Jilted Ex-Boyfriend Puts Up Abortion Billboard

[Errata]

Now please take this in the spirit it is intended.....

I honestly think that this old island is perhaps a bit further down the line than the US socially.....certainly looking back through this thread it seems an 18 yo in the US is a potential victim that has to be protected from "predators" while a 18 yo in the UK is probably someone men should fear. I would say a 18 yo is just as likely to go after an older man than the other way about.....mainly because of the maturity difference between an 18 yo male and an 18 yo female.

Perhaps the fact that the age of consent here is 16 and the legal age to get into pubs is 18 might have a part to play. I think many kids are sexually active at 14 and drinking in pubs or clubs at 16/17.

Well, as the old saying goes, 100 years is a long time in America, and 100 miles is a long way to go in Britain.

We are young. We have always been a country that recognizes adolescence, where clearly you guys have not. And adolescence being a social construct more than it is a biological stage, there are a lot of gray areas.

I would be remiss if you came away from this thinking that we only view the young as being subject to predators. And a predator is merely someone who will say and do whatever is required to get what they want from you. A younger woman who woos and wins an older man she actually finds repulsive just so she can plunder his bank account is as much a predator as an older man who woos and wins a young girl he finds annoying just so he take her virginity.

I think 14 is way too young to be sexually active. I have always had a few rules as to when you are ready to have sex, and no 14 year old has ever passed the little quiz. Some 20 years olds don't either, but that doesn't argue that they are ready either. Certainly if you are too young to legally get a job (which here is 15) to support a baby you might accidentally make, you shouldn't be having sex.

I don't particularly want to treat adolescents as though they are idiots, although they are. But if the part of the brain that comprehends consequences isn't fully formed until your early 20s, maybe it's not so out of line to treat them as though they don't have the best decision making skills. You can't keep someone from doing something they really want to do. All you can do is warn them and pick up the pieces afterwards. Which we do. But I don't think 18 year olds know themselves well enough to protect themselves. We don't do it for them, we can't. But we aren't shy about voicing our opinion either.

[DirectorDave]

I don't think most people would think too much on a 25 year old man and an 18 year old college student. I think if she were still in High School in would not be okay.

I think a 36 year old man and an 18 year old girl should raise some serious questions. Like why doesn't he want to date someone with whom he has a generational reference? Like a 30 year old woman? There is not an insignificant number of men who like to control women, it's how their parent's relationship is, and significantly younger women are easier to control. Sometimes, it's simple modeling of behavior with no ill intent. Sometimes it becomes malicious and abusive. And sometimes it's just a tragedy all the way around.

The view of men that I am talking is reinforced in movies and television all the time. "Men are only interested in one thing" "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile". Everything from 50's surfer flicks to movies like American Pie have this message. And of course it isn't true, and we know that, but when we are taken advantage of it feels like we were prepared for the notion that men are pigs. I don't think young men are at all prepared to be taken advantage of by a woman. They are prepared for greedy, grasping women by the stereotypes, but not women who use sex and love to manipulate and hurt. Men are not used to the idea that they can be abused.

Not all extreme age differences result in abuse. But many do, enough do that it is worth waiting for both parties to be mature, well adjusted adults who are secure in their sense of self. It is too easy even for the most well intentioned older partner to swallow the younger whole.

As an 18 year old.....I think I was interested in girls, football and partying.....not necessarily in that order. I think perhaps looking back on the posts on this thread the gender gap in the US is perhaps wider than in the UK.

I am a bit disturbed that that is how men are portrayed.....if that is what young girls are told of men a young male might believe that is how he is expected to behave, and thus it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

Now please take this in the spirit it is intended.....

I honestly think that this old island is perhaps a bit further down the line than the US socially.....certainly looking back through this thread it seems an 18 yo in the US is a potential victim that has to be protected from "predators" while a 18 yo in the UK is probably someone men should fear. I would say a 18 yo is just as likely to go after an older man than the other way about.....mainly because of the maturity difference between an 18 yo male and an 18 yo female.

Perhaps the fact that the age of consent here is 16 and the legal age to get into pubs is 18 might have a part to play. I think many kids are sexually active at 14 and drinking in pubs or clubs at 16/17.

Certainly in Scotland I would say the father is the ceremonial head of the household but the real power (decision making & financial) lies with the mother.....there are exceptions of course but in my opinion I was brought up in a matriarchal society.

