Posts by tekno

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

    Erm, that's what I said. :S

    "People are not inherently able to make wise choices, they need to learn how to do so."

    No children are not inherently able to make wise choice. Whereas adults are more than capable when given the right tools and opportunity...

    Quote from Coyote

    To an extent, I agree, but recognising that empowerment needs to be gradual after experiencing a scaling grade of danger and in a more generally hostile environment (rather than raising people as cotton wooled spoiled brats before dumping onto them an environment they lack the tools to judge - specifically the normalising of hard drugs).

    Arse-biscuits and flap-doodle! If you had looked at the report I posted a link to a few posts back you may start to understand why I am finding this theory of yours hard to digest. Although we both agree that a lot of people today do make irresponsible choices; and are alienated not just in work; from each other but also from the very concept of responsibility; this can only be remedied (IMO) by handing back responsibility for one's own health and body to the individual. It is not the place of the state to tell consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

    Quote from Coyote

    We have a society that is immeasurably more open about sex than in the last couple of hundred years. :eek: How you can say all these people are ignorant about sex boggles the mind. Many things that were once "shameful" are now increasingly common place and accepted.

    Yes we are more open as a society about sex; but the way we 'educate' our young about sex is fooking shameful; especially when you take into account how sexualised our society is. Talk about conflicting messages; children see sex everywhere; but parents in this country rarely speak openly with their children about sex from an early age (I am talking age 5 upwards). Not sure how aware you are of what is actually taught in schools about sex; let me assure you it is not that good. I know an 11 year old who believed that you can get pregnant by kissing. So please go and learn a bit about how little our children really know about sex; and also the responsibilities that come with it. :rolleyes:

    Quote from Coyote

    How can I clarify it? It says what it says. The argument changes to suit their own biases.

    What arguments? Personally I think the intentions/reasons for/results of drug taking and deciding to sexually abuse a child to be so wildly different that I can't see why you have brought the subject (of child abuse) up (especially as it is a very sensitive subject for some). Why can't you quote statistics on child abuse and be pro-legalisation? Please clarify.

    Quote from coyote

    Yup...the side that supports your own behaviour :)

    Of course that is exactly what I do; I never look at any research that says that any drug is bad; I never read any research published by the Home Office; Oh pleaser Lee I may be a (occasional) drug taker, but I am also quite an intelligent, reasonable, responsible human being. Please try to remember that.

    Quote from coyote

    No, I am well aware of the way removing controls makes people more careful (as I said). I'm saying that you dont do that with things that are addictive and mind altering. You argument smacks of those selling the emperor a new suit of clothes.....

    Why not? Literally millions of people are already doing so; millions more are going to try it. Humans do seem to be drawn to certain pleasures; just like many other mammal groups we enjoy altering our reality. Why are you so against regulating this in the same way we do with other drugs? My argument may smack of those selling the emperors new clothes to you; whereas your argument to me is so bogged down by dogmatic beliefs that are usually espoused by the right-wing media that you (like them) will never see the evidence that is staring you in the face... the war on drugs is not and will never work.

    People are not inherently able to make wise choices, they need to learn how to do so. They can only do that in a gradually increasing level of danger, so that mistakes can be made when the impact is going to be less serious. We do not live in such a society today. We live in one which suffers two key problems; too little 'general' danger (danger focuses the mind away from trivialities) and too much/easy ability to find gratification. So we live in a sweet shop and have far too much protection in general, the former being a great temptation whilst the latter means we have too little opportunity to learn responsibility with lower lever dangers. Legalising yet more drugs in that environment would be throwing 'spoiled' kids into an environment they are ill prepared for.

    In your opinion. IMO people are able to grow into beings who are more then able of making rational decisions; when given the tools to do so. But again you are taking an analogy waaay to far. Like I said before you cannot 'parent/nanny' a society; even if you do think that it has regressed in certain ways. The two main problems as I see it is alienation and a lack of empowerment...

