Yesterday's piece on the enterprising woman from Livermore, California and her affairs with the two young teenagers stirred controversy; as was my intent.
At Blog STORMBRINGER success is measured when I provoke thought & discourse, on matters of ethical and moral dilemma. Unfortunately my schedule does not always allow my to develop the debate and conversation - yesterday was a pleasant exception. Today is Monday and it's back to the Oar Deck:
"I hate these company pep talks!"
It was suggested I was rationalizing / intellectualizing justification for illegal activity, encouraging pedophilia in our society. I couldn't disagree more strongly: pedophilia is sex with a pre-pubescent child. That is wrong and as far as Blog STORMBRINGER is concerned this is where the death penalty comes in; and the Judicial system does not necessarily need to be involved. What we're discussing here is the concept of statutory rape, which is sex with a post-pubescent adolescent (beneath the age of consent) a.k.a. illicit carnal knowledge; which generally carries a much less severe penalty. The age of consent varies from state to state, of course, going as low as the age of 15 in some states.
I explored the situation from all aspects and looked at it through the prism of the Ancient World (because that's my style) but if you followed my point very carefully you will see that I reached the conclusion that yes in our modern society 13 - 16 year-old adolescents ARE considered children.
So you see I am not some kind of monster who rationalizes away immoral behavior.
The woman's actions WERE extreme; there was something disturbingly predatory in her conduct. If the young men had been a few years older or herself a few years younger perhaps it would seem less outrageous - an older woman taking a younger lover and "showing him the ropes" is not unheard of nor is it necessarily taboo; then later when the young man is with a young woman of his own age, it's not a pair of bumbling virgins in the sack.
What really struck me as outrageous was the number of charges and the high bail; 1.4 million! They really threw the book at her! Meanwhile same-sex marriage is decreed lawful by an activist judge DESPITE the will of the people of California, "medical" marijuana is a thin veil for making it legal to toke up thus stupifying the population, and San Francisco declares itself an "open city" in brazen defiance of Federal immigration laws - and nobody does a thing about it. Just let us know what the rules are so we can go by them. What laws am I allowed to break and what are you going to nail me to the wall for?
- Sean L.
From the Sociology Department of the STORMBRINGER Institute, dedicated to the study & pursuit of Strategic and Philosophical Excellence.
As practiced from the 15th to 20th centuries in Western societies, a duel was a consensual fight between two people, with matched deadly weapons, in accordance with rules explicitly or implicitly agreed upon, over a point of honor, usually accompanied by a trusted representative (who might themselves fight), and in contravention of the law.
The duel usually developed out of the desire of one party (the challenger) to redress a perceived insult to his honor. The goal of the duel was not so much to kill the opponent as to gain “satisfaction,” i.e., to restore one’s honor by demonstrating a willingness to risk one’s life for it.
Duels could be fought with some sort of sword or, from the 18th Century on, with pistols. For this end special sets of dueling pistols were crafted for the wealthiest of noblemen. After the offense, whether real or imagined, the offended party would demand “satisfaction” from the offender, signaling this demand with an inescapably insulting gesture, such as throwing the glove before him, hence the phrase “throwing down the gauntlet”.