently.  I meant that as a completely serious question - if men who take advantage of younger girls should be treated as criminals, shouldn't men who take advantage of older women also be treated as criminals?  If not, what is the difference between their behaviour?  I don't see how that could possibly be seen as refusal to acknowledge exploitation.  My point was that I don't see why age - rather than the behaviour itself - should be what establishes criminality.

remind remind's picture

First off, there is a difference in age between a 17 year old and a 30 year old women. You levelled them as being the same in agency and power. heads up they are not.

The Bish

Let's say that there's a 55 year old white man.  He has a solid, secure job working in the banking industry.  He has made quite a bit of money doing this and is very financially secure.  Now let's say he meets a woman, she's 30 years old, black, and a single mother of two children.  She has no education beyond high school, and she has difficulty keeping a job due to her obvious difficulties trying to raise two children by herself.  The man and the woman begin dating.  The man is only interested in the relationship for sex, and the woman is only willing to have sex with him because she needs some secure finances to help raise her kids.  There's a pretty clear difference between the agency and power of the two individuals involved in the relationship, and it sure seems to me like the man is sexually exploiting the woman.  Should their relationship be criminalised?  Further, should all relationships between rich white men and poor black women be criminalised as a way to prevent this sort of situation from occurring?

martin dufresne

Sperm for Food, uh?

Let's just say I would forgive her for biting his nuts off.

 

Infosaturated

The Bish wrote:

Let's say that there's a 55 year old white man.  He has a solid, secure job working in the banking industry.  He has made quite a bit of money doing this and is very financially secure.  Now let's say he meets a woman, she's 30 years old, black, and a single mother of two children.  She has no education beyond high school, and she has difficulty keeping a job due to her obvious difficulties trying to raise two children by herself.  The man and the woman begin dating.  The man is only interested in the relationship for sex, and the woman is only willing to have sex with him because she needs some secure finances to help raise her kids.  There's a pretty clear difference between the agency and power of the two individuals involved in the relationship, and it sure seems to me like the man is sexually exploiting the woman.  Should their relationship be criminalised?  Further, should all relationships between rich white men and poor black women be criminalised as a way to prevent this sort of situation from occurring?

No, because we make a distinction between adults and youth or children. That distinction is made with good reason because we know that areas of the brain that control risk-taking behavior and impulse control are not as developed as they are in adults.  Common sense tells us that a 5 year old cannot give informed consent even if they know the words "yes" and "cookie".  Common sense also tells us that 50 year olds, unless suffering from some form of brain disorder, are fully capable of making informed choices.  Those are extremes to be sure but somewhere between the two we need to draw lines regarding various forms of activity based on the protection of society but also protection of the young who are not able to protect themselves or see the longterm reprocussions of their behavior.

Unionist

Go ahead and preach to your kids that their brains aren't developed enough to understand the consequences of having sex. Also, make sure to tell them to dress modestly.

Let me know how you make out.

 

remind remind's picture

Stargazer wrote:
The Bish is doing his best to not acknowledge the sexual exploitation.

Anyways, I've said enough in this thread. Women never win in these arguments. It's pointless.

yep, on both points

martin dufresne

Let me know how you make out.

None of your business.

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

Let me know how you make out.

None of your business.

Laughing

The Bish

remind wrote:

Stargazer wrote:
The Bish is doing his best to not acknowledge the sexual exploitation.

Anyways, I've said enough in this thread. Women never win in these arguments. It's pointless.

yep, on both points

I have repeatedly acknowledged that a relationship between a 30 year old male and a 17 year old female could be exploitative.  I have also pointed out that I think other relationships are sometimes equally exploitative and have asked why the standard is being applied selectively.  But, again, instead of engaging in rational explanation of why a poster disagrees with the particular points I'm making, I'm being attacked for things I haven't said and don't believe.  I assumed the purpose of a discussion board was discussion; apparently not everyone feels the same.

remind remind's picture

Sealed

Stargazer

The Bish, are you a female? No? Then you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

I'd like to relay the following story and then I'd like someone to tell me how this can possibly be justified.

My friend has a 16 year old daughter. Her boyfriend is 24. She came home yesterday after a night with her older boyfriend with the word WHORE carved into her back.  This is a young and beautiful young girl with horrible self-esteem issues. She thinks that he must love her. He is clearly a twisted woman hating piece of shit. She will not and cannot go to the police to report him. That would harm her far more than it would harm him.

My point is, for people like The Bish, who seems to see no harm in the age difference, this shit is REAL. These older guys prey on young and vulnerable females and they WILL degrade them, use them, abuse them and toss them aside. This young girl has no sense of who she is yet. She is 16!! Not 20, not 30. 16 years old!!

