Mr. GOH! Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Which brings me to something else I forgot to mention last night: that Wikipedia article I linked is slightly wrong about Kansas. 16 is the straight-up, "can say yes to anyone" age of consent, but it's not a crime to have sex with someone 14 or older if you are 2 or fewer years older than them. So a 16 year old can legally have sex with a 14 year old, and a 17 year old can legally have sex with a 15 year old, but a 17 year old cannot legally have sex with a 14 year old. Then you hit 16 and it's legal for anybody (except teachers or other adults "in positions of authority" over the kid, teachers have to wait until you're not a student anymore and others in positions of authority have to wait until you're 18). I take it a lot of your statutory rape cases hinge on what constitutes a "position of authority," eh? Edited February 25, 2012 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Mostly unrelated: I still take serious issue with using the term rape to describe anything that isn't sex where one party is unwilling, age notwithstanding. And yes, I know the legal reasoning behind it. It's still basically wrong in my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) While it's surprising that your school was so open about sex ed, it's not surprising there was lots of sex going on in the Bible Belt. I don't know if your specific school was rural, but a lot of the Bible Belt is, and rural areas tend to have higher rates of teen sex than urban areas (with similar incomes). My hypothesis is that it's because there's nothing else to do. I first had sex when I was 14. Actually, our town was pretty unique in that it was a very suburban area of the state. It was nestled 15 minutes away from D/FW Airport, so many wealthy families decided to move there because of that, and they essentially built a sprawling area of nice houses, nice schools, and this great town center. We also had no less than three megachurches spread out around the place. For such an area, you'd think there would be less sex going on, or even a preachy abstinence group. Nope! Turns out our high school was filled to the brim with horny teens ready to use what their sky papa gave them. If you're searching for a more specific reason, I'd blame the prosperity gospel. Plenty of my classmates got it into my head that since they were rich they could do whatever the fuck they wanted to, and all they would have to do in order to be saved was apologize to God afterward. These people treated God more as a get out of jail free card than anything else. As a believer back then I wanted to tell them that they were making a serious mistake, because just sinning and halfheartedly saying "whoops" is no way to lead a faith-based life, but I never ended up saying anything, and they went about their business. Edited February 25, 2012 by DukeOfPwn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Which brings me to something else I forgot to mention last night: that Wikipedia article I linked is slightly wrong about Kansas. 16 is the straight-up, "can say yes to anyone" age of consent, but it's not a crime to have sex with someone 14 or older if you are 2 or fewer years older than them. So a 16 year old can legally have sex with a 14 year old, and a 17 year old can legally have sex with a 15 year old, but a 17 year old cannot legally have sex with a 14 year old. Then you hit 16 and it's legal for anybody (except teachers or other adults "in positions of authority" over the kid, teachers have to wait until you're not a student anymore and others in positions of authority have to wait until you're 18). I take it a lot of your statutory rape cases hinge on what constitutes a "position of authority," eh? Interesting question. I've never personally dealt with it, and I haven't researched the issue, but AFAIK the positions that count are pretty well defined. Things like teachers, bosses, police officers, doctors, non-parent caretakers, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) http://www.baronbarometer.com/?p=823 While it's tempting to blame the Republicans for all our recent troubles, it's only fair to blame them for MOST of our recent troubles. Democrats need to step up their game. Also, fuck you again, Rick Santorum. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/25/santorum-obama-is-a-snob-who-wants-everybody-to-go-to-college/#.T0k-8wmWsuw.reddit Edited February 26, 2012 by DukeOfPwn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 So I was watching the Arizona republican debates a few days ago and the moderator asked the candidates to "describe themselves in one word". Romney said "resolute", Paul said "consistent", Gingrich said "cheerful", and Santorum said "courage". Fucking Santorum. Couldn't even use an adjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 So I was watching the Arizona republican debates a few days ago and the moderator asked the candidates to "describe themselves in one word". Romney said "resolute", Paul said "consistent", Gingrich said "cheerful", and Santorum said "courage". Fucking Santorum. Couldn't even use an adjective. Maybe that's another reason Santorum doesn't want people to go to college; he's tired of having a smaller vocabulary than the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Also, fuck you again, Rick Santorum. http://www.rawstory....-8wmWsuw.reddit Not everyone should go to college. More people going to college effectively cheapens the degree. A BA degree from many state schools is akin to a high school diploma in the real world (unless you study something worthwhile like Business, Engineering or Science.) We put way too much emphasis on college and quite frankly I know people who would've been better off not going to college and instead going to a vocational school or taking an apprenticeship. Instead they are 40K in debt with a worthless degree that sounds nice when they're on break working at the supermarket. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Also, fuck you again, Rick Santorum. http://www.rawstory....-8wmWsuw.reddit Not everyone should go to college. More people going to college effectively cheapens the degree. A BA degree from many state schools is akin to a high school diploma in the real world (unless you study something worthwhile like Business, Engineering or Science.) We put way too much emphasis on college and quite frankly I know people who would've been better off not going to college and instead going to a vocational school or taking an apprenticeship. Instead they are 40K in debt with a worthless degree that sounds nice when they're on break working at the supermarket. That's not really the point. The point is that Santorum is drawing on an argument that isn't exactly backed up by his personal history, as well as resorting to childish personal attacks to try and gain political clout. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 It's true what battra says; only the best and brightest can make good use of liberal arts degrees. Everyone else should be drones for the thinking class. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Can I ask on what Obamas statements were that got him called a snob? Also "indoctrinate"? Really? That's the language of the McCarthy era. I assume those professors at Pittsburgh just taught their classes as normal huh? (I do agree college isn't for everyone, but it's not like college is the only HE route, nor are colleges purely academic either) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) Also "indoctrinate"? Really? That's the language of the McCarthy era. I assume those professors at Pittsburgh just taught their classes as normal huh? The biggest issue with many college classes is that you're simply supposed to regurgitate what the professor says. I had one professor (and this was for an English class) who would spend the entire class talking about Bush and why he hated him. I sent in a formal complaint to the College Prof and the response was to drop the class (which I did.) FWIW, the prof was an adjunct and wasn't hired back the next semester. Still, there was a lot of politics thrown into classes where it had no business. My Economics classes were mostly free of politics from the professor side but many of the students would try to inject whatever the Democrat talking point around campus was at the time (usually something against Jane Swift or Romney.) For someone not on the Left, this creates a hostile environment and many feel bullied by their professors to become Liberals. Add in the positions of authority (they're the professor so they must know what they're talking about) and you see where it's going. It's true what battra says; only the best and brightest can make good use of liberal arts degrees. Everyone else should be drones for the thinking class. I wouldn't call them drones. I think we all have a place in society and whether someone's place is a butcher or chemical scientist or house painter or engineer, we're all important. I think you and I discussed this in chat before but the biggest way I would change the American education system is to drastically change the high schools into vocational training where people can learn some form of Industrial arts, whether it be carpentry, electrical work, machining, economics, applied science etc. Edited February 26, 2012 by Battra92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) We have spoken about this before, and I broadly agree you that there needs to be more training at the high school level and that the fantasy of the four year degree for everyone is ridiculous. People need to have skills out of high school, or the chance to do do apprenticeships and the like. Hell, i wish my law schooling were apprenticeship-focused in a much larger part. But I also value my liberal arts education and find that it makes me more effective at my job than most of my peers without such backgrounds. Including my fancy-pants, frou-frou alternative first year law school curriculum that was largely about political and legal philosophy. But that sorta thing ain't gonna help everyone. Edited February 28, 2012 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Still, there was a lot of politics thrown into classes where it had no business. My Economics classes were mostly free of politics from the professor side but many of the students would try to inject whatever the Democrat talking point around campus was at the time (usually something against Jane Swift or Romney.) For someone not on the Left, this creates a hostile environment and many feel bullied by their professors to become Liberals. Add in the positions of authority (they're the professor so they must know what they're talking about) and you see where it's going. See, I had the opposite experience, with conservative ideologies injected into classes where it doesn't belong. Though I agree it created a hostile environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 That's me... http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.62&soc=-1.69 Some questions are a bit confusing... Like "It's ok for a mother to have a job, but her first duty is to be a home maker." OWTTE. If I click "Disagree" does that mean that I disagree that it is ok for her to have a job? Or that I disagree that her first duty is to be a home maker? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) I had a government teacher who's required text was the New York Times and she'd spend entire class periods going on about what an amazing and wonderful publication it was and how we were all Luddites if we didn't read it. I had a history professor who blamed everything on sexism or racism and the more you wrote about sexism or racism in your essays the higher your grade would be. Assigned reading in that class were such fair and balanced books as "Fast Food Nation". Oh and this is a public university in Texas. Ugh, Yeah, I know a ton of people who got 4 year degrees in english or psychology or something else and never did anything with them and now they are either elementary school teachers or pursuing music or something. That's fine if that's your goal but if you want to make money and get ahead I know other people who just went to work with their tools as an electrician and make tons of money and don't have any school debt to speak of. I'd say sometimes we put too much value on a college degree. Edited February 27, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Like "It's ok for a mother to have a job, but her first duty is to be a home maker." OWTTE. If I click "Disagree" does that mean that I disagree that it is ok for her to have a job? Or that I disagree that her first duty is to be a home maker? My wife has a job/career but has stated when we have kids she wants to be a home maker and a stay at home mom. What's sad is that she is making a choice (a choice I do not have the option of, by the way) and there are women out there who will look down on her as being backwards or whatever. An acquaintance of ours spends almost as much on monthly day care as his wife earns in her day job as a teacher. When I asked why she just doesn't stay at home with the kid her husband