Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Stop talking about ‘rape culture’ until you talk about oversexed teachers and teenage boys



A far too typical headline: “Ex-teacher arrested on more sex charges.” The parade of headlines like this occurs on a near daily basis. Women teachers in their 20s and 30s, mostly, meeting up and having sex with teenage boys. And those are just the ones who get caught.

Here’s another one: Heli Wey, 29, got 200 hours of community service for having sex with two 17-year-olds students. And another: Eleanor Wilson had sex with a 16-year-old in an airplane lavatory on a flight to her native UK from Africa–among other places. Here’s 40 more.

This isn’t a new problem. When I went to high school, we all heard rumors of a particular teacher with a taste for the football team. We all (mostly) wrote it off as just idle rumors or bragging, but in light of what I read today, those rumors all those years ago were probably real.

My high school was particularly noteworthy in the hideous history of teacher sex scandals. Eight years after I graduated, Pamela Smart had two teens from my school, in the town where I grew up, murder her husband. She had a sexual relationship with 15-year-old Billy Flynn.

The New York Times featured a defense of the kangaroo courts our colleges are using to defend against “rape culture,” that David French torpedoed in National Review. French, a lawyer, focused on the legal implications here, but the premise is equally faulty.

This notion of “frat boy” behavior and “rape culture” puts the responsibility for sexual advances squarely on boys and men, when it’s always been plain that “it takes two to tango.” Sixteen-year-old boys don’t have a lot of discretion when it comes to doing what comes all-too-naturally, and girls are no better at that age.

It’s certainly a form of rape when an older woman entices and encourages a teenage boy into a sexual relationship. The act creates emotional bonds and feelings. The teacher-student relationship makes it all the more powerful. These boys are harmed–with the certainty of knowing the left will attack this–arguably more than college girls are harmed when they have second thoughts after a not-so-great hookup that they think they might not have fully consented to (because they were both drunk).

But (female) teachers get away with it far too much, because unless they’re caught in flagrante delicto, or the boy brags a bit too much, or there’s sexting involved that goes viral, it’s just another boy who got what Patrick Dempsey made popular in “Loverboy.” Or a more recent version: “Cougar Town.”

How can we have an intelligent discussion of “rape culture,” or “toxic masculinity,” or how feminist writer Jody Allard considers her own teenage sons “unsafe,” until we realize that sexual predators aren’t confined only to those of us with XY chromosome pairs.

So don’t talk to me about “rape culture” and what we’re going to do about it, and how we need to purge schools of any and all men who like girls, until we take equally drastic measures to educate our boys in the wiley ways of older women preying on their young bodies.

Managing Editor of NOQ Report. Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Church of England joins LGBT forces in the culture war and children are the casualties



Church of England

Did you hear about the new set of directives released by the Church of England for schools and teachers concerning gender and gender identity?

In honor of anti-bullying week, the Church of England released an updated version of a 2014 instructional entitled “Valuing All God’s Children.” This new set of rules instructs against so-called homophobia, bi-phobia, and trans-phobia in nursery schools and primary schools.

According to church leadership, preschoolers, kindergarteners, and elementary students should be encouraged to discover their gender identity uninhibited as they “explore the possibilities of who they might be.” Specifically, children are to be taught not to “conform” to traditional male/female “stereotypes.”

Schools must “avoid labels and assumptions which deem children’s behavior irregular, abnormal or problematic just because it does not conform to gender stereotypes … Childhood has a sacred place for creative self-imagining.”

Practically speaking, the guidelines will encourage boys to wear tutus and princess tiaras while encouraging girls to wear tool belts and super hero cloaks in order to help them determine who they might be without “judgement and derision.”

While it’s tempting to dismiss this as England’s problem, the Strident Conservative has documented how the LGBT community and its declared war on Christianity and American culture has already launched similar assaults on children in America’s public schools.

Unfortunately, in America, the Rainbow Jihad has the full support of the government all the way up to the White House.

For example, Barack Obama hosted an event in April, 2016 at the White House aimed at “breaking down gender stereotypes in media and toys.” Much like the Church of England, Obama—with support from Katie Couric, the founder of the gender-neutral start-up Little Bits—promoted the idea that gender is irrelevant and that children should be free to be who they are “without limits.”

