Courage is not about grabbing one’s own child, of course; courage is about authentically taking on the problem. That not only requires calling upon the virtue of the person with the desires, it also requires calling upon the virtue of the community- both of which have failed. His failure is obvious. Our failure is creating a culture where, as I said, once he acquired that first piece he could never win because no matter how he exercised virtue in restraint (and by far the best virtue would have been to declare a crisis right at the beginning, before acquiring anything) our response is somewhere on the continuum between maim & kill slowly and “big whoop”.

Huh? Ms, we’re talking about child pornography which involves images of kids being abused. So maybe Hassler didn’t lay a hand on a girl himself. Big whoop. He outsourced the abuse, and got his thrills from watching what he didn’t do himself. That’s not virtue or self-restraint, that’s cowardice.

I question the slippery-slope arguement (and there are some good statistics for that- it is definately not a settled question) and still think that if a person with this problem contained his criminal behavior to pornography, that was a win. A win while losing big time, but stll a win.

This, “Did he think of me sexually?” Maybe he did; who cares. I think the proper response to the young woman is You think of lots of people sexually that you shouldn’t, and all we grade you on is your behavior. I do not like this idea of encouraging victimhood over the possibility that you might be seen as sexual; the only next answer to that is to put on a burkha.

This is a gross misunderstanding of the issue. First off, I’ll say I was the victim of more than one pedophile in my childhood so I can understand this rage from that aspect, too. Having this “Did he think of me sexually?” reaction is totally valid. A kid getting lusted after is NOTHING like an adult being lusted after. Two adults having a one sided or mutual lust is okay because both the adults have the agency to understand and control the situation appropriately (hopefully). It is expected that your peers may try and get you in the sack so you put up appropriate boundaries…assuming the sack is not somewhere you wish to end up.

Kids don’t have this, especially against a teacher. Kids trust their teachers and let down certain barriers they might have with other people because it is (supposed to be) a given that a students doesn’t have to worry about a teacher trying to do things with them sexually. The same thing goes for adults in general when it comes to kids.

When you hear a teacher was a pedophile who at least had child pornography, you wonder if that teacher was really just being nice or if they were trying to “get” something from you. Did they come and talk to you when you had a bad day because they cared or because they wanted to sleep with you? For smaller kids, it’s even worse because they understand so much less than younger teens. This distinction makes a difference. It makes kids feel like they have to consider if their teacher is trying to “hit on” them, and this totally destroys the student/teacher trust structure. It doesn’t even necessarily stop at the very young.

Sophomore year of college I had a professor hit on me for the first time during his office hours and I was distraught and disappointed afterwards on a deep level. I never asked him for help or talked to him about the material again that semester. Yeah, I’m nineteen, etc, etc, but the student/teacher trust was broken. I had to consider that if I came to office hours again I’d have to wonder if he was genuinely interested in helping me or just trying to get me to meet him for a drink off campus. If I turned him down would it affect my grade? The kind of trust people give teachers is like the trust you give your parents, in my opinion, and even when actions aren’t “illegal” they can still be wrong and harmful.

So, it’s not about girls feeling like they should have to suppress their sexualities and dress from head to toe, but feeling like they should be able to trust their teachers not to try and cross the line with them. Hassler being a pedophile in itself is not the problem. I agree that people with pedophilic urges should be able to get help without fear of persecution. The point is he already crossed the line of illegality by possessing child porn (the illegality makes it separate from men who buy regular porn). When it comes to sexual crimes, the first illegal act tends to be a slippery slope to justifying more illegal acts in the same vein. So, I think their feelings were justified.

PS - I don’t think anyone is being encouraged to feel victimized as it was a girl who told Hugo she felt that way. No one told her to feel that way.

Sex offenders as individuals have been made the scapegoat not just for the failures of communities in specific regards to sex crimes (so often the people who helped the sex crime take place get to label themselves as co-victims rather than co-conspirators), but for the failures of individuals and the community as a whole. The level of rage isn’t about the sex crime, it is just the new version of communists or whowever else is responsible for all sin.

What enrages me, as the victim of a pedophile (which is only relevant insofar as it somewhat explains “rage”), about this, is the lie that this undifferentiated rage is about the sex crime. Because honest rage would lead to honest action. This dishonesty just puts more power into the dishonesty required to allow sex crimes.

So, there are two things specifically about the post that enrage me. The first is just the general topic: once the guy bought his first piece of child porn, there was nowhere he could go. We have made it impossible for someone whose nuclear power plant of sexual energy says “children” to get help privately (therapy), or in any slightly less private setting to seek the help and support of close friends. (Contrast this with the known epileptic who recently killed two people with his automobile, but medical privacy prevents a doctor from contacting the DMV.)

Second is the idea that thoughts and behaviors are the same thing, and that girls/women should be quivering innocents afraid of men’s sexual thoughts (when they are actual innocents, they don’t know of them, after they are not innocent, they are not innocent). The man behaved honorably where he acted appropriately with his students; he behaved dishonerably where he purchased the porn. This, “Did he think of me sexually?” Maybe he did; who cares. I think the proper response to the young woman is You think of lots of people sexually that you shouldn’t, and all we grade you on is your behavior. I do not like this idea of encouraging victimhood over the possibility that you might be seen as sexual; the only next answer to that is to put on a burkha.

But if what goes on behind those doors is deceptive, exploitative, illegal or cruel, then sooner or later, those young people whose trust I seek will pay a public price for my own private misdeeds.

Truer words aren’t spoken, Hugo, and is why I place no trust in the Republicrat parties - I find it hypocritical he and deplorable the way they excuse the misdeeds of their own in the name of political expediency. It’s also why I don’t take mainstream feminism seriously - it’s only fringes which came out in unequivocated condemnation of Bill’s behavior - and that just includes the confirmed stuff, let alone the allegations, all of which are most likely only the tip of the iceberg.

And the word “unequivocal” is important - at a certain point one has to say “This is fruit from a poisonous tree.”

Though as far as your point goes, I agree. In my experience, the private life of educators especially, is never truly private.

However, the secret lives of a wayward few also give people a healthy sense of suspicion. Perhaps I’m being a bit cynical, but not all people are good people, and some bad people are impressively deceptive.

I’m not sure where I was going with any of those ideas anymore. -insert traditional week before finals excuse-