Poll of the Day > This Sound of Freedom crap is hilarious.

(+) Yeah! (+)

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

She would have very likely been 18 after graduating so I'm not sure what the problem is. That he knew her as a child? Worst thing that can be said about it is that it's weird. Adults can do whatever they want, however.

I agree with you that the right's silence on child marriage laws (which are basically always a republican endeavor) is conspicuous, I don't believe I've ever heard one mention of it from the right. Too distracted with drag story time I suppose.

Well, we're halfway there!

This one's a little closer, since it's a step-family member, but what do you think about Woody Allen raising his step-daughter from age 10 to 22 and then later dating her at 27? Sure, it's concensual after 18. But I'd still qualify it as rather suspicious, not something to be completely ignored as you seem to think. I feel as though your dismissal is a little more feelings-based than you'd prefer to let on.

Or, would it not be a little...eyebrow-raising if someone you knew married their highschool guidance counselor?

ReturnOfFa posted...

This one's a little closer, since it's a step-family member, but what do you think about Woody Allen raising his step-daughter from age 10 to 22 and then later dating her at 27?

Dating someone you raised as a child is weird af but it's not really my business. Two adults.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Or, would it not be a little...eyebrow-raising if someone you knew married their highschool guidance counselor?

It's kind of weird but it's not criminal (or whatever is the project to paint it as).
Honestly you seem to agree deep down since you're describing it with such trivial language as "a little eyebrow-raising"

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Familiar enough to know that you can't assume that's what happened just because he and her had interactions before she was 18.

There's a pretty substantial difference between "had interactions" and "he was in a position of authority," and if they got married shortly after she graduated, there's a very high chance the relationship had some groundwork laid well before that point. That means there's ample reason to infer a power imbalance there.

Is it concrete proof of abuse? No. But then grooming rarely leaves concrete proof unless you're actually watching it happen. Is it heckin' creepy? Absolutely.

I enjoy having conversations and letting statements sit where they may.

adjl posted...

and if they got married shortly after she graduated, there's a very high chance the relationship had some groundwork laid well before that point.

If he was her counselor, that's not a chance, it's a given.

adjl posted...

Is it heckin' creepy? Absolutely.

And you're entitled to that opinion. There's nothing criminal or even immoral behind two people being happily married just because they met before one was 18.

It's absolutely immoral for a counsellor to start a relationship with somebody they're counselling, even if they're an adult. That's a professional relationship that inescapably creates a power imbalance between the counsellor and the client, and as such that professional relationship should be terminated well before starting anything romantic. When the client is a minor, even more so, and if he was laying the groundwork for a relationship while counselling her as a minor, that's 100% grooming.

adjl posted...

It's absolutely immoral for a counsellor to start a relationship with somebody they're counselling, even if they're an adult.

Presumably, he wasn't counseling her anymore after graduation so it's good.
Power imbalances always exist in relationships, that's never been a real argument against one tbh. Husbands are gonna be stronger and more capable of physical coercion than their wives 95 times out of 100.

You're just wrong about the grooming thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming

with the objective of sexual abuse

Two consenting adults; no abuse here.
Just another dishonest attempt to smear your political adversary.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Presumably, he wasn't counseling her anymore after graduation so it's good.
Power imbalances always exist in relationships, that's never been a real argument against one tbh. Husbands are gonna be stronger and more capable of physical coercion than their wives 95 times out of 100.

You're just wrong about the grooming thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming

with the objective of sexual abuse

Two consenting adults; no abuse here.
Just another dishonest attempt to smear your political adversary.

A lot of the users here are going to think youre fucking stupid. I just want you to know that I dont feel that way and you should continue to support your position.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Shhhhhh. Why are you ruining this

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I don't think married couples have sex now? Weird strawman but ok

Thats the spirit!

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Except it wasn't and I didn't say married couples don't have sex, obviously.
My point was that you're assuming she was somehow coached into becoming his wife which is nonsense and baseless. Talk about not being able to absorb something being said, lol.
It's weird the way some people want to infantalize women like they're just never really able to make independent choices. Someone else must have tricked them

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

And how do you feel about the fact that The Sound of Freedom has made over $155 million?

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Presumably, he wasn't counseling her anymore after graduation so it's good.

You... really don't understand what grooming is, do you?

