Monday, August 9, 2010


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”.



  1. Honestly, if she claimed to be a transexual Muslim man (trapped in a female body), and that the sex was "honor" sex, or some other cultural thing, she'd have this all sewn up, so to speak.

    Throw in the fact that, I am just sure she forgot to mention it, she's also an illegal alien... well, they'll fall over themselves to get her a medical pot card, an SEIU membership, squatter rights to an "abandoned" house, and some stimulus cash ASAP. Hell, I am sure she was diddled by a Catholic priest, right? And what about the fact that the boys might have called her dirty names, a hate crime in CA, and perhaps were a bit rough with her anyway.

    She's an undocumented victim if ever there were. Why is she the one in jail and not the rest of us for letting this happen? It's California afterall.

  2. Philistine wins the Comment Award, but I would add -
    the main issue is not so much the physical ability of the child / teen ( to me, at my age, anybody under 30 is a kid...) to engage in sexual activity while giving consent. The issue is, IMHO, that people of that age group are not emotionally or mentally developed to the point that they can give 'informed' consent... they can only respond to the pleasant urges or demands of their bodies, which is not at all the same as rationally deciding to engage in the act with the other person.
    Emotionally - yes, of course we say to one another, Hey, I wish some hot gal had offered to shag ME when I was ( fill in the age blank);
    but can anyone predict how deep or long lasting the scars may be when the youngster finds that the relationship cannot be long term, that there is no 'happy ever after' ? That the love that he or she was seeking, is not fulfilled, but rather, that they have been used merely to satisfy the desires of an older person?
    Just food for thought.

    BTW - what did you think of that woman who recently looked up the son she had given up for adoption, found him on Facebook or Myspace, then seduced him?

  3. When I was 16 I had an "adventurous" 18yo GF. I never reported her to anybody but my friends, bragging. Dunno why she liked me but I DID NOT COMPLAIN. :-)