> Sarrah Marr wrote in response to Tony Hollick's rant:
<quote>
To most people, and most dictionaries, 'sexual' means 'of or
concerning sex'. And sex does not mean making babies. I find it hard
to agree that heterosexual people having penetrative intercourse
without a condom are engaging in sexual activity, whilst those having
penetrative sex with a condom are not. "Making babies" is a subset of
sex, not vice-versa.
</quote>
Rick, kindly cease from using provocative language: 'flame wars' are
'not on' hereabouts; and when I 'flame' people, they _burn_. OK?
<quote>
Rick Knight responds:
A practical and sober response Sarah. I'm of the mind that in this
particular instance, any other attempts to reason in this arena would
be like beating one's head against a brick wall <G>.
I asked my partner about this whole teacher-lover-mother situation
with Mary Kay whoever. He was actively pursued by a father figure man
when he was 13 and they had an affair. It went on for the summer. It
ended up being a big public court mess of course when the parents
found out. The guy was in his late 20s and had used guilt and other
adult-honed forms of manipulation to make his boy-lover more mailable.
Regardless of the information-richness of our society, the exceptions
we may deem appropriate or inappropriate in the realm of love/sex,
this woman was the boy's teacher, she was entrusted in a relationship
of propriety. The boy would only naturally follow his impulses (like
boys his age will whether it's an unrequited crush or having one's
first hump or blow job in some private stolen moment). I regard the
teacher (as does my partner) as an emotional child. She has
sacrificed a great deal because of a howling error in judgment. While
there may be volumes of extenuating circumstances Mr. Hollick can
dredge up to garner sympathy for the woman, fact of the matter is
doing what she did in our culture is no more appropriate than when
Ethiopian immigrants try to continue the tradition of female
"circumcision" in this country and think it's not a crime. We as a
culture have deemed it so.
Until such time where children are somehow imbued with experience,
wisdom and discernment, they are not appropriate sexual partners for
adults. The chasm is too wide (although considering the lame-brained
folly of Mary Kay, maybe they were closer, emotional maturity-wise,
than one may think! <G>).
Rick
</quote>
<sigh>
Firstly, Rick (and others), visit the Rainbow Bridge Foundation Home
Page. Download the files held there for Mary Kay Schmitz LeTourneau's
case (I'm happy for them to be posted here, if that's OK with the
Extropian 'ListGods' hereabouts). http;//www.agora.demon.co.uk
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
In a more nearly Extropian (or free) society, learning will be a
voluntary interaction between teacher and student.
The learner (of any age) may be issued with a book of vouchers, to
purchase the sought-for educational services from the teacher (of any
age). We all understand the idea of honest exchanges for mutual
benefit, and the idea of the interaction of two (or more) intelligent
consciousnesses.
All parties to such relationships have _rights_. This should be our
focus in the case of Mary Kay Schmitz LeTourneau and her 'younger man.'
The 'younger man' is on record as saying that he actively sought a deep
relationship (he presented Mary Kay with a silver ring as a symbol of
his affection); and he is by all accounts an exceptional individual.
He and Mary Kay _love_ each other. And now they have a child, Audrey.
They're both *magnificent* Americans.
"Why do we love where the lightning strikes, and not where we choose?"
-- Coventry Patmore.
Mary Kay's father (John G. Schmitz) opposed 'sex education' in schools
during his political career. Would an Extropian (or other
free-society) curriculum exclude or prohibit 'sex education'? I rather
think not.
So the student, questing for educational services in the educational
'hypermarket', will seek out the best possible opportunities, and spend
his (or her) education vouchers accordingly. Given the lack of
internal and external metrics for human experience and preferences,
most of us know better than to 'second-guess' the transactional choices
people make between themselves.
Are you saying you would seek to _coercively prevent_ competent
youngsters from seeking out and obtaining 'sex education'? If this
freely develops into emotional and intellectual relationships, would
you seek to _coercively punish_ people for it? Is it any of your
business. in fact? Do you believe 'we' can arbitrarily declare love to
be some sort of 'crime'?
"Yes" or "No" will do.
/ /\ \
--*--<Tony>--*--
http://www.agora.demon.co.uk
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/la-agora
(Listening to the magnificent Dolores O'Riordan and the Cranberries
singing "Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We"?).