remarked "What? And waste her degree?" Okay, if you want someone else to raise your kid ... :-/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) My wife has a job/career but has stated when we have kids she wants to be a home maker and a stay at home mom. What's sad is that she is making a choice (a choice I do not have the option of, by the way) and there are women out there who will look down on her as being backwards or whatever. My wife's almost as flaming liberal as me and she wants to do the exact same thing. So see, we're not so different. *Edit* - It was a bad thing when a married woman basically wasn't allowed to work outside the home, but women also shouldn't feel obligated to do so now that they can. Also, why do you say you don't have that option? I know a couple people who are or are planning to be stay at home dads while their wife works. One of them I went to law school with (though I'll admit that particular example does seem like a colossal waste of money). Edited February 27, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Like "It's ok for a mother to have a job, but her first duty is to be a home maker." OWTTE. If I click "Disagree" does that mean that I disagree that it is ok for her to have a job? Or that I disagree that her first duty is to be a home maker? My wife has a job/career but has stated when we have kids she wants to be a home maker and a stay at home mom. What's sad is that she is making a choice (a choice I do not have the option of, by the way) and there are women out there who will look down on her as being backwards or whatever. An acquaintance of ours spends almost as much on monthly day care as his wife earns in her day job as a teacher. When I asked why she just doesn't stay at home with the kid her husband remarked "What? And waste her degree?" Okay, if you want someone else to raise your kid ... :-/ That's just how it is. No matter what stance you take in any issue, you'll find someone who vehemently disagrees with you. Even when you're "right" on one subject you're "wrong" on another, and they'll always find reasons to hate you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I would hate being a stay at home dad. My wife stays at home with our kid, soon to be kids. She's always wanted to do that so she stopped going to college and worked to put me through college, I worked too though. I do agree that it's funny that some women go back to work and by going back to work they barely make enough to cover the child care and house keepers that they have to hire instead. I find that strange. Some women make a lot of money though and sometimes I think society is almost to the point where it's very difficult to live on one income. I make decent money but we still have two old cars and a very modest home. It's tough not to be jealous of other people who make more money because they have dual incomes but I am happy that my wife is home investing in our daughter and I think that pays its own dividends. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Yeah, child care is the biggest thing. My wife actually wants to go back to work at least part time once all our kids are old enough to be in all-day school (though that's way off in the future, since we aren't planning to have kids for at least a couple more years). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I don't have the option because I make more money than my wife. I suppose the option IS there it's just not viable at all. It's interesting how public opinion on the SAHM has changed so drastically. At one point it was more or less expected that women stay home unless they were quite poor or single. My grandmother (who would be 101 if she were still alive) used to complain about how women were "taking the jobs of the men and that many men wouldn't be poor if they stopped hiring women for men's jobs!" When my mom was a SAHM she said she received lots of criticism on the matter. Now many children who were raised by the daycare system are deciding to try being the homemaker. So it's interesting how times do change on that. I'd say now is really the first time there has been an actual choice. The pendulum is finally in the middle. I'm not sure if it's economy (day care is pretty expensive) or if society has finally found a balance. I make decent money but we still have two old cars and a very modest home. It's tough not to be jealous of other people who make more money because they have dual incomes but I am happy that my wife is home investing in our daughter and I think that pays its own dividends. If it makes you feel any better my parents could never afford to take us to Disneyworld. We never went on any huge vacations. Our idea of a "fancy dinner out" was Friendly's. I never had a video game console until high school and that was an NES I got at a garage sale for $5! On the other hand, we hardly ever had store bought cookies (my mother probably would've been a pastry chef had she not had kids) and I have a lot of memories of good times with my family whether it be my dad and I playing pinball together at the local arcade or going garage sale hunting on Saturdays and getting all sorts of fun (but cheap) toys. I'm sure your kids will have just as much fun being kids despite not living in a McMansion with all the newest toys around them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 The pendulum is finally in the middle. I'm not sure if it's economy (day care is pretty expensive) or if society has finally found a balance. I'd guess it's probably a combination. Though I think a big factor is that the previous generation felt like they had to fight against the expectation that they had to be SAHMs, and that if they did stay at home they were giving in to discrimination. I think our generation, on the other hand, doesn't so much feel like women are expected to stay at home, so if they choose to do so they don't have that stigma of giving in. I don't think it's all the way gone, but it will be in another generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I do agree that it's funny that some women go back to work and by going back to work they barely make enough to cover the child care and house keepers that they have to hire instead. House keepers? Really? I don't know anyone who ever had one, and I was friends with some pretty rich kids. Both parents working as well, that's the norm here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 My parents had a housekeeper, but it wasn't what you might think, she came for like 3 hours once a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.