LogFAQs > #975421573

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Ther's no evidence he manipulated her into wanting a relationship with him.

You said yourself that it's a given that the groundwork for the relationship was laid while she was a minor, under his counsel. Do you really believe that in his role of advising her what to do with her future he didn't encourage her to marry him? And that his position of authority over her during those exchanges didn't give his suggestions disproportionate weight?

Of course, none of this is concrete proof, but as I said, there's rarely concrete proof of grooming. That's what's so terrifying about it.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

They're a matter of power, and strength is very blatantly and unequivocally a form of it. Arguably the only true form it ever ultimately takes. And men in relationships almost always have more than their female partner.

And anyone using physical force to take away somebody else's ability to refuse or leave a relationship should be shot dead on the spot, which conveniently is unaffected by any gender differences in strength. Physical force is a form of power, certainly, but it's one that is completely unacceptable to exercise in this context, which makes those who exercise it relatively easy to fix. This is distinct from, say, one partner having no ability to be financially independent from the other, or a doctor having full knowledge of their patient's medical history and the ability to refuse them treatment if desired. The disadvantaged partner has very few (if any) avenues to correct those issues.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

This describes most straight marriages.

Step 1: Commit to never physically forcing anyone to enter or remain in a relationship
Step 2: Imbalance corrected!

If you're unwilling to commit to that, then I stand by my statement that you should avoid relationships entirely because you are unable to have a healthy one. If you commit to that and fail because you suck at anger management, you should leave the relationship until you fix yourself, because until then it won't be a healthy one.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

She's not a minor.

She was when the relationship started. A minor over whom he had authority, no less.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

I guess the bottom line is this: What should be done with the guy? It's not a crime, so he's not going to do any time, of course. What would you do with him if you could?

Hold him to public account for the apparent hypocrisy of decrying child exploitation in other contexts while having married somebody he counselled as a minor as soon as he could do so without getting fired. Maybe there is actually a story there that justifies it, like he did nothing to counsel her past like grade 9 and they fell in love entirely independently of his position when she was 17. Or maybe he's just a creep who used a position of power to manipulate a teenager into marrying him when she graduated. Either way, there's an obvious inconsistency there, and anyone looking to be educated by the information the film presents needs to know what biases were at play in producing it so they can fill in the resultant gaps (notably, I'd expect him to have downplayed the role grooming plays in so much sexual abuse).