I'm generalising a lot above of course......and I'm sure there are people in the UK that would interpret things differently.

[Errata]

Interesting take on things Errata....

(I am generalising here)

I must say in the UK I do not think an older man who is in a relationship with a younger girl is seen as "predatory".....it's kinda looked on as "normal". I think it is generally accepted that females mature quicker than males.

I would say an 18 year old girl is likely to be as mature as say a 25 year old male.

I am a bit surprised by this banding about of the word "predatory"?....is it an American thing?

Not saying either view is the right one....just think it is a bit different from the attitude I experience in the UK?

Not sure I would like any daughter of mine growing up with that view of men...."take every advantage", "never give an inch?" Just not something I recognise as indicative of men?

Might want someone else in the UK to comment on this....just incase it's me (and all the people I know) being weird.

I don't think most people would think too much on a 25 year old man and an 18 year old college student. I think if she were still in High School in would not be okay.

I think a 36 year old man and an 18 year old girl should raise some serious questions. Like why doesn't he want to date someone with whom he has a generational reference? Like a 30 year old woman? There is not an insignificant number of men who like to control women, it's how their parent's relationship is, and significantly younger women are easier to control. Sometimes, it's simple modeling of behavior with no ill intent. Sometimes it becomes malicious and abusive. And sometimes it's just a tragedy all the way around.

The view of men that I am talking is reinforced in movies and television all the time. "Men are only interested in one thing" "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile". Everything from 50's surfer flicks to movies like American Pie have this message. And of course it isn't true, and we know that, but when we are taken advantage of it feels like we were prepared for the notion that men are pigs. I don't think young men are at all prepared to be taken advantage of by a woman. They are prepared for greedy, grasping women by the stereotypes, but not women who use sex and love to manipulate and hurt. Men are not used to the idea that they can be abused.

Not all extreme age differences result in abuse. But many do, enough do that it is worth waiting for both parties to be mature, well adjusted adults who are secure in their sense of self. It is too easy even for the most well intentioned older partner to swallow the younger whole.

[DirectorDave]

To be brutally fair, while I seriously have problems with older men dating teenage girls, and have been victimized by such a man, as women we are raised that men will take every advantage that they can. We grow up on stories of men taking advantage, and how it's up to us to never give an inch more than we have to, so that when we get taken advantage of by a much older man, in a way we have been prepared for it. And we have other women to surround us and tell us what a bastard he is, etc.

When a woman preys on a teenage boy, he is subjected to all of the manipulation and nastiness that a teenage girl is subjected to, but he has had no warning, and his friends all think that he got lucky, and then lucky that he didn't have to marry her or whatever, and none of them understand that she took something from him, and that he needs to get it back. They don't understand that it's not a "score" that it is an abuse.

I have met good stable loving couples who have big age gaps. They are in the minority, and none of them began the relationship before the younger one was at least in their mid to late 20s. If you think you love someone, you don't have a problem letting them grow up enough to know their own mind. Or at least wait long enough for the prefrontal cortex to finish developing. One of my dad's friends is 69, and his wife is 41. They met when she was 17. And even back then when standards were different, he decided that if it was meant to be, it will still be when she was 25, and that he would go on with his life and if he still felt the same way then, he would find her. And that's what he did. I admire that.

Interesting take on things Errata....

(I am generalising here)

I must say in the UK I do not think an older man who is in a relationship with a younger girl is seen as "predatory".....it's kinda looked on as "normal". I think it is generally accepted that females mature quicker than males.

I would say an 18 year old girl is likely to be as mature as say a 25 year old male.

I am a bit surprised by this banding about of the word "predatory"?....is it an American thing?

Not saying either view is the right one....just think it is a bit different from the attitude I experience in the UK?

Not sure I would like any daughter of mine growing up with that view of men...."take every advantage", "never give an inch?" Just not something I recognise as indicative of men?

Might want someone else in the UK to comment on this....just incase it's me (and all the people I know) being weird.

[Errata]

To be brutally fair, while I seriously have problems with older men dating teenage girls, and have been victimized by such a man, as women we are raised that men will take every advantage that they can. We grow up on stories of men taking advantage, and how it's up to us to never give an inch more than we have to, so that when we get taken advantage of by a much older man, in a way we have been prepared for it. And we have other women to surround us and tell us what a bastard he is, etc.