    Quote from Coyote

    teen pregnancies, unsustainable credit card debt, and voting for politicians out of the desire for short-term gain, all to be examples of responsible behaviour? What is really ironic is the number of people who claim that 1 in 4 children suffer sexual abuse (calling for quite invasive responses) also like to claim that society is simultaneously trustworthy as regards drug taking. How's that for a contradiction. :S

    Oh come on! You are seriously saying that teenage pregnancy is a result of people just being irresponsible. Wow how very short sighted of you; how about expanding upon it a wee bit, how about saying teenage pregnancy is a result of a) teenagers like to experiment with sex; b) a result of living in a highly sexualised society that thinks that sex should not be discussed in an open way with children from an early age; c) contraception malfunctions; d) the lure for some young girls of getting away from their own home. Although you do raise a point about the credit card debt you again cannot say the way people vote is a product of irresponsibility; rather a reflection of a voting system that is utter shite. I do not understand what you mean by this statement 'What is really ironic is the number of people who claim that 1 in 4 children suffer sexual abuse (calling for quite invasive responses) also like to claim that society is simultaneously trustworthy as regards drug taking.'... Care to clarify? :)

    Quote from Coyote

    We at least test people's skill and basic judgement before we let them drive, and I count smoking and drinking to be drug taking as well (but then I also count sugar and caffiene as drugs).

    Ok so we test people how often once a year, every five years... how many times in a persons driving life time are they tested? And I am very glad you recognise both caffeine and sugar as drugs; my eight year old does too... ;)

    Quote from Coyote

    I have taken 'some' drugs (although granted not as many as most on here it seems....) and spoken to others who have taken them. The whole point of them is that they affect your judgement and experiences. :S

    Yes that is true; but again you seem to think this maens something quite different from the majority of drugs users I have come into contact with, professionals in the drug field, police chiefs, scientists... I know whose version I will be listening too.

    Quote from coyote

    ]I am well aware that danger increases responsibility*. That is actually a big part of my point. The thing I'm also saying though is that you dont have people learning responsibility through using substances that are both addictive and skew perception and judgement. You need to learn it before you get to the point of using such things. A road crossing does not mess with your judgements and perceptions so its nonsensical to say "look they can cross the road by themselves, so they should be allowed drugs" :rolleyes: There is still a significant gap between those two things.

    Oh ffs Lee you are really missing my point. Oxford Circus X was a well known road traffic hot spot, the decision to take away not only the lights, markings on the road, but also the concerete barriers that were causing pedestrians to be blocked in; was met with cries of 'but you will increase the likihood of people getting knocked over'; or 'we need traffic lights to know when to cross'. But it seems to be the case that if you treat motorists like twats they behave like twats... if you take responsibility away from people they behave irresponsibly. It really is that simple. There is no increased danger; but an increased sense of one's responsibility to look out for yourself and others.

    If you want people to learn responsibility, you start with less dangerous things and build them up to more dangerous things; kind of like how you start children with round-nosed plastic scissors and build them up to chain saws. :D

    But you cannot compare the running of a society with parenting; that has been where so many governments have been going wrong. Running a society should be just that; not interfering to such a level that people feel that they are alienated from running their own lives and having the ability to be able to make informed decisions once they 'come of age' taken away from them; how can this help a build a society that enables people to feel they are able to make their own choices and to be able to make the right choices? It doesn't... we see examples of that every day.

    Quote from Coyote

    Highly addictive mind-altering substances are not the "entrance level" of responsibility tuition. People need to learn responsibility in less dangerous matters that do not themselves play such games with your judgement to start with. :S

    Excuse me? People show that they do have a level of responsibility; you can't say any different. To suggest that you know that 'people need to learn responsibility in less dangerous matters' is actually quite laughable; for these reasons. Firstly whose definition of responsibility are we using here; you have shown many times that your definition is not quite the same as everybody else's; showing quite nicely that these things can be relative... Secondly, do you not think that 'people' are given loads of responsibility in situations that are far more dangerous than taking drugs? I can think of a few, yet you are not calling for driving, smoking or drinking (oh and lets not forget that both smoking and drinking alter your perception/judgement too) to be made illegal. Thirdly, seeing as you have (probably) never taken the drugs you say 'play games with your judgement' how do you know that is what they do, or for how long they would 'play games with your judgement' for... Sorry but this is a pretty weak argument; and for a topic that is as serious as this is (we are talking about peoples health, liberty and other serious stuff after all) it is a shame to bring up these arguments again. Like Medusa said we all need to start listening to each other, and looking at the facts of the matter in a way that allows us to deal with this issue in a way that brings around some form of meaningful change...