At its core, grooming is a matter of taking advantage of a minor or somebody else who cannot consent to sex by manipulating them into wanting a sexual relationship later in life, often after they reach the age of consent and it's no longer blatantly illegal. That she was over 18 when they got married changes absolutely nothing about the fact that before she was 18, he was in a position where she trusted him to advise her what to do with her future. It's impossible for him to have performed that role impartially if his goal was to marry her when it stopped being illegal, so the fact that he married her as soon as it stopped being illegal means he - at the very least - violated his professional ethical responsibilities. Given his position, it's very likely that he also manipulated her in a way that led her to want to marry him instead of doing something else with her future, which - when an adult does it to a minor - is grooming.

As I said, if anyone in a position of power like that wants to have a romantic/sexual relationship with somebody over whom they have power, they need to recuse themselves from that position before doing anything to cultivate that relationship and ensure all involved parties have enough distance from the professional relationship to avoid interference. Otherwise, consent can't be properly obtained.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Power imbalances always exist in relationships, that's never been a real argument against one tbh. Husbands are gonna be stronger and more capable of physical coercion than their wives 95 times out of 100.

I guess you don't understand consent either. Not surprising, but good to know.

Power imbalances aren't a matter of who can win an arm wrestle. They're a matter of one party having less agency in consenting to the relationship than the other. Perfect balance is rarely attainable, but generally any major imbalances should be corrected for the sake of a healthy relationship, relationships where a major imbalance is impossible to correct should be avoided entirely because it's not possible to obtain genuine consent, and anyone who actively seeks to have a significant amount of power over their partner is a scumbag.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Just another dishonest attempt to smear your political adversary.

I don't really know or care where he lies on the political spectrum. Dude's a predatory creep. Perhaps he realized the error of his ways and that's why he's produced this film (in which case, good on him), or perhaps he lacks such self-awareness and is just jumping on a bandwagon that the right is currently giving particular attention because they feel like they can pin it on the gays, but regardless, marrying a student you counselled as soon as she graduates is entirely within the realm of grooming behaviour.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

It's weird the way some people want to infantalize women like they're just never really able to make independent choices.

Nobody's infantilizing women. They're infantilizing minors, which is fair game because they're axiomatically kids.

adjl posted...

At its core, grooming is a matter of taking advantage of a minor

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

adjl posted...

Power imbalances aren't a matter of who can win an arm wrestle.

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.

adjl posted...

relationships where a major imbalance is impossible to correct should be avoided entirely because it's not possible to obtain genuine consent

This describes most straight marriages.

adjl posted...

Nobody's infantilizing women. They're infantilizing minors,

She's not a minor.

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?

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).

adjl posted...

You said yourself that it's a given that the groundwork for the relationship was laid while she was a minor, under his counsel.

Yes, such as them knowing each other well.

adjl posted...

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?

Trying to pass this bit of conjecture as a foregone conclusion is ridiculous. It's comical to imagine him advising a teenager under his counsel to literally marry him. Not to mention the risk to his job and reputation by doing that. Super bizarre assumption.

adjl posted...

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.

Everything is terrifying if you let your imagination run wild. There's no need to get worked up just because internet people told you it's what happened here.

adjl posted...

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.

This kind of undermines your position that it's all about power disparity since she could divorce him (as far as we know there's nothing preventing her from safely doing this) but seemingly hasn't. The facebook post of hers shown earlier ITT was from like 2014 so presumably they're still married...she's taking a long time to realize what gamefaqs.gamespot.com armchair SVU agents figured out in mere moments, is she not?

adjl posted...

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

Not really that simple, there's always a possibility of force if she does something he doesn't like. She can never know, right?
Of course that's silly to start from, but you have to believe that in order to believe power is what constitutes consent. Relationships really aren't ever ethical with this framing which is why it's bad, unuseful, and pointless.

adjl posted...

She was when the relationship started.

No indication it was a romantic relationship, however.

adjl posted...

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).

Oh, so even if he didn't do what you consider grooming he's still a grooming apologist (or something like one) and should be painted as such? That doesn't sound like a politically-motivated vendetta in any way, no siree

I dont care what these other users say, LEL. Youre in to something! Keep fighting the good fight!

adjl posted...

You... really don't understand what grooming is, do you?

At its core, grooming is a matter of taking advantage of a minor or somebody else who cannot consent to sex by manipulating them into wanting a sexual relationship later in life

I thought you were the one who claimed that adults could be groomed.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

If he was her counselor, that's not a chance, it's a given.

