They’re 18 for Gods sake

I see . . . so you can't provide an argument against the glaring evidence of her lack of character. No surprise there.

@Setanta,

I see...so you are still reading my posts. No surprise there.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Lest it be not obvious to anybody reading here Setanta doesn't read my posts for one simple reason. They scare him. They challenge his pretty little and fondest peccadilloes which serve his personal purposes which are entirely selfish.

He asserts that there is no women hating going on here. And the whole point of feminism was and is to eradicate manipulative males using the flannel he is deploying and to keep them firmly clasped in his psychological chastity belt. He wants Brittani to sit quietly alone in her house watching TV or reading a book when she has been habituated to group sex with her husband's approval and co-operation. And seemingly with the knowledge of the authorities. His understanding of a lady like Brittani is zero. He is only approving of women who behave as he requires.

I have already said that the educational system is risk-free racketeering and I have cited Veblen's The Higher Learning in America as evidence. It has no ethics. How can an institution have ethics? It's riddled with graft and corruption from top to bottom and has let all the kids down in a very big way.

Just look at the assertions and smears in that post of his. Empty cliches the lot. Tick-tock clockwork mouth astounded that women might not be quite like he likes to think they are. Bishop Setanta in full condemnatory flow. Crucify the scumbag eh? That'll teach the rest of them. "Pour encourager les autres," (Voltaire).

A healthy young woman being placed in a class with four normal athletes and a seething sexual environment all around her and bored out of her mind overwhelmed by interior forces stemming from her evolved nature and the walls of an empty house pressing in on her. What a shock to discover that luxurious American middle class domesticity is not enough. The bird escaped from the gilded cage and the vultures circled. And those who placed her in such a class either not knowing, or repressing for convenience, what forces are in play. Biological forces. Healthy biological forces. Fully appreciated by four healthy male adults and, I presume, honoured. The hormones triumphing over the proprietaries.

What gallantry Setanta exhibits. If it was allowed I would challenge the prick to a duel for "scumbag".

Only somebody who accepts Christian moral theology would call her such a name. Somebody who speaks in the name of science doing that is a sick joke.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I see . . . so you can't provide an argument against the glaring evidence of her lack of character. No surprise there.

I cannot provide an argument against the glaring evidence of your lack of character, Set, but if they set (!) about to put you in jail and use your lack of character as justification for doing so...they'd catch all sorts of hell from me.

I love ya, Buddy. I'd go to bat for you no matter what.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

the petty return of a transient sexual gratification.

There you go. What does that say about Setanta? He must think women's sexual satisfaction is the same as his own. Well--it isn't. Not by a very long way.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

This is typical of the type of drivel you produce. I haven't suggested that she be jailed--at all, for any reason. If she is jailed, it will have been because she broke the law. My comments about her character were in response to the idiotic claim that women here should come to her defense because she's a woman; and the even more idiotic claim that women here who don't come to her defense hate women. You might understand that if you actually read and attempted to understand the sequence of posts in this thread. But you'd rather play your silly schoolyard games. That is also no surprise.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Once again, thank you for continuing to read my comments, Set. I know you've threatened (promised) not to read my posts, so it must be a significant concession on your part to go through the agony. I suspect, despite your protestations, you do the same for Spendius.

Anyway…no drivel in what I said. The thrust of your arguments heads in a direction, as Spendius points out, no one with any sense of dignity and regard for a fellow human would go.

But I want to go on record as saying that I do not think you single out women for hatred, scorn, and contempt. You seem to enjoy regarding almost everyone that way…so the specific charge that you direct your revulsion toward them is specious. (See, I am willing to go to bat for you!)

By the way, playing schoolyard games with you is an extremely entertaining enterprise, and I thank you for humoring me in this regard. You are a good guy, Set...an engaging, if somewhat undisciplined, opponent.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Every adults in the country should come to her defense as using the law to ban sex between any groups of consenting adults is a clear threat to all our sexual freedoms.

An if this law stand who will be the next group of consenting adults that some right wings assholes in s state legislature will decide to imposed their moral believes on using the criminal law?

Texas had a long history of this kind of interfering in the private sexual behaviors of consenting adults that only was wipe off the books by the SC.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Every adults in the country should come to her defense as using the law to ban sex between any groups of consenting adults is a clear threat to all our sexual freedoms.

Yeah, and maybe we can get the PE teachers to lay out the mats on the gym floor during lunch period so all the consenting adults - teachers, students, the principal, school nurse, custodians- whoever could scope each other out and have consensual group sex and really celebrate sexual freedom - you know- why not?

