Connect with us

Culture and Religion

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

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Culture and Religion

Intellectual ammunition: Mythology vs Facts of ‘gun control’

Published

on

By

Intellectual ammunition Mythology vs Facts of gun control

This multipart series eviscerates some of the Left’s biggest lies and fallacies of Liberty Control

In the first of a new multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

He begins demolishing the myth that increased Liberty control results in lower violent crime rates.

Places with strict controls on freedom with high crime rates – that the Left doesn’t like to talk about – that are prima facie indicators of this absurd fallacy.

Worse yet, laws that are supposed to keep people safe have the opposite effect, since they only serve to disarm the innocent to the advantage of criminals and the government. The edged weapon attacks in China show that it’s not an issue of issue of guns nor one confined to the states. Or the attack in Crimea or the recent tragedy in a state with the strictest Liberty control around.

He cites the specific case of the mythology that gun confiscation ‘solved’ the problem of gun violence in Australia or the UK:

As I noted for MRCTV in February of 2018, contrary to the claims of pop media swamis, violent crime actually increased in Australia for three years following its vaunted 1996 gun “ban” and mandatory “buy-back”. This spike included an increase in gun-related violent crime, and the violent crime did not return to 1996 levels until more than ten years later, when many civilians had resorted to the black market to rearm themselves.

And, as I observed in the same article, violent crime, including homicides and gun-related violent crime, increased in the UK following its government “banning” most firearms in 1997.

Further on in the video and the accompanying article he also destroys the fallacy that Prohibition Works.

This is simple. As the experience of the United States during the “Prohibition Era” has shown, statutes don’t stop people from obtaining the things they demand. I teach economics, and this is an economic axiom. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that if the zones of “prohibition” are widened beyond the crime-ridden-yet-gun-banning cities like Chicago and DC, and applied to all of the US this will stop criminally minded people from obtaining firearms. Prohibition doesn’t work.

But this does not stop gun-grabbers from pushing their proposals, or even misreading the US Constitution to justify their threats to curtail your inherent right to self-defense.

Knowing the propaganda methods of the Left, if there were a real location where their ideas actually worked instead of endangering people, they would tout this ‘gun-free’ domain 24/7. We shall call this mythical realm: ‘Unitopia’ from the combination of the words ‘Unicorn’ and ‘Utopia’, which literally means ‘no place’.

If it truly existed, ‘Unitopia’ would feature broadcast studio’s for every major media source so they could talk about it 24/7. One can easily envision a video feed with the announcer intoning ‘We now go to our anchor in Unitopia – the one place that gun control has kept people safe – to discuss the news on…’. It would be the go-to locale for the discussion of Liberty and self-defense.

Part 2 Will discuss the Constitution and Founders. Their words on the common sense human right of self-defense, as well as detailing the point that only individuals can have rights.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Pro-Israel group has amazing response for upcoming antisemitic conference at UCLA

Published

on

Pro-Israel group has amazing response for upcoming antisemitic conference

We’ve grown accustomed to opposing sides attempting to quash each other. Leftists often do everything they can to prevent conservatives from speaking at universities. Conversely, right-wing extremist groups often show up to intimidate leftist protesters. It’s a sad and dangerous ebb and flow that often seems impossible to resolve.

One might expect a similar reaction from pro-Israel groups when antisemitic groups come to town. Students for Justice in Palestine, a BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel) group that operates on campuses around the nation, is having their 8th annual conference at UCLA from November 16-18.

The response from Stand With Us, a pro-Israel organization, is not what most are accustomed to hearing. Charline Delkhah, Southwest Campus Coordinator for Stand With Us, didn’t call for protests or for the school to shut down the conference as many have done to her organization.

“But because we live in a country where freedom of speech is one of our basic amendments, they’re given the same rights as we would be given those rights to have a conference on any campus.”

As most campus groups work to stifle their opposition, it’s refreshing to see one embracing the 1st Amendment by defending the right to free speech even from those with opposite views.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Midterm results: Elitism lost

Published

on

Midterm Results: Elitism Lost

Beto O’Rourke had $61 million, $19 million more than Ted Cruz and still lost. But not only was Ted Cruz at a financial disadvantage, he was being targeted by many celebrities and large companies. Yet Ted Cruz won.

If we look in Tennessee, we saw Marsha Blackburn win a competitive race against Phil Bredesen. Pop singer Taylor Swift intervened on Bredesen’s behalf calling Blackburn, a woman, anti-women.

In Georgia, Oprah and Will Ferrell knocked on doors for Stacey Abrams. Yet Brian Kemp won. In all three of these races elites of Hollywood and Silicon Valley threw their weight behind a Democratic candidate against either a Republican incumbent or a traditionally red seat.

It’s very clear in these three races that leftist celebrities thought they could use their influence to sway public opinion towards their viewpoints. After seeing the results of Tuesday’s midterm, these efforts were in vain.

France | Weapons and Warfare | Page 2

In medieval history, there was the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302. Flemish rebels laid siege to Courtrai. The French forces led by Artois arrived to lift the siege and wreak havoc on the rebels. The infantry units were sent to attack the Flemmish forces. The rebels were being forced back until Artois pulled his infantry back at the beckoning of his noble allies. Instead of allowing the infantry to finish what they started, Artois deployed the knight and noble class so that they can have the glory. They attacked the Flemmish line that was well obstructed against cavalry. The elite knights perished in what is considered one of the biggest blunders in military history. The cause: elitism.

The drain that elitism posed to the overall effort can be observed in this midterm. As our editor here noted: attention that went to Beto O’Rourke was attention that could have gone elsewhere, to a more competitive race. Beyonce, LeBron, Taylor Swift, Oprah, Will Ferrell, Jack Dorsey, and countless others charged believing that their worldviews were superior to the populations of Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee and came up unsuccessful. The influence of these numerous celebrities was wholeheartedly rejected. It could even be argued that the onslaught of celebrity endorsements had a negative effect on the Democrats efforts. This could certainly be concluded from the victory speech of Ted Cruz. Certainly we can observe, in these races, diminishing returns is alive and well. So many endorsements piled up for Beto O’Rourke, that each additional endorsement turned off more voters than it rallied.

Perhaps this will create a lasting precedent reinforcing the idea articulated by Ben Sharpiro about we the people not caring what celebrities think. But by no means can we can expect Democrats to contemplate the negative effects of elitism in 2020 as we can foresee celebrity endorsements of whoever they nominate.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report