And you're entitled to that opinion. There's nothing criminal or even immoral behind two people being happily married just because they met before one was 18.

rofl getting close with your counselor is not a given XD holy fuck

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Yes, such as them knowing each other well.

And then they just went from being acquaintances with a professional relationship to being married as soon as it became legal to do so? That's really not how relationships work outside of romantic comedies.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Trying to pass this bit of conjecture as a foregone conclusion is ridiculous. It's comical to imagine him advising a teenager under his counsel to literally marry him. Not to mention the risk to his job and reputation by doing that. Super bizarre assumption.

There's virtually zero chance that he didn't let his desire to marry her influence the advice he gave her. Exactly what that advice was is hard to know, where it would have been given in a confidential setting (which is precisely why this outcome is so flagrantly unethical: it undermines the trust that has to be there because of the lack of external oversight), but at the absolute minimum his professional integrity needs to be called into question.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

This kind of undermines your position that it's all about power disparity since she could divorce him (as far as we know there's nothing preventing her from safely doing this) but seemingly hasn't.

• There's a non-zero chance that his manipulations included convincing her that he's the best she'll ever be able to get, keeping her from believing that there's any point in wanting more
• Stockholm syndrome is a thing
• More plausibly, if he told her (especially as a minor, or even as a recent graduate because it's not like turning 18 magically gives kids enough life experience to be able to make decisions like this) all she needed to do was be a housewife because he'd provide for her, there's a good chance high school is where her education stopped and she has no marketable skills that would allow her to live independently

Among others. There are plenty of possibilities that can undermine how consensual the relationship actually is. You just have to think beyond this attitude of viewing every relationship in terms of dragging women back to your cave. Not everything can be solved by unga bunga.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Not really that simple,

It's entirely that simple. We're talking in terms of what people in positions of power need to do to ensure they aren't abusing that power to undermine consent. If you, as somebody with the power to physically restrain a partner who tries to leave you, commit to never exercising that power, you have ensured that you aren't abusing that power imbalance to force anyone into a relationship. It's not about other people's ability to predict whether or not their partners will become abusive, it's about the standards to which every single person must be held to ensure their current/prospective partners remain properly able to consent to the relationship.

Consent is saying "yes" when you feel like saying "no" is an option. Respecting consent means ensuring that whoever you're asking feels like they can say "no." If you have power that might make them feel like they can't, the onus is on you to either correct that imbalance so they feel that they can, or don't ask at all because you can't be sure that they consent.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

No indication it was a romantic relationship, however.

They got married.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Oh, so even if he didn't do what you consider grooming he's still a grooming apologist (or something like one) and should be painted as such? That doesn't sound like a politically-motivated vendetta in any way, no siree

More that there's a clear conflict of interest when somebody who seems at first glance to be okay with grooming produces a documentary about child sexual abuse. He's got an apparent incentive to draw attention away from the problem of grooming. That means he needs to either explain how it's not a conflict of interest (if it is legitimate and not grooming, which isn't impossible) or disclose the conflict of interest so people can interpret his production choices accordingly.

Not sure how you're getting political motivation from that. I'd say the same thing about anyone in the same situation, regardless of political leanings (and, in fact, I've done nothing to figure out which way this dude leans, though from the context it's pretty easy to make some plausible assumptions).

adjl posted...

And then they just went from being acquaintances with a professional relationship to being married as soon as it became legal to do so?

Nope. This is one part there's no need to speculate about, this woman said in the facebook post that he was her best friend prior to their romantic relationship.

adjl posted...

There's virtually zero chance that he didn't let his desire to marry her influence the advice he gave her.

Your Honor -- speculation.

adjl posted...

There are plenty of possibilities that can undermine how consensual the relationship actually is.

Again, this goes for every relationship. Actually, anyone married with children is subject to this. Again, that's all speculation.

adjl posted...

Consent is saying "yes" when you feel like saying "no" is an option.

This once again undermines your whole thesis. The woman literally said in her FB post that she had to choose between her hs boyfriend and this counselor. No was unequivocally an option.

adjl posted...

More that there's a clear conflict of interest when somebody who seems at first glance to be okay with grooming produces a documentary about child sexual abuse.