    Quote from Coyote

    Society needs re-parenting because its been systematically messing the job up, and that will mean nannying going on (because nanny's job was to protect children until they learned how to be adults). Personally, though, I dont think its possible in anything like our current society (see the "Excess of Pleasure" thread) so we are stuck with nannying so long as we live in a sweet shop.

    OMG! You are worse than Tony Blair!?! I know this may seem a bit OT but bear with me; what do you think of the Oxford Circus X? Personally I think its a great idea; I also think lots of Londoners agree, it really works. So an area of London that was once famed for RTA's seems to becoming a safer place for both pedestrians and cyclists... who have thought it... give people responsibility and they act in a way that benefits their social group... Sorry Coyote you do have a really negative view of 'people' and their ability to show any level of responsibility, this becomes evident in threads like this.

    For anyone who is interested I found this interesting document (from the Home Office) about drug use (not addiction) in the UK 2009/10.

    Quick update

    The police have now apologised for the incident saying "With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been far more appropriate to have made the inquiries from Nicky in the presence of his mother. I deeply regret and apologise for the impact that it might have had on Nicky and his family. I would like to reassure people that our contact with Nicky was primarily to make him aware of the risks and have an idea of the scale of the protest."

    Yes it may have also been more appropriate to send a normal 'bobby'; rather than a anti-terrorist police officer... etc..etc.. :rolleyes:

    It would be political suicide for the ConDems to sanction the use of water cannons in future student (we all have to remember that a lot of the people involved in these demos are school children; I've seen photos of the damage water cannons cause adults... :eek:) protests. Personally I think the only reason this is even be mentioned is to scare people off...

    I saw this too; and have made a complaint to the IPCC... What I found really disgusting about this interview; was the interviewer trying to justify the Met's reaction by saying "is it not true that you were rolling towards the police?" WTF?? :curse:No you arrogant twat that would mean that his chair was out of control as Jody can only wheel himself around for short periods of time!!! And even if his brother was wheeling him towards the police how much of a threat did Jody pose??

    Obviously the Beeb don't like being called 'left-wing' :rolleyes:

    The sad thing about this is the fact that despite the complaints very little is likely to happen to the [strikethrough]fucking thugs[/strikethrough] Met officers who did this... We all know they can (literally) get away with murder; so what's this compared to that? :wall:

    :eek: :panic:

    :ditto: :)

    Quote from Coyote

    Whilst there is certainly a degree of re-definition happening, I'm also of the opinion that the main problem is that in the presence of such it is actually quite natural to take a "I cant help it, its so shinyyyy" response....that being our natural response from having lived in an environment where we were not immersed in ++PLEASURE!! the way we are today.

    Hmmmm *ponders*... right I think I really do not understand what you are saying here. It's probably because of massive sleep deprivation on my part (bloody insomnia); but could you please explain in layman's terms (my head is feeling really fuzzy and I no understandy the big wordys) what you are trying to say to me. Thanking you in advance :)

    Quote from Coyote

    Categorical agreement on that. :)

    :panic: :faint: Wow a Marxist and a conservative actually agreeing on stuff... who'd have thunked it eh? ;)

    Quote from Coyote

    I think its done for that reason in part, but also about of a kind of widespread foolishness/ignorance as well. So there is a "conspiratorial" aspect of it, where it is certainly made use of by govt, but also a "we are our own worst enemy" aspect as well.