While Valerie Jarrett organized the event under the banner of promoting opportunities for girls, Obama’s track record on transgender issues made the affair very LGBT friendly.

And we shouldn’t get comfortable now that Obama is no longer president. Donald Trump—who embraced the LGBT movement at the Republican National Convention in his acceptance speech—announced back in June that his administration would prosecute schools that failed to embrace the LGBT lie concerning transgenderism.

The LGBT culture war is not just an American war. It’s a world war, and as usual, children are the casualties.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The left legislates for secularism against Christianity and it’s one thing they are consistent on



The left legislates for secularism against Christianity and its one thing they are consistent on

On the surface, the left promotes a double standard regarding how business can offer services.  They support a right of the business that sides with Palestine over Israel, and the right of governments to do business with them.  On the other hand, they support laws that force business to have “birth control” in their health plan or make people provide a service to those they are uncomfortable with such as gay couples.  The libido is far more important than your convictions or conscience coupled with the left’s push for population control.

The Stream’s Rachel Alexander scratches the surface to show that what this is really about, is finishing off what famed leftist humanist John J. Dumphy called “the rotting corpse of Christianity.”  That alone makes the left consistent with their agenda and long-term goals.  Those words that Dumphy used were not out of sarcasm, they were out of hated and are a declaration of war against Christ and his body of believers.

The Left’s Hypocrisy on States Regulating Freedom of Expression of Businesses businesses have a right to express their views and practice them accordingly? The left says yes — and no. They say, “It depends.” Liberals tend to say yes when the business takes a position they agree with. They say no if the business takes a viewpoint they disagree with.

In the first case, the left stands for free speech and the first amendment. In the second, the left happily uses state power to curtail the business’s freedom of expression.

There is a rise in targeting Christian businesses.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

NBC News – Having children is immoral



Travis Rieder from NBC News recently published an article titled, “Science proves kids are bad for the Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.” Within the article, Rieder uses a derivative of moral fifteen times. As the great master swordsman Inigo Montoya, in The Princess Bride, eloquently stated, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Case in point, he states, “Humanity grew up in relatively small groups; Rules like “don’t harm others,” or “don’t steal and cheat” are easy to make sense of in a world of largely individual interactions.”

It is interesting that he uses the word “rules” and not morality to describe hurting, stealing or cheating. Why are these rules and not moral standards?

An illustration in explaining this might be helpful. I very much enjoy watching nature documentaries. My favorite ones are the ones produced by BBC Earth. I love the images and the videography and especially the British accent. I wish I had a lovely British accent. It’s so classy and makes you sound super smart, and the tone is captivating. But even with the countless number of documentaries I have seen with those intelligent sounding Brits, I have yet to hear the narrator condemn an animal for hurting, stealing, or cheating.

I have never heard the narrator say that the male bear that is trying to kill the female bear’s cubs so that he could then mate with her an immoral act. Why not? If we’re all just animals why can’t we do that? I mean, aren’t rules made to be broken. Why are you pushing your morals, I’m sorry rules on me. If rules are regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere, then by your own words hurting, stealing, and cheating are not immoral they are just rules to govern our activities in society.

Additionally, the fallacy of Rieder’s argument continues when he states that “Our moral psychology has not yet evolved to solve the problems of today.” Utilizing the logical conclusion of this statement, we would have to conclude that there are no such things as morals and morality. If morals are merely a byproduct of the collective social construct and not a set of unchangeable moral principles, then it is neither moral or immoral to destroy the planet. It’s entirely amoral; as it would be amoral to have as many children as you wanted. Morality is just rules based on what society at a particular time thinks is right or wrong.

Therefore, who are you, Travis Rieder, to tell us what is moral and immoral? If our collective psychology hasn’t yet evolved, then by logical conclusion, society has determined that having as many children as you want is moral and thus you are the immoral one telling us not to have children. It is you, that is going against the grain of society’s moral psychology.

Therefore, Mr. Rieder, you keep using the term morality, but I must say, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”


Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.