GirlChat #435656

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: 20/20 vid - rational talk from John Stossel

Posted by Dissident on Sunday, March 30 2008 at 09:25:09AM
In reply to 20/20 vid - rational talk from John Stossel posted by Catherine N.X. on Sunday, March 30 2008 at 06:11:52AM

Perhaps it should be noted that Jan Kruska is NOT a friend of MAA's. She has said that she is not an MAA herself (which is very possible) even though the likes of PJ and AZ have called her a "pedophile" (which they interchange with the words 'ephebophile' and 'hebephile,' which would more accurately cover Jan's behavior). Jan insists that she is NOT pro-pedophile or even pro-ephebophilia...she accuses people who think that sexual activity between adults and youths is normal are "sick." She believes that the law should focus on such people while leaving "minor sex offenders" like herself alone, and should especially leave youths who have sex with other youths alone (this I agree with, of course, but the criticism of the sex offender registry should not rest there alone). She will say almost anything to distance herself from us, and from the fact that whether she is an ephebophile or not, she did have an ephebophiliac relationship over 20 years ago. She should see by the behavior of Petra Luna, AZ, and PJ that ANYONE who has a mutually consensual relationship with a minor, even if they are other minors, are fair game for the "anti-pedophile" crowd. She doesn't seem to respect the issue of consent for EVERYONE, even though she wants it applied to HERSELF. Maybe because there was "only" a seven year age difference between her and her 15 year old lover? The matter should be that he CONSENTED, and has defended her to this day, period, and NOT the number of years between the two of them. It shouldn't matter if two people who have mutually consensual love with each other are seven years or seventy years apart, it should all come down to CONSENT and RESPECT for the ability of young people to give consent and to choose to have loving relationships with others, including but not limited to adults. But Jan doesn't think those who feel it's "normal" to have such relationships should be off that registry or forgiven by society? Does she know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"? Is it perhaps because she is a mom that she is not so keen on defending consent in general anymore? It makes me wonder.

I didn't mean for this post to rain on the parade of those who rightly support Jan Kruska. I just think we should consider EVERYTHING about those whom we support. I would be more impressed, honestly, if I saw John Stossel defending Jack McClellan. But I admit, it has to start somewhere, as I'm sure someone will remind me for making this post. I'm sorry again if this post was a downer amidst a sea of positivity and hope.


Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?