    Yeah I suppose people can be easily led. And we all like things that make our lives more pleasurable... BUT (at last a point where we may disagree) couldn't it be said that the 'start point' of our society's shift to mass production and crass commercialism came after the 2WW. Which is also (funnily enough) when our dietary habits also started changing, as well as the way we buy food. I don't really believe that there is a 'widespread foolishness or ignorance'; but rather that there has been an evident dumbing down of some sections of society... which also happens to be the part of society that also happen those who consume the most processed foods... But saying that we are all to some degree 'guilty' of finding aspects of commercialism pleasurable.. aren't we? lol!

    Quote from Coyote

    I'm hopin for a "Survivors" event but where the illness is spread by processed food :D

    Are you sure that'd be a good scenario? Neither of us eat processed foods... :reddevil:

    Whilst I tend to agree here (:eek: there is a lot of agreeing going on here :D) I'd also wonder if we are inherently tuned to find certain things pleasurable which in a natural environment occur quite sparsely but which in a modern one are produced en masse and which then overwhelm our environment.

    Hold onto your hat!! I'm going to agree with you again! There is substantial evidence to support the idea that we (humans) are inherently tuned to find certain things pleasurable; for instance alcohol. There is no problem (as we both know) if it is consumed sensibly. The same can be said of illicit drugs that are naturally found in the natural environment. Not only humans enjoy this but many other mammalian species do too.. The problem arises out of excessive use exasperated by mass production. But the real problem; as far as I see it, is the 're-definition' of what is pleasure. We live in a society that seems to believe that material possesions are our greatest scource of pleasure. That without game consoles, TV's, mobile phones that cost a bomb (both in financial and ecological terms) our children will not be happy. Although the internet and mobile phone technology is good for communication (to a degree); it still seems that many of the pleasurable activities many enjoy today are actually stopping them from having any real human contact, it doesn't help people to create a sense of collectivism... only the 'I' seems to matter. But like I said earlier what better form of social control is there?

    Quote from Coyote

    I actually wonder if it will really change unless we have a dramatic incoming affect, whether that be a "Benevolent Dictatorship" or an environmental/social collapse which takes away access to the "sweets".

    I'm kinda hoping for the latter (with emphasis on social collapse; it seems like the best way forward)... :D

    If Facebook asks "Are you 13 or older" and you click "yes" when you are not, yes that is lying. Is that not self-evident? :S

    I didn't ask if it was lying or not; I clearly said it was. What I was asking is does that one lie show that you are a totally *dishonest* person... Which is different from what you are saying.

    Quote from Coyote

    When it's one persons word against another, it's an important part.

    It's a shame that the school have not been willing to give a statement... but I do wonder what it means if they are 'dealing with this internally'... ;)

    That begs the question of whether he told the truth. He must have lied to get on to Facebook in the firstplace (he's 12 and they require you be 13), which marks against him from the very start.

    What?? My nearly nine year old has a fb account (which I have total control of) so that she can chat to her grandparents who live in Scotland, and aunt who is in the States...and her dad who is all over the place (geographically speaking)... so is she or I dishonest as we lied to get this account set up for her? I think that is a pretty poor basis to be judging whether or not a claim of police intimidation is true or not...

    If it's true it's disgusting but, as always, there are probably two sides to the story and a good deal of scare mongering by the local and national press - this was the comment from the local police

    If you got the paragraph that contained the police's statement from The Guardian (its printed in there; the last paragraph) you will have missed this statement from the boy concerned...


    "In my lesson, [a school secretary] came and said my head of year wanted to talk to me. She was in her office with a police officer who wanted to talk to me about the protest. He said, 'if a riot breaks out we will arrest people and if anything happens you will get arrested because you are the organiser'."He said even if I didn't turn up I would be arrested and he also said that if David Cameron was in, his armed officers will be there 'so if anything out of line happens ...' and then he stopped."…zed-cameron-office-picket

    As the article I read contained both statements you can see that the boy was taken out of his class (usually only done if you are in trouble/something has gone wrong); both the boy and the police officer are reported to said this is what happened. The only difference in the statements are that the boy's is a lot more truthful IMO. And you don't think that being told at aged 12 that you could be arrested for organisng a demo; or that armed police could be present is not intimidation? I am not at all surprised that the police officer involved was a bit more vague about what was actually said to the boy.