When a woman preys on a teenage boy, he is subjected to all of the manipulation and nastiness that a teenage girl is subjected to, but he has had no warning, and his friends all think that he got lucky, and then lucky that he didn't have to marry her or whatever, and none of them understand that she took something from him, and that he needs to get it back. They don't understand that it's not a "score" that it is an abuse.

I have met good stable loving couples who have big age gaps. They are in the minority, and none of them began the relationship before the younger one was at least in their mid to late 20s. If you think you love someone, you don't have a problem letting them grow up enough to know their own mind. Or at least wait long enough for the prefrontal cortex to finish developing. One of my dad's friends is 69, and his wife is 41. They met when she was 17. And even back then when standards were different, he decided that if it was meant to be, it will still be when she was 25, and that he would go on with his life and if he still felt the same way then, he would find her. And that's what he did. I admire that.

[DirectorDave]

I really wonder about your powers of comprehension sometimes, Dave. This guy cannot deny having done this...he's in the photo. He has spread LIES about someone else in a public manner. That's slander. He's put her life in danger from extremist anti-abortionist who shoot people involved in abortion because they disapprove of it morally. He is guilty as hell, the proof is out there, HE published it!

No one here is denying he done the billboard......but usually a trial come in between someone being charged and being Jailed.

Slander (at least here in the UK) is a civil offence not a criminal one I believe not sure about mexico but I can't be arsed checking.

If it is the billboard you are referring to as lies, that is libel not slander.

The legal code is underpinned by a moral code of what is right and fair, and what is wrong. That is how decisions are made. They aren't made on gut feeling, and events have transpired to show how intuitive your gut feeling was in this case, which is probably why the law/morals shouldn't be decided by subjective gut feelings! What he did was wrong end of story. I don't comprehend why you fail to see this. And seriously you only evaluate evidence if you're on a jury? Seriously? When deciding other things, it goes completely out of the window???

Law should not be based on gut feelings of course not, but this is not a courtroom.....we are just a couple of idiots conversing on a messageboard.....gut feelings are fine for that.

Even if it wasn't true? And it ruined the other people's lives?

But it's my scenario and he did shag the babysitter.

In your scenario, I also don't care enough about these imaginary individuals.....but yes the "revenge" is quite original.

He doesn't. He's admitted now he doesn't know what happened. Still want to defend him?

I don't want to defend him at all.....all I want to say is revenge buy billboard is original and I find it quite funny.
(yes I do have a bit of a dark sense of humour....but that is just me)

I have an issue with predatory older men seeking out teenage girls. Again, that might just be me. But there we go.

What about predatory older women? Or is it different for girls.

But thanks for the ammo...

I'm going to wind my girlfriend right up tomorrow saying she is a predator because she chatted me up and is older than me. (Don't worry she gives as good, if not better than she gets.)

Once again revenge for what? She had a miscarriage. She dumped him. Which of these things do you agree with her being vilified for?

I don't I have removed myself from the individuals involved....I just think Revenge by bill...ach I've said it before....you get the idea.

Again, I don't agree. Revenge is one of the least attractive human attributes, as is admiring it.

Fine I don't agree....but I respect your opinion.

Kindly read Errata's post and admit you were wrong.

Ok, will take a look at it later.

That's not the story though, Dave is it. It's "woman who suffered a miscarriage is now being lied about by her ex on a billboard and some people think this is fine".

But it was how I interpreted the story when I made my original post.

Right. So perhaps what the man thought wasn't so relevant after all. Perhaps you'd like to think in future before condoning unsubstantiated accusations being made about innocent people in public domains? Huh?

I will think as I always do.....but if I want to make a comment I shall.

Even though you might not want to admit it I've probably given you a few things to think about....you have given me a few....cheers....always up for learning and updating the database.

I think we are just going round in circles now so the last thing I want to say is I think Revenge by Billboard is cool.

[babybird67]

This important "innocent until proven guilty" is not the way the law system works in all "western countries" but when it comes to a court of law I believe it is the way it should be. On more than one occasion on here you have said he should be "charged" and "jailled".....are you not forgetting something?

I really wonder about your powers of comprehension sometimes, Dave. This guy cannot deny having done this...he's in the photo. He has spread LIES about someone else in a public manner. That's slander. He's put her life in danger from extremist anti-abortionist who shoot people involved in abortion because they disapprove of it morally. He is guilty as hell, the proof is out there, HE published it!