How the fuck is this girl supposed to KNOW that this is wrong, and incredibly misogynistic? She can't because she is 16!! Far too young to understand how to stay away from and deal with this type of a twisted screw. I want to smash his head in I am so angry at what he did to her, and I don't even want to think about what he told her as he carved the word whore into her back.

I don't care what the hell some guy says about relationships between an older man and a much younger girl, because you are not a girl, you have absolutely NO idea what many of these girls think like, or feel like, or are able to understand. Now her already bad self-esteem is going to be worse when she is old enough to realize what that twisted fuck did to her and what it means.

 

 

 

Skinny Dipper

In terms of the law, a person in a position of trust cannot have a sexual relationship with someone under 18.

In terms of the teaching profession, a teacher cannot have a sexual relationship with any student even if the student is 18 or over.  Heck, teachers cannot even take high school students to East Side Marios while the students drink pop and the teacher drinks a beer.  A teacher could lose his or her licence.  Remember that a teacher does not stop being a teacher at the end of the school day.  A teacher is a teacher 24 hours per day.

Even if a student has a crush on a teacher, that teacher must always remain professional and stop any potential advances by the student.  If a student did develop a crush and a teacher knew about it, the teacher should immediately consult a union rep and/or principal of the school.

Teachers must not be blaming students for the misfortunes of another teacher who may be convicted in a court and/or lose a teaching licence.  Teachers should not be discussing professional matters about other current or former teachers with students.

Finally, it doesn't matter what the gender is of the teacher or student.  Sexual activities by a teacher with any student is always wrong.

Stargazer

Unionist wrote:

Go ahead and preach to your kids that their brains aren't developed enough to understand the consequences of having sex. Also, make sure to tell them to dress modestly.

Let me know how you make out.

 

 

You're damn right I did it with my son and if I had a daughter I would be even more vigilant. You don't have to "preach" to get your point across. I see absolutely no reason why parents should not talk to their children about sex, and explain to them that what they think is love is often about control and low self-esteem. They may not get it at first, but they will eventually. The girl I spoke of in my post above is now going to dump that abusive POS. Why? Because I shared with her my experience of being with a very abusive older man. What he did to me and why I let it happen. I told her it is about lack of self-esteem. They aren't stupid. They just aren't wise enough or experienced enough to understand. This has sweet fuck all with trying to keep them virgins, that is clearly unrealistic. It has to do with teaching them about what can and does happen when you enter into a sexual relationship with a much older person.

Again, it is about keeping them safe from twisted screws, not about ensuring they dress modestly or never have sex. This is not just all black and white and I really wish some of you men would get this through your heads. This older man and teen girl thing RARELY works, and rarely is it equal or a "good" experience. Often it is about control and abuse. If that pisses most of you guys off I really don't care. The reality is that there are predators out there. Many many of them. My blood is still boiling over what that bastard did to my friend's daughter. If I could I would personally beat the living shit out of him.

Infosaturated

You already know I'm with you Stargazer.  My heart goes out to that young girl.  This comment bears repeating:

Again, it is about keeping them safe from twisted screws, not about ensuring they dress modestly or never have sex.

There are adults who specifically target teens for the very reason that they are easier to manipulate and control. It's harder to do that with another adult. Currently the law allows a 20 year old to have sex with a 15 year old so it's not like the 15 year old is going to have a difficult time finding sex partners or losing her virginity. 

Teens can also be abusive towards one another but the power imbalance is not so great and teen predators don't have the freedom of movement nor the resources that adult predators have. 

I do think it's important to maintain a balance between protection and encroaching on people's lives, even youths.  It's a value judgement. I think on balance the number of teens adversely affected by sexual relations with people more than 5 years older than them is more often harmful than not.

Unionist

What's your explanation why this law came from Harper and Toews, and was opposed by youth, sexual health, and LGBT organizations?

 

Infosaturated

Unionist wrote:
What's your explanation why this law came from Harper and Toews, and was opposed by youth, sexual health, and LGBT organizations?

Although who proposes something or is against it may cause me to examine it more closely I don't make up my mind based on that factor.  I examine the arguments and maybe try to do some research depending on the topic then decide on the merits of the proposal not who made it. 

 

Unionist

Wow, that's laudable.

 

martin dufresne

Yes, especially when ad hominem arguments are so much more expedient.

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

Yes, especially when ad hominem arguments are so much more expedient.

In this case, I'm comfortable with being on the side of the youth, sexual health, LGBT, and other activist organizations, with Vic Toews and the religious right on the other side. If that's ad hominem, well maybe we've been unjustly denigrating that term for too long.

Oh, and you're so right, Martin, no arguments have been made against the "age of consent" anti-youth crap for the past 3 years - it just came to your attention this very instant, and it's purely ad hominem. Well done, most convincing.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Thanks for sharing and educating Stargazer.  Your point is taken Unionist, no need for the sledgehammer.