    Well, conservative with a small "c" has a strong collectivist streak (which many who call themselves "conservative" today lack) :D

    Which is a real shame...

    Indeed. I'm not against pleasure, but I am against being awash in it on the grounds that it is socially and personally destructive.

    I have to agree with this statement; but also point out that it is what people are being encouraged (from a very young age) to find pleasurable that is the problem. We have a generation who believe that pleasure comes from a screen instead of a conversation or a walk in the park. Who would rather eat more fat and salt than is good for them because they believe they do not have the time to prepare a meal.

    I wonder if we have the stamina to do that again and again, or whether it is our nature to "break" because we are not suited to a world with an excess of pleasure. So instead of needing to keep questioning over and over and over again, do we need a phenomenal change in our environment achieved whilst some still have the stamina to question....before it wears them down too?

    Hmmm interesting question. We do need a phenomenal change in our environment; as any collectivist thinking person knows 'conditions determine consciousness'... maybe I am going to see this slightly differently as a result of the social circles I move in... but I think more of us are passing down our 'anti consumerist' ways to another generation... my nearly nine year old is often disgusted at what people throw away, or are willing to pay for consumer goods. And this I think is the way forward, tell the next generation that we have been had... that for generations people have been fooled into thinking that we need consumer good, fast food, etc etc...

    Wow you almost sound like a Marxist! To some degree you are right; people IMO are fed crap food (fast is bad we all know that), so much 'entertainment' that involves spending inordinate time sitting in front of a screen not interacting with any other humans, et al. Personally I think this has been one of the most successful attempts at social control ever conceived. And again I agree that this could only be achieved as many, many people are in alienating jobs, many of them in places that are producing/serving the good that are part of this vicious cycle. People do need to question more... do I really need this or do I just want it?

    Hmmm the students are revolting; can't say I blame them. Not only has the amount you have to borrow increased (not such a daunting thing for some people; as usually mummy or daddy can help) meaning you will be in debt for much longer; yes I know that students don't have to pay it back until they earn > 21 k.... but how many students will earn much more than that after they graduate? Also many universities are trimming back arts courses (I know for fact that Sussex has already done this). The funding for arts and humanities lecturers has gone!! (…-sciences-may-be-cut.html) Which obviously means that many of the subjects in this area will just vanish from many universities (rather than senior (non lecturing university staff taking a pay cut/freeze)... So now 16 - 17 year olds are being told a) in order to get a degree you have to agree to getting into 25 k of debt (not including the overdrafts that all students have thrown at them), b) also what you can study may be more limited than in previous years. This is not going to just affect the 30,052 people from 'low-income' families who attend uni'... but also many families that are working/lower middle class... the groups of society that are more likely these days to steer away from getting into debt...

    Just wait til the affects that the cuts in HB/LHA kick in... as well as the rise in VAT... oh and... and... and... it will make the student demo's look like a walk in the park. ;)

    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.... it was really good... which was a really pleasant surprise as I thought that the last two films were pretty awful... I think I enjoyed it so much as it was the first HP film I could take the youngling to the cinema to watch... I think she enjoyed most of it... but could be slightly traumatised after seeing the demise of one of her fav' characters...

    We live in crazee times people...we have Boris the Tory speaking out against the HB cap and 90% of Guardian readers supporting it (has anyone else been reading the comments on the guardian website... scary stuff :eek:)... :S

    Now I wasn't expecting number five... but apart from that its pretty spot on.

    [FONT=&quot]Secular Humanism (100%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Unitarian Universalism (91%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Liberal Quakers (80%)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Nontheist (67%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (64%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Neo-Pagan (64%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Theravada Buddhism (62%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]New Age (56%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Taoism (47%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Orthodox Quaker (43%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Reform Judaism (43%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Mahayana Buddhism (42%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Scientology (34%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]New Thought (31%) [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Baha'i Faith (29%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Jainism (27%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Sikhism (27%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (23%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (18%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Seventh Day Adventist (16%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Hinduism (13%)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Jehovah's Witness (13%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (12%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Eastern Orthodox (10%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Islam (10%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Orthodox Judaism (10%) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Roman Catholic (10%) [/FONT]

    But what about people who do work but have a low wage; claim top-up housing benefit and are under 35??? This is a crazy move... and for onve I think I'm quite lucky to be a single parent... :eek:

    That's not what you originally said.