I'm not going to be involved in the judicial process in this case so I don't need evidence or proof of guilt....I can just go with my gut feeling.....if I was part of the jury I 'd go by evidence.

The legal code is underpinned by a moral code of what is right and fair, and what is wrong. That is how decisions are made. They arent made on gut feeling, and events have transpired to show how intuitive your gut feeling was in this case, which is probably why the law/morals shouldn't be decided by subjective gut feelings! What he did was wrong end of story. I don't comprehend why you fail to see this. And seriously you only evaluate evidence if you're on a jury? Seriously? When deciding other things, it goes completely out of the window???

No I agree woman should have the right to choose......I hate abortion and wish it did not happen....but I don't believe in forcing anyone to have a child who is incapable of having it. But I also believe any potential father should be involved in that decision......but ultimately it is the person who carries the child that should have the final decision.

Why are you going on about abortion. SHE HAD A MISCARRIAGE.

I totally agree.....but this is not a man v woman thing.....if this story was about a woman putting a billboard up with a picture of a happy family with the father blanked out and a title "This could have been my happy family if my husband had not had sex with our babysitter" I would admire this also as an original form of revenge.

Even if it wasn't true? And it ruined the other people's lives?

Perhaps.....but as I said above I'm not on any Jury.....so I can just go with my gut feeling. I have no doubt that this man genuinely believes that the woman aborted his child

He doesn't. He's admitted now he doesnt know what happened. Still want to defend him?

I also know many couples with a similar age gap....some the men are older some the woman are older.....I do not make a moral judgement on a couple based on the age gap.....if it is a good, compatible, loving relationship I have absolutely no issue about age, race, sex or anything else.

I have an issue with predatory older men seeking out teenage girls. Again, that might just be me. But there we go.

The idea that I am as "bad as him" because I admire his original and non-violent for of revenge is hyperbole nonsense. Just as much as you are asking why I believe the man you do not know this woman is telling the truth......because none of us know all the facts in this case I am entitled to my opinion....just as much as you are. So it's nothing about "simple distinctions".

Once again revenge for what? She had a miscarriage. She dumped him. Which of these things do you agree with her being vilified for?

I don't buy that revenge is childish and immoral sorry.....some are sure...but I do not think Osama Bin Laden's execution was "childish" or "immoral" he got his totties and he deserved it.

Again, I don't agree. Revenge is one of the least attractive human attributes, as is admiring it.

Nah see you can't do that......If I don't buy the fact it was a miscarriage and if it comes out definitively that it was I will change my position on who is a victim. But I'd still have a cheeky wee appreciation of the "Billboard revenge idea".

Kindly read Errata's post and admit you were wrong.

"a man who's ex had an abortion without consulting him gets his revenge by billboard."

That's not the story though, Dave is it. It's "woman who suffered a miscarriage is now being lied about by her ex on a billboard and some people think this is fine".

Well whatever.....like I said I was not focusing on the individuals or the specifics of the case.....just that I thought the "revenge" was quite original. If it turns out and this was a miscarriage my sympathies would be with the woman and I would accept the man was out of order.....but I could still appreciate the originality of revenge by billboard.

Right. So perhaps what the man thought wasn't so relevant after all. Perhaps you'd like to think in future before condoning unsubstantiated accusations being made about innocent people in public domains? Huh?

[DirectorDave]

Because, Dave, in the moral univerise I inhabit, people are innocent until proven guilty. The MAN is accusing the WOMAN of something that he has no proof for. It's called giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. I am very sad to find there are people that don't espouse this important principle, but you are certainly one of them.

This important "innocent until proven guilty" is not the way the law system works in all "western countries" but when it comes to a court of law I believe it is the way it should be. On more than one occasion on here you have said he should be "charged" and "jailled".....are you not forgetting something?

I'm not going to be involved in the judicial process in this case so I don't need evidence or proof of guilt....I can just go with my gut feeling.....if I was part of the jury I 'd go by evidence.

Also, it is HER body and what happened to HER body he is claiming to know about. She should know more about her body and her experiences than he does, no? Or am I allowed to claim things about your body if i wish to? And garner as much support simply because some people might stupidly take my side out of sexism?

No I agree woman should have the right to choose......I hate abortion and wish it did not happen....but I don't believe in forcing anyone to have a child who is incapable of having it. But I also believe any potential father should be involved in that decision......but ultimately it is the person who carries the child that should have the final decision.