"seems at first glance" isn't really a solid foundation for trying to smear a man, ruin his career, and destroy his projects. Luckily civilized society agrees which is why this witch hunt has gone and will continue to go nowhere.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Nope. This is one part there's no need to speculate about, this woman said in the facebook post that he was her best friend prior to their romantic relationship.

That's a largely empty statement, given how common it is for people to say that about their partners in any situation where they knew each other before dating, regardless of the circumstances in which they met.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Your Honor -- speculation.

It's significantly more likely that his feelings affected his professional conduct than that he was able to completely compartmentalize them and act impartially. That's just the nature of being human. The extent is uncertain, and he may not even have been conscious of it, but it's ferociously unlikely that they had no effect at all.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Again, this goes for every relationship.

It does, and maintaining a healthy relationship inextricably entails making sure all involved parties are there by choice. This does mean that a whole lot of people don't have very healthy relationships, but I'm perfectly happy with that assessment. People don't have the best understanding of consent.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Actually, anyone married with children is subject to this.

Kids do throw a wrench into the idea of leaving, but again, that's not insurmountable. Every couple should plan for what happens if they break up before having kids. Laying out that plan ensures they're both on the same page and that each are okay with what the other will do in that scenario, meaning neither partner can use their plan to manipulate the other. If one of them later goes back on the plan for the sake of leveraging the kids to keep the other in the relationship, then that person is abusing the power imbalance and is a scumbag. If they can't reach a compromise that they're both comfortable with, they shouldn't have kids.

I've spelled all of this out. In every relationship, there are three options: Fix the imbalance to prevent it from causing problems, end the relationship before the imbalance causes problems, or you're an abusive scumbag for exploiting the imbalance despite the problems it's causing for your partner. Those are the only possibilities. If every relationship you know has significant imbalances that haven't been corrected (or that nobody's working on correcting, because there is a spectrum between options 1 and 2), congratulations, everyone you know is an abusive scumbag that doesn't value their partner's ability to consent to the relationship.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

This once again undermines your whole thesis. The woman literally said in her FB post that she had to choose between her hs boyfriend and this counselor. No was unequivocally an option.

And did she make that decision as a competent adult with sufficient life experience to make an informed decision between those two options, or as a high school student whose view of the world was influenced by a counsellor that wanted to marry her?

The crux of statutory rape laws is that minors - especially minors interacting with somebody in a position of authority - don't sufficiently understand when "no" is the answer they actually want to give to be able to say "yes." "No" was an option on paper, certainly, but the circumstances as presented cast significant doubt on her competence to recognize that and fully consider the significance of the decision.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

"seems at first glance" isn't really a solid foundation for trying to smear a man, ruin his career, and destroy his projects.

"Smear a man, ruin his career, and destroy his projects" is a rather melodramatic way to interpret "hey there's an apparent conflict of interest here, can you elaborate on it?". That's not a witch hunt, that's just basic accountability for the choices he's made. Unless, of course, you can actually point out where I suggested that he should be ruined, but that seems unlikely given that I never said anything of the sort. Is there a reason you're being so defensive as to make up strawmen to burn?

homie don't know what conflict of interest is; in his eyes it's love (and I throw up)

adjl posted...

That's a largely empty statement, given how common it is for people to say that about their partners in any situation where they knew each other before dating, regardless of the circumstances in which they met.

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. I'm gonna take her word over yours, at any rate.

adjl posted...

And did she make that decision as a competent adult with sufficient life experience to make an informed decision between those two options, or as a high school student whose view of the world was influenced by a counsellor that wanted to marry her?

Sufficient for the law, which is what actually counts. 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?

adjl posted...

"No" was an option on paper, certainly, but the circumstances as presented cast significant doubt on her competence to recognize that and fully consider the significance of the decision.

More infantalizing nonsense. 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. So I suppose the question is: Why are you more an authority on this than her? Why are gamefaqs.gamespot.com users in a position to litigate this marriage?

adjl posted...

"Smear a man, ruin his career, and destroy his projects" is a rather melodramatic way to interpret "hey there's an apparent conflict of interest here, can you elaborate on it?"

Dude you're calling him a groomer and saying he "at the very least - violated his professional ethical responsibilities"

That sort of thing is grounds for termination. And no one seems to be asking him to elaborate on anything, they're just spreading gossip, literally what having "tea" on someone means

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/3/4/AAXuu6AAEwAy.jpg

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.

