Maxine Waters wrote:I think waitressing pays better than teaching and you work fewer hours.
You don't think.
Starting Salary: $41,259 in California for teachers.
Entry Level Salary for waitresses $23,919 in California.
Maxine Waters wrote:I think waitressing pays better than teaching and you work fewer hours.
DoubtingThomas wrote:Agree. I didn't say the contrary.
Coercion or manipulation is something else and should be punished with a least some prison. However, it is the male students that make the first move, not the teachers. Psychology Today article says, "vast majority of adult-child sexual liaisons are consensual. In some, the under-age girls are the initiators and pursuers. And sometimes the men wind up in prison". I think it is highly likely that male students are the initiators. Young men only care about sex, and it makes sense in evolutionary biology.
The idea that 16 or 17 year olds can't consent to sex isn't back up by biological evidence
A University of Minnesota book Harmful to Minors (endorsed by pediatrician) argues "America’s attempts to protect children from sex are worse than ineffectual." https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-divisio ... -to-minors
Please note I haven't read the book.
You don't think.
Starting Salary: $41,259 in California for teachers.
Entry Level Salary for waitresses $23,919 in California.
honorentheos wrote:As to DoubtingThomas being a creeper, I don't know that any amount of discussion can sort out the hows and wherefores of it. The dude is a creeper. He has a broken relationship to sex. He has the personal responsibility to recognize this and do something about it. Probably involving a professional.
EAllusion wrote:Your belief about the teenaged boys being the initiators because young males just think about sex (whereas young women apparently don't) is based on sexist stereotypes that can't be used as a basis for legal judgments.
EAllusion wrote: As said before, I am strongly opposed to lengthy prison sentences for statutory rape of teenagers.
EAllusion wrote:I don't think biological evidence can even straightforwardly weigh on that topic in the way you are asserting. Consent is a philosophical and legal concept surrounding the voluntariness of a permissive decision. Biology doesn't have a clear answer for when a decision is voluntary. As such, it no more proves that sex is consensual around the age of 16 than it proves that credit card agreements are consensual at that age. More is needed and whatever answer we get is always going to be fuzzy because of individual developmental differences and the factors that make up voluntariness existing on a gradient.
EAllusion wrote:Why do you keep bringing up their relative attractiveness?
Xenophon wrote:That said, this was kind of the point that I was trying to make with DoubtingThomas, that his relative creepiness will interfere with almost any conversation on this topic
DoubtingThomas wrote:I have now made it very clear, I don't deserve to be treated like this. This is so wrong.
honorentheos wrote:You post a lot about how you are a good Mormon who never did anything sexual with your girlfriend. .
honorentheos wrote: I've yet to see you post in a way that doesn't make sex into something that is unhealthy. You clearly lack a healthy perspective on the subject. So even on topics like you presented in the OP, you couldn't engage in a discussion that didn't reflect this. Consent isn't part of the question when it comes to relationships between people in authority and those subject to that authority.
honorentheos wrote:Your view of sex is damaged. You may be 17, immature, and fantasizing about why such things never happened to you. I don't know. But you do deserve to be exposed to the reality of your posting behavior. It's the first condition of developing a healthy understanding of sex, and I seriously think you need to acknowledge this.
Jersey Girl wrote:Just for the record, I think you guys are reading DoubtingThomas wrong in terms of "creepiness" factor. I'll explain later if I need to.