And thirdly, there is motive. This guy was jilted. He was pissed off with her. He wanted, as you so eleoquently put it, 'revenge'. That is his motive. He has every reason to lie about the situation because his pride is hurt and he wants to hit out at her.

I totally agree.....but this is not a man v woman thing.....if this story was about a woman putting a billboard up with a picture of a happy family with the father blanked out and a title "This could have been my happy family if my husband had not had sex with our babysitter" I would admire this also as an original form of revenge.

So there are my rational grounds for preferring to believe the woman. What good reasons do you have for believing a man who should have known better than to sleep with someone young enough to be his daughter in the first place (that little nugget of information should give you some indication as to his moral stature as it is).

Perhaps.....but as I said above I'm not on any Jury.....so I can just go with my gut feeling. I have no doubt that this man genuinely believes that the woman aborted his child....he may be mistaken but as I said previously I doubt he would have went to all this trouble if he thought otherwise. If you think otherwise then fair enough....you are entitled to your opinion.

I also know many couples with a similar age gap....some the men are older some the woman are older.....I do not make a moral judgement on a couple based on the age gap.....if it is a good, compatible, loving relationship I have absolutely no issue about age, race, sex or anything else.

Yep you failed because the two situations are not comparable. The man has done something morally reprehensible and you're supporting him ergo you're as bad as he is in my opinion. The woman has done nothing but mind her own business. One deserves insulting, the other doesn't. I wonder why you don't understand these simple distinctions.

The idea that I am as "bad as him" because I admire his original and non-violent for of revenge is hyperbole nonsense. Just as much as you are asking why I believe the man you do not know this woman is telling the truth......because none of us know all the facts in this case I am entitled to my opinion....just as much as you are. So it's nothing about "simple distinctions".

Revenge is petty, it is chidlish and it is immoral. You're entitled to enjoy it if you have a brain that enjoys that sort of thing.

I don't buy that revenge is childish and immoral sorry.....some are sure...but I do not think Osama Bin Laden's execution was "childish" or "immoral" he got his totties and he deserved it.

Even when I have been the victim of revenge....I can still take a step back and admire the ingenuity if it has been cleverly done.

Victims are people who are subject to the intended harmful actions of others. How is a child who is miscarried a victim of the mother? Are you now suggesting women are responsible for their own miscarriages? Can your tiny brain not comprehend the fact that miscarriages are acts of nature and NOT in the control of the woman? In this case, the potential mother was not only the 'victim' of the miscarriage, but of the idiotic potential -father's lies and slander about her.

Nah see you can't do that......If I don't buy the fact it was a miscarriage and if it comes out definitively that it was I will change my position on who is a victim. But I'd still have a cheeky wee appreciation of the "Billboard revenge idea".

You seem to be missing the point here completely. ONE person has published information which is UNSUBSTANTIATED on a billboard about another, innocent, person. THAT person is in the wrong. He doesn't know what happened to his ex's body, he should keep his mouth shut and his nose out, and leave the woman alone to get on with her life, not slander her to the world because he couldn't get his own way with her.

I'm not.....you just are not getting mine. I really don't care about the individuals involved in this case.....I don't know them, I don't know all the facts....so I just take the scenario in itself.

"a man who's ex had an abortion without consulting him gets his revenge by billboard."

That is how I was presented with this case and my initial post was based on that asumption....So forget this specific case.....if the above happened I would still admire the billboard idea.

I am taking the side of the victim, my dear. The person who knows what happened because it is her body it happened to. The person who isn't the mean spirited jilted loser trying to get his own back because he was dumped. There is no good reason to believe the man in this case. There is every good reason to believe the woman.

Well whatever.....like I said I was not focusing on the individuals or the specifics of the case.....just that I thought the "revenge" was quite original. If it turns out and this was a miscarriage my sympathies would be with the woman and I would accept the man was out of order.....but I could still appreciate the originality of revenge by billboard.

[babybird67]

that poor excuse for a man

should be charged with a crime and thrown into prison for what he has done. He's a despicable waste of space, as are the jokers who support his 'right' for revenge, to cause distress and upset to people already suffering the loss of a child.

He should be ashamed of himself.

Looks like those of us who chose to believe the woman have been vindicated doesn't it.