For some reason Hollywood did not want this movie to be marketed or released in theaters and I have no idea why and I have not seen it.

BUMPED2002 posted...

For some reason Hollywood did not want this movie to be marketed or released in theaters and I have no idea why and I have not seen it.

Typically Hollywood doesn't promote movies not made by a Hollywood studio. It isn't a conspiracy. It's a relatively independent film.

But don't you understand? They want to cover up the truth!

adjl posted...

Indeed not.

Lol, so now you're trying to litigate friendships too, now. I'm sure this lady will be devastated to learn she was never actually friends with this guy.

adjl posted...

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

I'm just reminding you there's nothing you and yours can do about this.

adjl posted...

By graduating high school and living apart from your parents for at least a couple of years

Well that doesn't sound well-defined or precise at all, does it. But so basically, you think the legal age to marry should be like 20-22 at least, then?

adjl posted...

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

Unlike your bizarre fixation on litigating a now 10-years-old relationship? I have had relationships with HS students btw, when I was in HS. Was pretty fun.

adjl posted...

but whatever it is, you don't need to defend him.

And you don't need to attack him.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Lol, so now you're trying to litigate friendships too, now. I'm sure this lady will be devastated to learn she was never actually friends with this guy.

Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, but the red flags for grooming definitely call any subjective account into question.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

I'm just reminding you there's nothing you and yours can do about this.

And yet you're fighting tooth and nail against the idea that he should be held accountable for the apparent conflict of interests, and trying to present the law as somehow justifying you not having a problem with an adult counsellor dating one of his underage students.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Well that doesn't sound well-defined or precise at all, does it. But so basically, you think the legal age to marry should be like 20-22 at least, then?

I think it's a bad idea to marry before you've had enough life experience to know for certain what you want out of life, but that's distinct from wanting it to be illegal. There is, however, a world of difference between a couple of high school students getting married straight out of high school (or a similar close-in-age situation) and an adult getting married to a student with whom he should not have been romantically involved in any way as soon as she graduated. The former isn't a great idea, but there's nothing inherent in the relationship that suggests it isn't consensual and healthy. The latter carries all sorts of red flags for grooming and other potential abuse.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Unlike your bizarre fixation on litigating a now 10-years-old relationship?

Well, yeah. People who are well out of high school shouldn't be picking up high school students, whether it happened two weeks ago or 40 years ago. That goes even more so for people in a position of power over those students.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

And you don't need to attack him.

I'll attack any professional that initiates a romantic relationship with somebody they're supposed to be advising. I'll attack anyone well out of high school initiating a romantic relationship with a high school student. Combine the two, and my ire is a given. By every available piece of information, dude's a creep, and I'm happy to treat him accordingly. I don't understand why you have a problem with that assessment.

ah look, he's back defending piece of shit sickos

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Lol, so now you're trying to litigate friendships too, now. I'm sure this lady will be devastated to learn she was never actually friends with this guy.

I'm just reminding you there's nothing you and yours can do about this.

Well that doesn't sound well-defined or precise at all, does it. But so basically, you think the legal age to marry should be like 20-22 at least, then?

Unlike your bizarre fixation on litigating a now 10-years-old relationship? I have had relationships with HS students btw, when I was in HS. Was pretty fun.

And you don't need to attack him.

Yeah, you were in highschool brickhead.

bitch I'll litigate the friendship of a 14 year old with a 30 year old

tap out idiot

ReturnOfFa posted...

bitch I'll litigate the friendship of a 14 year old with a 30 year old

tap out idiot

That too. A teenager saying they have a 30-year-old friend that their parents don't know about is all kinds of "hold up," for exactly the same reasons as you'd have a similar reaction to a 5-year-old saying it. An adult cementing themselves as a minor's "friend" before progressing into a romantic/sexual relationship is textbook grooming.

I'll just close the topic if he posts again. I don't have time for clowns. This topic is about hypocrites, and we've hit gold, but he doesn't deserve to say anything else. It's disgusting.

Remember kids: If somebody hasn't been arrested for grooming their partner, that means they didn't do anything wrong!

My personal favorite thing here is the complete and total lack of awareness of the drastic imbalance from choosing between a kid that may not have even been out of high school yet and an adult with a job and some level of financial stability to be a father, especially when said adult's job is counseling others on life decisions.