The point is NOT that these are consenting adults - the point is that in her role as a teacher, she is supposed to model and reinforce appropriate behavior for the young adults in her charge.

I would have no interest in or problem at all with what she did if she'd gone to a bar and picked these boys up and took them back to her house to enjoy the type of sex she likes and apparently her husband endorses.

The problem I do have is that she used her place of work - a school- as her pick-up joint. That's just not okay. It can't work like that for teachers to go to work (a school) and select sex partners from the student body.
Do you not see that?

And I don't hate her or envy her or care one way or the other about what she's done and why - what I do care about is keeping our students at school safe from sexual predators- even if they're sex-starved female teachers...she went after these boys - SHE texted THEM!

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You can suspect what you like, i have not read the posts of that jackass Spurious literally for years, except on those accidental occasions when someone quotes him and i don't notice it right away. What you have said is pure drivel. This woman is being prosecuted because she broke the law. The law is designed to protect children from exploitation by those who are trusted with their care and education.

If anyone here is undisciplined in their posts, it is you. You still fail to offer any plausible argument for the character of this woman, and you still play your puerile games, which doesn't suprise me, as i suspect you lack the intellectual equipment to make and sustain a plausible argument. That horseshit about society once relying upon older women to educate boys sexually is an excellent example that this is the case.

As, however, you offer nothing substantive, and continue your childish games, yes, i will waste no more time on you. You write only marginally better than Bill, and, as incredible as it is to realize, you show no more, and perhaps less, intellectual substance than do his posts.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

You can suspect what you like, i have not read the posts of that jackass Spurious literally for years, except on those accidental occasions when someone quotes him and i don't notice it right away. What you have said is pure drivel. This woman is being prosecuted because she broke the law. The law is designed to protect children from exploitation by those who are trusted with their care and education.

It anyone here is undisciplined in their posts, it is you. You still fail to offer any plausible argument for the character of this woman, and you still play your puerile games, which doesn't suprise me, as i suspect you lack the intellectual equipment to make and sustain a plausible argument. That horseshit about society once relying upon older women to educate boys sexually is an excellent example that t his is the case.

As, however, you offer nothing substantive, and continue your childish games, yes, i will waste no more time on you. You write only marginally better than Bill, and, as incredible as it is to realize, you show no more, and perhaps less, intellectual substance than do his posts.

I think this means you love me in return, Set. Wow! I kinda suspected it.

Keep on truckin', Set. With all the indignation, scorn, and contempt you show for so many people, your reading job at A2K will soon be a breeze. In fact, it may soon well be non-existent.

Good googaly woogaly...what joy these interactions bring into my life! Very Happy

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

The point is NOT that these are consenting adults - the point is that in her role as a teacher, she is supposed to model and reinforce appropriate behavior for the young adults in her charge.

The point is it is wrong to use the criminal law over these matters.

Fired her ass, take away her teacher license but not a fine, not a day in jail for having sexual relationships with other consenting adults is call for or should be allow.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

YOu amke this out to be some kind of extended locker room joke.

It is a locker room joke. It's a barrack room joke. A work cabin joke. A pub joke. Wherever men gather it's a joke. As a fact.

Scene--a locker room.

Fred--" ******* hell man, you won't believe this."
Joe---" Try me."
Fred--" Mrs Colleps invited me and Dave and Wayne and Clint over to her house last night for a few drinks. Her husband had took the kids away for a week or something."
Joe--"What happened?"
Fred--"What didn't? You wouldn't believe it man.
Loud voice--"Come on you guys. Get training."
Fred--"I'll tell you later."
Joe--"I can't wait. Did you **** her?"
Fred--**** her!! Not half. We were there hours."
Joe--"If she invites you again can I come?"
Fred--"I don't suppose one more would be any bother. Have you got a Kama Sutra by any chance?"
Joe--No but my old man has one of those how to pep up a jaded sex life manuals back to front in his bookshelf."
Fred--"Bring that then."

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

The problem I do have is that she used her place of work - a school- as her pick-up joint. That's just not okay. It can't work like that for teachers to go to work (a school) and select sex partners from the student body.
Do you not see that?

We do all see that Rebecca. We have all said so. More than once in some cases.

We are concerned about the criminal prosecution. We accept that her position as a teacher is untenable once that story got out as it was bound to do with four footballers as witnesses.

The scene you described a little on the gym floor is standard practice in some religious cults. I've seen one at a police promotion party which hired three strippers. Such things serve to lighten everybody up a bit and reduce their hang-ups.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

i have not read the posts of that jackass Spurious literally for years, except on those accidental occasions when someone quotes him and i don't notice it right away.

Imagine the scene Frank. Setanta is reading away at a post and he suddenly realises he's reading a post of mine and immediately looks away whistling "Coming round the mountain when she comes".

It must be terrible taking rompy-rumpy-pumpy seriously.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

We do all see that Rebecca. We have all said so. More than once in some cases.

Yeah, you may have all SAID it, but alot of your other commentary speaks volumes about the fact that you admire her choices (because she's sexually FREE, lawd, lawd...) and envy the boys their participation, and think that anyone who speaks against what she's done is sexually repressed and/or envious and/or a woman-hater.

Actually, I think she's probably feeling so far from FREE with this whole thing, it's sad.
She's probably feeling enslaved to these urges she obviously can't control to the point that it's cost her her job and her children and her professional standing and respect in the community.

Quote:

The scene you described a little on the gym floor is standard practice in some religious cults. I've seen one at a police promotion party which hired three strippers. Such things serve to lighten everybody up a bit and reduce their hang-ups

I wouldn't know- I think it would serve to make me feel like a cheap piece of ass to be passed around - but someone else might need this to lighten up and reduce their hang-ups. To each his or her own (on their own time and in their own house without other peoples' children who have been entrusted to their care and mentoring).

URL: http://able2know.org/reply/post-5086165

2 Replies

Anyway--to be serious for a moment.

It is a well known principle in the scientific discipline of Behaviorism that people don't act in a certain way because they are angry or in any other emotional state. They act and feel angry at the same time for a common reason, usually unspecified.

The court, in a trial and sentence, is expressing extreme anger and acting at the same time for an unspecified reason.

What is interesting is what this hidden reason is. And it is the same with the act of writing an angry post. In both cases the anger and the act are motivated by something deeper. Fear of female sexuality maybe. Fear of being caught out being an atheist and a Christian and thus looking ridiculous. Money is a live possibility. And opportunities to display superior sanctity. (A well known form of agression).

What is even more interesting is that when flogging through the town was the method, or worse, there was a real and genuine fear of female sexuality. It was a strategic necessity to repress it. As things stand now it might be the reverse and female sexuality can safely be unleashed. Events of my time certainly suggest the direction of the drift we are in. Texas being a bit laggardly. Everybody who is always right is, by definition, stuck in a past time. And Texans are always right.

In an age that couldn't afford jails being whipped through town at the cart-tail had to serve as a punishment and a deterrent to others. The 5 years being humane (ahem!) for no other reason that we can afford it and nothing to do with any principles. The idea that Brittini should be punished is what matters. We are talking witch-hunters and witch-burners. 300 years ago scumbags went to the stake.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Okay, so is there only one sort of female sexuality? Is the only sexually free female the one who would have group sex with four young men?

I don't call this 'female sexuality'. This is a form of sexuality.
There are many sexually free females - the fact is that some of us don't have any desire to do it with four men at a time and can still feel sexually free and fulfilled.
You're the one putting parameters around female sexuality by acting as if this woman is exhibiting the be-all and end-all of it and anyone who wouldn't engage their students thus is repressed.

2 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

Okay, so is there only one sort of female sexuality? Is the only sexually free female the one who would have group sex with four young men?

I don't call this 'female sexuality'. This is a form of sexuality.
There are many sexually free females - the fact is that some of us don't have any desire to do it with four men at a time and can still feel sexually free and fulfilled.
You're the one putting parameters around female sexuality by acting as if this woman is exhibiting the be-all and end-all of it and anyone who wouldn't engage their students thus is repressed.

Is that actually what you think Spendius or anyone else here is suggesting?

Can it not be that we are saying that IF SHE CHOOSES to do things that other might CHOOSE not to do...is it necessary for people to condemn her?

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

Actually, I think she's probably feeling so far from FREE

Jesus Christ, Aidan, she is in prison. I think she is feeling far from free also. I doubt any sane, intelligent person thinks otherwise.

Quote:

She's probably feeling enslaved to these urges she obviously can't control to the point that it's cost her her job and her children and her professional standing and respect in the community.

That is because you (and the community) seem to think there is something wrong with people who have a high urge for sexual activity…especially if it is sexual activity that is outside the missionary position for a married couple.

What many seem to be saying, Spendius included, is that society ought to get over its judgmental bullshit in this area.

1 Reply

They’re 18 for Gods sake

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know