Teacher Grooming using the belt?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont think anyone is defending this woman at all. The responses however, highlight the hypocrisy in people's reactions dependant on the sexes of the parties involved.

Definitely not me, I never gave my view on it, just gave my experience so I would appreciate it if you would take that out of your head.
Nowhere did I say it's OK for young boys to have it done to them, it was however OK for me though and I enjoyed every second of it.

Part of the issue with trying to have any kind of rational discussion about things like this is that people tend to lose their mind over it.

It doesn't help the discussion when you make things up and fill blanks in that aren't there :(
Seriously dude, read what people have wrote and not what you think they have wrote.
 
Last edited:
No, not always, but they are the exceptions, and the reason I said "roughly". On the whole the human body is getting ready for reproduction around the 13-16 age bracket, with the peak reproductivity following this, up to late 20s.
yea and middle aged at one point was probably about 18, and old age considered about 30-40.

I think we discovered a flaw with living so long.

we don't mature as fast and now allow children to be children, the body is ready, but the mind isn't

If we rushed kids into the real world at around 12 years old, by time they are 14/15 they would probably be a lot more adult than they are now.


Instead we have generations who are scared to make phone calls etc, but apparently ready for sex
 
Last edited:
Definitely not me, I never gave my view on it, just gave my experience so I would appreciate it if you would take that out of your head.
Nowhere did I say it's OK for young boys to have it done to them, it was however OK for me though and I enjoyed every second of it.

Yeah, you appear to take my post as directed to you.... I sort of get it as I used the "H" word again and you have jumped to a conclusion but take a step back - My post was a general view of some of the posts in this thread, not about you.


It doesn't help the discussion when you make things up and fill blanks in that aren't there :(

I didnt make anything up, I read what was posted. Given that sometimes what is written can sometimes be read differently than the manner it was intended on a forum and, if you feel I was mistaken, then perhaps rephrase it a little differently rather than just getting all offended and playing a victim.... Or have you never read something wrongly? (see first part of this post as it appears you have done the exactly what you said I shouldnt)


Seriously dude, read what people have wrote and not what you think they have wrote.

You should probably practice what you preach TBH (see first part of this post)
 
Last edited:
Wild that some here are defending this women.
She is a paedophile! Completely abused her position of authority to get in bed with some kids. You wouldn't stand for it if it happened to your kids regardless of the genders involved.
This : abused of position of authority
is one of the key aspects to the case. its not just about age, but a :
position of responsibility to that person.
position of some one in authority over that person.
these two also relate in to later life hence why having a relationship with a boss you directly work under in work is a no no. But it does happen in "real" life, and real world. and often taken seriously.


Yes, I am well aware, hence my remarks about "societal norms changing since the 1300s" and the contradictory messages between their physicality, their feelings, society's prohibition and social encouragements.
What's your point?
No, i think you miss the point i was making, or i wanst very clear. there are people in the 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s or even 100s who have not had sex or dont intend to have sex because they are not ready mentally for it, for what ever reason they deem reasonable. it doesnt mean they are not sexual. or they dont self please. but sexual relationships with others is either not easy, not appropriate to them or in some rare instances unreachable. these cases arent about social norms but about the individual.
in fact not having sex by a certain age becomes a stigma al'a "40 year old virgin" were your looked down on "you havent had sex?!?!?" "whats wrong with you!" or becomes embarassing.
having sex to much or to early and your called names if your a female, and if your male your a "studd"


The successful ancestry of the human race disagrees with your disagreement.
in part i agree, but the number of deaths due to childbirth complicaitons are much lower now than in the past.
for females its important to have good hips, see below last section.


I dont think anyone is defending this woman at all. The responses however, highlight the hypocrisy in people's reactions dependant on the sexes of the parties involved.

Also, she isn't a peadophile

Part of the issue with trying to have any kind of rational discussion about things like this is that people tend to lose their mind over it. Some people are unable to control their emotional responses sufficiently. If you couple this with the fact that anyone who does try and have a rational conversation, and does not outwardly show the same emotional outrage, are met with suspicion and inferred accusations so they tend to steer clear through fear/self preservation of being labelled a "dirty nonce"
Dr Disrespect thread were tempers were rising, and accusation practically thrown around.. case in point.
i should prob point out apparantly Dr D's wife has also been targeted for abusive comments as well

ephebophile : 15-19yrs is technically the correct term for both this thread and the Dr Disrecpect according to WiKi


The female Body is amazing in what it goes through and how flexible/adaptable it is, in relation to child birthing.
animated image 1 - HIPS
Image 2 - WTF Magic
all praise the female body and its majesticness


You should probably practice what you preach TBH (see first part of this post)
im taking it as frustration, due to the implied directed attention for SGF.
i agree with you it was a bit of over reaction, but understandable given how the thread is developing.
 
Last edited:
If they had filmed it how the author intended it to be then I get your point however it was made into a Good Old British Comedy where most people who watch it just laugh at it all the way through completely missing the point of the original author.
Not at all.
Plenty of other films and plenty of stand-up comics use humour to direct attention to things that really need looking at... and it works, as the humour makes it a far easier pill to swallow than some hard-hitting docu-drama. People like to laugh and they often laugh at themselves, while knowing there is some serious truth behind it. It's the same literary device used here and it clearly worked, given not only the status of the film, but the fact the people continue to produce the play because it remains relevant.