[Errata]

Well, it seems now that the man who put up the billboard has confessed that he doesn't know what happened, that she told him that she lost the baby, and said it was a miscarriage.

And that the billboard wasnt really aimed at her, but to spread awareness of father's rights. Despite putting it up in a town of 35,000 people and putting her first name on the billboard.

And Right to Life New Mexico, which a pack of more rabid and unreasonable dogs cannot be found, have pulled their sponsorship of the ad.

And his ex-girlfriend has now filed domestic violence charges against him, for which there has to be proof of harm or threat of harm.

Poor poor billboard guy, who's heart just sooo broken about not getting to be a daddy.

[babybird67]

Why are you taking it at face value? Why don't you take the man's claim that she had a abortion as the truth? What reason do you have to put faith in anything this woman says?

(see how this works?)

Because, Dave, in the moral univerise I inhabit, people are innocent until proven guilty. The MAN is accusing the WOMAN of something that he has no proof for. It's called giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. I am very sad to find there are people that don't espouse this important principle, but you are certainly one of them.

Also, it is HER body and what happened to HER body he is claiming to know about. She should know more about her body and her experiences than he does, no? Or am I allowed to claim things about your body if i wish to? And garner as much support simply because some people might stupidly take my side out of sexism?

And thirdly, there is motive. This guy was jilted. He was pissed off with her. He wanted, as you so eleoquently put it, 'revenge'. That is his motive. He has every reason to lie about the situation because his pride is hurt and he wants to hit out at her.

So there are my rational grounds for preferring to believe the woman. What good reasons do you have for believing a man who should have known better than to sleep with someone young enough to be his daughter in the first place (that little nugget of information should give you some indication as to his moral stature as it is).

I fully understand it was meaningless in fact thats why I said it....and it was not an attempt at insulting you it was an attempt to see how silly your "I'm worse than him" statement was.....I obviously failed.

Yep you failed because the two situations are not comparable. The man has done something morally reprehensible and you're supporting him ergo you're as bad as he is in my opinion. The woman has done nothing but mind her own business. One deserves insulting, the other doesn't. I wonder why you don't understand these simple distinctions.

In my experience revenge can be both deserved and sweet.

Explain to me why revenge in this case was justified? What was it for? How can a man take revenge on a woman who has miscarried his baby? Or perhaps she deserved it for having the nerve to dump him. Oh God bless the God complex eh?

Revenge is petty, it is chidlish and it is immoral. You're entitled to enjoy it if you have a brain that enjoys that sort of thing.

I am defending the victims....a potential father and an unborn child. And unsubstituted facts are not necessarily lies......no matter how many times a no-mark on a website states they are.

Victims are people who are subject to the intended harmful actions of others. How is a child who is miscarried a victim of the mother? Are you now suggesting women are responsible for their own miscarriages? Can your tiny brain not comprehend the fact that miscarriages are acts of nature and NOT in the control of the woman? In this case, the potential mother was not only the 'victim' of the miscarriage, but of the idiotic potential -father's lies and slander about her.

I don't understand the phrase 'unsubstituted facts'. Are these facts that aren't allowed to go off after 6o minutes of play on a thread for a rest and a shower?

You seem to be missing the point here completely. ONE person has published information which is UNSUBSTANTIATED on a billboard about another, innocent, person. THAT person is in the wrong. He doesn't know what happened to his ex's body, he should keep his mouth shut and his nose out, and leave the woman alone to get on with her life, not slander her to the world because he couldn't get his own way with her.

As mud.....You are allowed to take the side of the female and ascribe "truth" to something that you don't know the facts to.....and I can take the father and child's side and they have to be ascribed as lies.

I am taking the side of the victim, my dear. The person who knows what happened because it is her body it happened to. The person who isn't the mean spirited jilted loser trying to get his own back because he was dumped. There is no good reason to believe the man in this case. There is every good reason to believe the woman.

[Hatchett]

Hi Errata,

Your Rabbi sounds like a very good man. Sometimes it takes the worse turn of events to realise the goodness and love all around you, despite the fact that you perhaps cannot see it or welcome it at the time.

Who knows something like that could have happened at the time with this teenager, and that made her make the decision.

Best wishes.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

I completely agree with you. I find the whole business of this distasteful from start to finish. The dating of teenagers by mature men is a serious responsibility because of all of the implications of that, and of course the vulnerability.

