LogFAQs > #975442376

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

No it's common for them to say that because it's commonly the case. People don't say that about guys who they just had a crush on and jumped right into a relationship with, that wouldn't really make sense.

Indeed not. They say it about somebody who they initially didn't see as a romantic partner, but fell in love with as their non-romantic relationship developed. Except in this case the non-romantic relationship was that of a counsellor and a student, he was an adult, and she was a minor. That's all kinds of red flags for grooming.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Sufficient for the law, which is what actually counts.

Legalistic morality is one of the most intellectually lazy positions one can possibly take.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

There's never enough experience to satisfy someone like you because of course you can't possibly have the life experience that comes with marriage without being married, but then how do you get that experience?

By graduating high school and living apart from your parents for at least a couple of years so you understand what it's like to not be dependent on somebody and the sort of life you want to live. You don't need to be married to know what you want out of a marriage, but you do need to live to know what you want out of life, and jumping straight from being dependent on her parents to being dependent on the teacher she wanted to bang means she has not had that opportunity. Maybe she subsequently got that experience, and continued her schooling such that she isn't actually dependent on him. Maybe he just convinced her that being a housewife for an older man who's wealthy enough to support her was what she wanted and she never delved deeper than that. We can't ever know, thanks to how insidious grooming can be.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

More infantalizing nonsense.

Of a high school student, yes.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

She said she considered between the two and a friend told her to think who would be the best father for her children. She decided he was. Sounds like pretty sober consideration based on her options.

You actually think that constitutes understanding the big picture? That's a pretty superficial analysis, mostly boiling down to gut feeling and very vulnerable to being influenced by whatever her counsellor suggested about her future.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Dude you're calling him a groomer

I'm suspecting him of grooming. There isn't enough evidence to conclude for certain either way, as is often the case, but the facts as presented are all sorts of yikes.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...
and saying he "at the very least - violated his professional ethical responsibilities"

That sort of thing is grounds for termination.

Indeed it is. A counsellor that's willing to start a romantic relationship with one of the students he's counselling should not be a counsellor. That isn't a particularly controversial take. That sort of thing is baked into most professional codes of conduct.

Of course, my understanding is that he isn't a counsellor anymore, given that he's now producing films, so that's hardly "ruining his career."

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...
And no one seems to be asking him to elaborate on anything, they're just spreading gossip, literally what having "tea" on someone means

And if he's got a problem with that gossip, he can set the record straight by explaining the situation and why it isn't as bad as it looks. You don't need to go to bat for him because of your bizarre fixation on defending an apparent groomer against people that think he might have groomed his wife. I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate, if you've got a personal stake in the matter because you've also had relationships with high school students, or what, but whatever it is, you don't need to defend him.