We were supposed to watch it like we watched Trainspotting with sad faces saying "WTF?" instead everybody leaves the film smiling.
Trainspotting: "A brutal, often times funny, other times terrifying portrayal of drug addiction in Edinburgh. Not for the faint of heart, but well worth viewing as a realistic and entertaining reminder of the horrors of drug use".
Since when were addiction and the horrors of drug abuse funny or entertaining?

Yet of RS&BT we have Roger Ebert giving it 3 out of 4 stars, and having watched it twice noted that some audiences were uneasy at its mixed tone, calling it "angry", "sometimes depressing", and "more interested in human nature than in selling lots of tickets with lots of sex".
Film interested in human nature, eh?

There are lots of films and programmes that use humour as a vehicle, and the Brits seem pretty good at it, but that doesn't detract from any serious consideration of the subjects prompted by the film.

yea and middle aged at one point was probably about 18, and old age considered about 30-40.
Which has no impact on the basic biology, either way. The age of puberty doesn't start later just because we now live longer.

If we rushed kids into the real world at around 12 years old, by time they are 14/15 they would probably be a lot more adult than they are now.
Instead we have generations who are scared to make phone calls etc, but apparently ready for sex
And we know they're not mentally ready, which is why we take differing legal stances on underage sex versus murder.
The complexity in having and raising a child is massive. The simplicity in "Thou shalt not murder" is pretty evident.

these cases arent about social norms but about the individual.
Not at all. Most teenages would not be ready, for either the complexities around intercourse and other relations, or the results, hence the increase to the age of consent.
Individual choices are just further examples of the moral and social complexities, which again they're not ready to figure out and decide for themselves. It's made more complicated by the signals their body is giving them.

in part i agree, but the number of deaths due to childbirth complicaitons are much lower now than in the past.
They're somewhat lower and the greater part of that is wider access to better sanitary conditions and better medical knowledge. Women also had more children back then, with shorter times between pregnancy, and other higher risk factors that we strongly advise against today.
But today childbirth remains the sixth most common cause of death for women aged 20-40, and many of the medical (rather than simple sanitary) factors remain a very real risk. In the old days rich people could afford better surgeons, whereas today most of them are top notch, yet still the underlying factors persist.
The WHO asserts that both complications and deaths have risen quite alarmingly in the last decade and a half. The deaths from childbirth have almost doubled in the UK alone.

None of this is affected by the age at which the human body decides it's ready for pregnancy, though.

for females its important to have good hips, see below last section.
But since we can't ban slim-hipped women from shagging, or force them to take medication that prevents their body from sending out the baby signals, it's not a factor.
Their bodies and biological clocks will carry on regardless.
 
im taking it as frustration, due to the implied directed attention for SGF.
i agree with you it was a bit of over reaction, but understandable given how the thread is developing.

I agree, hence my reasoning at the start as to why I think he took my post personally when that was not the intention. If you're going to suggest someone is doing something however, I feel its relevant to have it pointed out to you if you are doing similar.
 
I agree, hence my reasoning at the start as to why I think he took my post personally when that was not the intention. If you're going to suggest someone is doing something however, I feel its relevant to have it pointed out to you if you are doing similar.

Ah, so its just good ol' fashioned hypocrisy then.

You called me a hypocrite when all I said was it was OK for me.
if you can point on the doll where I said it was OK for others then show me.
 
You called me a hypocrite when all I said was it was OK for me.
if you can point on the doll where I said it was OK for others then show me.

Well that's just not true.... At no point did I say you said it was ok for others, quite the opposite - Pray tell, why was it ok for you but not OK for Rita & Sue?

So it was ok for you but not for others?... And that's not a hypocritical stance? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Well that's just not true.... At no point did I say you said it was ok for others, quite the opposite - Pray tell, why was it ok for you but not OK for Rita & Sue?

So it was ok for you but not for others?... And that's not a hypocritical stance? :confused:

That's up to them to say if it was OK for them, not for me.
I don't own them and I don't speak for them so ask them.
Why are you being a silly boy and talking crap :)

How do I put this in words you understand?

I was OK with what happened to me.
I haven't said if it's OK for somebody else or not OK for somebody else so I'm not being an hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
That's up to them to say if it was OK for them, not for me.
I don't own them and I don't speak for them so ask them.

So if it was your 15 year old daughter "getting porked by a 27 year old man" (your words) and she said she "couldn't get enough", "100% wanted it to happen" and was "knocking on his door" (again, your words) that would be all ok as it would be "upto her"? You wouldn't then think it was not ok, would you? :)

Why are you being a silly boy and talking crap :)

Come on now, I have refrained from calling you a stubborn, cantankerous old fart so the least you can do is also refrain from name calling :)
 
So if it was your 15 year old daughter "getting porked by a 27 year old man" (your words) and she said she "couldn't get enough", "100% wanted it to happen" and was "knocking on his door" (again, your words) that would be all ok as it would be "upto her"? You wouldn't then think it was not ok, would you? :)

It is my daughter so don't be stupid.
Good grief you're talking a load of crap.
Mods can you do something about this troll?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom