The boy star-crossed lover is off f@cking girls closer to his age than the nearing-40 adult who didn't have the damn brains to get him to use a condom if she was going to have her way with him, her student, this mother who ravished another woman's child while imperiling her own and conceiving a second when she knew that she would be unable to raise it as she was unable to raise the first, because the conception, she knew, violated the terms of the parole to which she had agreed.
He, the teenager, has given up nothing, unless he was on a college track and derailed by his celebrity and European book tour. The attention from teeny boppers no doubt comforts him in his time of romantic sorrow. His mother, of course, that's another case. You feel her lack of "legal obligation" to support her child's children, her grandchildren, by that near-middle aged woman, makes her life not worthy of your 'worry'? Oh.
And the teacher's husband, whose dashed marriage and humiliation and motherless, humiliated children, you dismiss with a wave of your hand, too? No, you don't dismiss him, you propose to have him pay with his hard earned salary to support his deranged wife's children by this jerkass kid? Why? What did this poor guy ever do to you? Oh, I see you say, "could be allowed to help support..." It's hard to resist sarcasm here, nihil. But don't you think the several children he already has to support and raise without the help of their mother might be quite enough responsibility for this fellow?
Clinton has nothing whatever to do with this case. Ignoratio elenchi.
Her "only crime" was not love; it was seducing a child, and changing his life forever, and that of his mother, and of her own children; and then doing it again.
Look, I understand well the imperatives of lust. But there are some lustful yearnings that cost others simply too much, and have to be discouraged firmly, and this is one. The woman is a loon and a sociopath, the boy is a boy, and you are such a sentimentalist and romantic, you are close to over the edge sometime, you silly man.
As for your ideas for raising a daughter sexually, it's not so very different than what lots of sexually liberal parents do; in fact almost everybody nowadays raises their children with approximately those guidelines. Except that your level of hypothetical involvement seems excessive and intrusive and controlling to me. But what do I know? My parents were quite Victorian. I'd rather that, though, since I turned out sexually just fine, thank you, than that they put their noses into my business as deep as you seem to think a good idea. Your description of other people "dominating their children's sex lives," while you... would merely give yours a "detailed and precocious sex education..." Well, nihil, butt out, I say.
And try not to be such a romantic. Really, dude. You're like a kid yourself, the way you carry on. |