    Could you please explain how I have chaned what I am saying. I really am not trying to wind you up but I have re-read what I typed and really can't see what you mean. Would you mind being a bit more specific? :)

    What I'm taking issue with is you labelling it "sexist" to hold the view that the genders may - as a rule - respond differently to sexual contact as young adults with older people. That might be a view that you disagree with, but it's hardly "sexist". That would depend on the situation and what you choose to characterise as "abuse". Given that our society IS sexist, and given that girls are generally more emotionally vulnerable than boys (whether you view that as social or biological....), it's hardly "sexist" to suggest that in certain circumstances, they are more prone to harm. That's demonstrated quite clearly by the fact that it IS generally females who are sexually predated upon.

    But thats my point Stu; seeing that we *do* live in a sexist society and as a result socalise males and females in many different ways; all of which can be shown to have an affect on how males and females respond to certain situations. The thinking that males are less affected or that abuse perpertrated by women against males is not as serious as it would be if the genders were reversed; is another by-product of living in a sexist society. Not going to prattle on about all the papers/books etc that I have read on the subject but I do *know* that I am not alone in this way of thinking... or that it is even just how I see this. How do we know (without having first hand experience) that males *are* generally less emotionally vunerable in abusive (as defined by law) situations. Couldn't this be seen as being more of a result of socalisation and cultural expectations rather than biology? Most males are socailised in ways that would expect them to be able to brush off/ boast/ enjoy sexual contact with people much older than themselves. Paul said it much better than I did so I should stop here.

    No. Nothing is that black and white.

    Exactly :)

    What a load of shite. You might not agree with the reasoning, but resorting to calling it "sexist" is infantile. Suggesting that differences between the genders exist - whether for social or biological reasons - is no more "sexist" than pointing out that boys have dicks and girls don't.

    By all means argue your point, but please don't resort to slandering those who disagree with you with unfounded "isms".

    Whoa Reeda... I am not saying that Coyote is sexist... Why is it infantile (nice choice of wording there) to believe that there shouldn't be any difference between how we see and deal with abuse across genders? I am not saying that there are no differences between males and females caused either by biology or social conditioning. What I am saying is that to my mind (and I am sure that I am not alone in this thinking) is that it is a form of sexist thinking to believe that males who are abused (in whatever form) by a female finds it easier to brush off.... and not be traumatised by the event. Why should males be less affected by this? Would all males be less affected? Sorry if I am rubbing you up th ewrong way, tis not my intention... But I do find this kind of thinking very puzzling.

    Nope. No one is mentioning abuse. You appear to be bringing it in to direct the arguement into the idea that this *is* abuse and then throwing rocks at a Paedo Aunt Sally :whistle:

    Pardon? I thought the name of this thread was 'Is It Sexual Abuse'.... Also I was agreeing with and also expanding a point made by another forum member... so yes abuse has already been mentioned in this thread. Like I said already I cannot say that this case is an example of sexual abuse or not... as I do not know the details... but I wouldn't say that either of these *boys* would find it easier to brush off... with no lasting trauma... ;)

    But what I am saying is that there should be no difference in how the law/society treats/thinks of abuse (in whatever form) based on the gender of who is perpetrating/experiencing abuse...

    So if I am throwing rocks at anything it is at the belief that somehow a woman having sex with an under-age pupil who is male is somehow less serious/damaging than if it was a male teacher having sex with an under-aged girl. As this is a form of sexism in itself. And I like throwing rocks at sexist thinking cos its stoopid! :D

    Biology, history and culture. A 15 year old boy, having sex with his older female teacher, is far more likely to be able to brush it off and have no lasting "trauma", as compared to a male teacher with either a female pupil or (even more so) a male one.

    It certainly seems that way ;)