And then to cap it all to put it in the public arena, I think is very very mean spirited, and aimed and calculated to be hurtful through public condemnation of the teenager who has lost her child.

For anyone to do this is to my mind is very upsetting, but for a supposedly mature man to do it to a teenager that they at one time vowed love for is really distasteful.

Best wishes.

I would say "where on earth were her parents?" but they were probably right where mine were... on their knees begging me not to get involved with someone 16 years older than myself. And having no choice but to accept my decision because I was legal.

On the other hand, evidently this whole refusing to marry her thing happened at a church camp out, so where was the MINISTER in all this, and why didn't he pull the guy aside at some point and say "it may be legal, but this is not okay, it makes you less of a man, and it makes you less of a christian." Cause when my ex tried to charm my rabbi, my rabbi looked him square in the eye and said " I am twice your age, and I have no respect for grown men who try and regain control in their lives by dating and manipulating teenagers. Get out of my synagogue, you are not welcome here."

Of course my rabbi was awesome. Could have cheerfully killed him for saying that, but he wasn't wrong. And he knew I wouldn't be back for awhile after saying it. He sent me a note saying that his ministerial duty was to call people on their bullshit, but he knew that because of what he said that I would now be terrified of losing my boyfriend. And to just remember "that people who love you do not rule you through fear. The day you realize that, I will be here to listen to you hate yourself for exactly 5 minutes, and then start the process of learning from past actions"

The worst part was my rabbi died like, three months before I got it. But he left a note for the new rabbi to give to me when I came back that said "You are an idiot for thinking you are unworthy of unconditional love. Stop it. P.S. Promise yourself you will stop dating shmucks. Your sister will hold any interventions she deems necessary."

And if your sister has never thrown you a schmuck intervention, well, you just don't know what you are missing. At least there was cake.

[Hatchett]

Hi Errata,

I completely agree with you. I find the whole business of this distasteful from start to finish. The dating of teenagers by mature men is a serious responsibility because of all of the implications of that, and of course the vulnerability.

And then to cap it all to put it in the public arena, I think is very very mean spirited, and aimed and calculated to be hurtful through public condemnation of the teenager who has lost her child.

For anyone to do this is to my mind is very upsetting, but for a supposedly mature man to do it to a teenager that they at one time vowed love for is really distasteful.

Best wishes.

[DirectorDave]

[QUOTE=babybird67;178731]Never mind is two words. I only mention it as your 'may' where I used 'might' appears to be some form of comment on my use of grammar and vocabulary.

Nope I would be the last person to do that (sorry I cannot provide any evidence to that effect)

My "may" should have been "might" as in "Might have prevented the need for an..."

So I apologise for misquoting myself....but seems like folk have been misquoting me all night so I'm not too fussed.

Why are you taking it at face value? Why don't you take the woman's claim that she had a miscarriage as the truth? What reason do you have to put faith in anything this man says?

Why are you taking it at face value? Why don't you take the man's claim that she had a abortion as the truth? What reason do you have to put faith in anything this woman says?

(see how this works?)

So it's ok for anybody to say anything about anybody else then? Regardless of truth? Nice position.

Well you are the expert there so I will leave you to answer that yourself.

You don't seem to understand your attempt at insulting me was meaningless since she has done nothing wrong. She is a victim. So if you think accusing someone of being worse than someone else who suffered a miscarriage, I can only advise you you need a new form of insults, because that one really doesn't cut it.

I fully understand it was meaningless in fact thats why I said it....and it was not an attempt at insulting you it was an attempt to see how silly your "I'm worse than him" statement was.....I obviously failed.

Revenge is not something to be admired. It is what mean childish people do when they cannot get their own way. It is not something to condone or admire when someone who does not know the truth about a situation puts lies and rumours in a public domain about somebody else. At least, I don't think it is. I think its reprehensible. I also think the support of it is reprehensible. We obviously have different moral standards, and that's fine.

In my experience revenge can be both deserved and sweet.

I am actively taking part in trying to defend the victim. The LOLs and HAHAs are directed at your attitude, not the situation, because i find the defence of gossip and lies laughable.

I am defending the victims....a potential father and an unborn child. And unsubstituted facts are not necessarily lies......no matter how many times a no-mark on a website states they are.

Hope that clears that up for you.

As mud.....You are allowed to take the side of the female and ascribe "truth" to something that you don't know the facts to.....and I can take the father and child's side and they have to be ascribed as lies.