Unionist

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Thanks for sharing and educating Stargazer.  Your point is taken Unionist, no need for the sledgehammer.

Welcome to the thread! Good to see you back around babble. But I'm not sure who has taken my point other than you.

Infosaturated

I didn't address these points which was wrong of me. Unionist didn't just list the names of the organizations, he also provided the reasons for the AIDs society.  I am not sure about the others but I will explore their actual arguments.

Unionist wrote:

The [url=http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/position.nsf/pages/cas-pp-0298]Can... Aids Society[/url], July 2006:

-
The Canadian AIDS Society is concerned that increasing the age of consent could result in young people being more secretive about their sexual practices and not seeking out the information they need. This will place youth at an increased risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

It is legal for them to have sex so why wouldn't they seek out the information? The only time they would be asked to name a partner would be if they tested positive for AIDs.  Even then they could just say it was casual and they didn't remember.

Unionist wrote:

Furthermore, the proposed ammendments to the age of consent do not address an existing law prohibiting anal intercourse for individuals under the age of 18. Age of consent should be universal and not discriminate by type of sexual activity.

I am against the separate treatment of anal intercourse.  I would also like a clarification. Is anal intercourse also forbidden between teens?

Unionist wrote:
The Criminal Code of Canada already protects people under the age of 18 from sexual relationships that happen under circumstances of exploitation, pornography, prostitution or in relationships of trust, authority or dependency.

That's great, but it doesn't cover a lot of the situations described here in which older people deliberately target vulnerable teens. That is, they are unlikely to go after teens that are strong and secure.  They pick teens that are gullible and/or needy in some way or they choose someone less mature and use flattery and treat them like grown-ups.

Unionist wrote:
The Canadian AIDS Society believes that the Canadian government should be focussing their efforts on promoting consistent, comprehensive HIV/AIDS and sexual health education across Canada. The best way to protect and support youth is to ensure that education and services are available to inform them about their rights and options, and the risks and benefits of engaging in sexual activity. Educating youth to make informed choices that are right for them is better addressed through parental guidance and comprehensive sexual health education than by using the Criminal Code.

Absolutely.  I am all for comprehensive sex education.  But it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. They can do both.

Infosaturated

Unionist wrote:

From the [url=http://cfsh.ca/About_CFSH/Position-Statements/age-of-consent.aspx][... Federation of Sexual Health.[/color][/url]

I won't go through the CFSH reasoning point by point because all the organizations mentioned seem to make the same points.

Unionist

Here is a 2006 article by Katherine Covell, a professor of psychology at Cape Breton University and executive director of the Children's Rights Centre. The whole article is well worth reading. She doesn't oppose Bill C-2 or Bill C-22, but points out that they won't change reality much:

Quote:
Ultimately, education may be more effective in protecting children from sexual predation than raising the age of consent to 16 years. In an historic meeting held in Canada in 1998, sexually exploited young people emphasized the importance of education to reduce vulnerability. It is not the law that would have protected us, these young people stated, but knowledge could have helped us to protect ourselves. [...]

Without changes in the way law is used, and without acknowledgement that children are independent bearers of rights rather than chattel, we can expect little change in the sexual exploitation of our children. The law may deter some sexual predators and may incarcerate others. But to fully protect children from sexual exploitation we may need to re-focus the discussion from the age of consent to how to respect our children’s rights to sexual health and healthy development. We need to consider why so many children are so vulnerable to sexual predators on the internet and on the streets. We must ask why our children have inadequate information to ensure their sexual health and safety. Only when we address such basic issues will we have a real chance of reducing the number of sexually exploited children.

[url=Source.[/url]">http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/News/The-Rights-of-Children-Part-Three-Chi...

Infosaturated

Thank-you Unionist.  That is an excellent and non-biased reference that does help me to understand your perspective a bit better.  I don't think we will ever come to agreement on the specific laws but I do agree that children are not chattels and that parent's rights should never supercede the rights of the child. Although it is difficult to draw a specific line, and the UN broadly defines child as under 18, I think we also agree that there is a huge difference between children and youths. 

Stargazer

Unionist, I completely agree with what you have posted. My attempt in this forum was to put a human face on the exploitation of these young girls from older men. If any one even bothered, I hope they took the time to read the post where a young girl gets the word "whore" carved into her back by her twisted screw of a "boyfriend".

I am not here attempting to criminalize sex. I am trying to show people that the reality is that many many young girls are being abused, exploited and worse....I think education is a great start, but would like to see men accept some of that responsibility, and start talking to other men about this. It cannot and is not acceptable for women to have to own the horrible behaviour of these predators.

 

Infosaturated

We'd better be careful.  Unionist is going to start thinking he is in the twilight-zone or totally off his rocker if we keep this up. Laughing

writer writer's picture

Wow, I can't tell you how great it is to see this. Yupe!

Stargazer

I know writer. It's hard, on me and you as I know we have shared common experiences.

Unionist, why attack? Why not at least show that you have read these abuse stories? How about showing some compassion? How about showing that there are men out there who find the behaviour of men like I decribed above as abhorrent? I would like to see the male outrage, yet see nothing at all from males short of picking on us in a mocking way, which is not being an ally, it is being dismissive through silence. I have always respected you, but I would like to hear anyone, any male, speak out about this abuse. It is extremely hard to post this on a forum, and it took a lot of guts, and personally I expected some compassion for the young girl I mentioned above. Intsead there is silence from every single male who has posted thus far.

Lots of jokes over nothing I see as funny whatsoever.

Infosaturated

Unionist wrote:

Stargazer wrote:

And Unionist, what makes you think me or any of the other young girls who fell prey to these twisted screws should have done? Report them to the police? We didn't even fully realize how wrong this was at the time, and how badly it would effect us. On top of that, the cops don't care about rape so much, and especially cases where an older pervert has completely screwed up a young girl.

Stargazer, I feel both shock and sympathy at what you had to undergo, and a pretty big sense that I never had to suffer anything remotely like that and will never be able to fully understand that. I'm glad you survived.

But the comments I made have nothing to do with your case or anyone else's. I agree with what Planned Parenthood and the Canadian Aids Society and the NDP Youth and LGBT caucuses and many many others had to say. They said criminalization will inhibit reporting, not encourage it. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Most men didn't, but to give credit where it is due Unionist did acknowledge the harm and that he had never experienced anything like that.

But, I too would like to see more widespread acknowledgement by men.

Infosaturated

Stargazer wrote:

I know writer. It's hard, on me and you as I know we have shared common experiences.

Unionist, why attack? Why not at least show that you have read these abuse stories? How about showing some compassion? How about showing that there are men out there who find the behaviour of men like I decribed above as abhorrent? I would like to see the male outrage, yet see nothing at all from males short of picking on us in a mocking way, which is not being an ally, it is being dismissive through silence. I have always respected you, but I would like to hear anyone, any male, speak out about this abuse. It is extremely hard to post this on a forum, and it took a lot of guts, and personally I expected some compassion for the young girl I mentioned above. Intsead there is silence from every single male who has posted thus far.

Lots of jokes over nothing I see as funny whatsoever.

Although unionist wasn't entirely silent, you are right.  Although occasional words of sympathy are offered the outrage always seems to be expressed by women.

writer writer's picture

Yes, Stargazer, our pain is real. Those who haven't lived it, breathed it ... I don't know what to say.

However, I think Infosaturated started with some humour, and Unionist made an attempt to play, too. I don't think it was meant as an attack. I think there is a powerful chance for sympathy and understanding, here. It would be a shame if this moment were lost.

It's time to go deep.

Stargazer

You're right. Unionist did display good intentions. I just find the silence from people on what happened to the young girl very odd and it's not a comfortable feeling. Until men get as outraged as we do, and until they really start to "get it" I guess things will never change. And that makes me very very sad for humankind.

 

We cross posted! Yes I know unionist was well intentioned, and he is one whom I respect deeply. I didn't mean to offend him and I realize that a lot of my anger is from being triggered and just this massive feeling of being powerless. I really want to help this girl, and don't really know how to get through to her.

remind remind's picture

I have been silent, because of my inability to cope with the rage, dispair, triggering and anything I have gone to write was a incoherent rant.

Stargazer, I applaud you for your ability to rise up and help this young woman, when it must have been a tremendous trigger. I am not sure if I could have at this point in my life.

Unionist

[edited out dumb attempt at joke - I guess what I really wanted to express was gratification that we're really all on the same side of these issues]

 

Unionist

Thanks so much Stargazer, InfoS, writer, and remind for your posts. I'm a bit overcome by all this and don't know what to say, for a change. I'm still learning.

 

Infosaturated

Unionist wrote:

Thanks so much Stargazer, InfoS, writer, and remind for your posts. I'm a bit overcome by all this and don't know what to say, for a change. I'm still learning.

I'm so happy this all happened.  It's exactly what a progressive board should be able to do. Chew a subject to death until we can understand one another's perspective. Smile I copied the information from that last link and put it in my newly created feminist folder under "age of consent" just in case we get back into this someday.

In the movie Forest Gump the woman goes back to the cabin/house where she was raised and burns it down.  I exclaimed "Yes, I wish I could do that!" I was cheering her on. I said it with such vehemence that my male companion was rather shocked. I said it was cathartic to burn down a house of misery. He knew a bit about my past but was surprised at how strong my feelings still were. 

These feelings never go away, at least not for me.

Pages