I'm already on the verge of canceling my lifetime membership to the University of Texas Ex Students Association because of the Marxist BLM nonsense from the football team and the Longhorn band. After reading this utterly disgusting diatribe from a truly reprehensible piece of sh*t UT professor, I may just go ahead and do it. This POS will get what he deserves on Judgement Day. Here's the article - be prepared to get nauseous.
Not going to read it but this kind of filth is what makes me give pause when I hear Muslims condemnAmerican morality.
UT saying it's a 1st Amendment thing. Um, when did UT become the government? That can fire him for this, right?
If you believe society has no right to restrict sexuality and you celebrate the judgment and wisdom of youth (as the Left does), this makes sense. I wonder what feminists think of this. Keep in mind that age of consent laws weren't enacted because there was some inherent immorality of adults having sex with kids. They were enacted, because it's too easy for an adult man to ******** his way into a gullible teenaged girl's pants, so though they protect girls, they are very patriarchal.
Imagine the feminist mind-set that considers flirting with a full grown woman a micro-aggression. That women are absolute victims of men because men are sexual predators. That consent must be given explicitly. That men are animals that cannot control themselves. Then read the article. Tenure is an absolute travesty. The protections enjoyed by professors is why the educational establishment is so arrogant and ineffective. These one-trick pony's, who egotistically rule their classrooms with impunity are the reason why I am not impressed with their letters: Ph. D. It makes me laugh... Think about. They teach a subject that they have studied for years and preside over young, ignorant minds that cannot possibly challenge them on any meaningful level. Yet they are in the position of brainwashing our children and nobody can stop them. That's another reason why I'm not a Liberal.
Back when gay marriage became legal across the country, I opined the next thing the left would try to normalize was sex with children. Then they championed transexuals and transvestites and such, so I thought I was wrong. Now here it comes.
This is the kind of thing where a mob should go to his house and beat on his door. That shouldn't happen if you vote for one political party over another. But justifying child rape should be harshly dealt with. If not that, protest at UT campus. Go beat on the door of the Main Building.
This has been a goal for years for the gay movement - there's even some group that has as part of its name "Man Boy Love". You'll be called a hateful person, who's not with the times, for thinking 50 year old men should not be having sex with 15 year old boys. And if you refuse to bake a cake celebrating it, Democrat ruled state agencies will try to ruin your business.
I've never heard of this guy, and when I read the linked story it pushed all my rage buttons. I then re-read it. I still think he's wrong, but it is possible that the rage is misplaced - I don't have enough information. If one takes out the inflammatory "explanations" of what Hubbard has written, it is not at all clear what his writings say. These explanations state that he is defending sex with children, but on closer reading it appears (again, I haven't read any of his stuff) that he may merely be in favor of lowering the so-called age of consent from (in many states)16 to 14. Under Texas law, someone under 17 is indeed a child for purposes of sex with a child statutes, but a 16 year old is not what is suggested by the title of the story. If Hubbard is indeed contending that sex between adults and all children should be permitted, that is one thing. If he is exploring whether the age of consent should be lowered from (in many states) 16 to 14, that is another. He may be wrong -and I think he is, but that type of inquiry in the context of historical norms is not deserving of tar and feathering, and he doesn't seem to be saying that anyone should violate the existing law. In many countries sex with a child laws do not apply after the age of 14 - what he claims is what he explores. Again, I disagree with those countries' laws, but that doesn't make that view monstrous, only wrong (if I am right.) Hell, I think a 25 year old having sex with an 16 or 17 year old is exploitative and wrong even when legal, and the bigger the age gap the creepier and more likely to be exploitative it is, but bright line rules are a practical necessity, so creepy is not illegal. There is enough smoke here that close examination of Hubbard's writings and classroom conduct is appropriate, but none of us have done that and the lynch mobbing is premature. Here is a statement from Hubbard. I don't accept the accuracy of it either -I have no idea if it is accurate, and I think the "mentorship" stuff is Bullshirt; my instincts are that delaying active sexuality is a good thing (that was not my position when I was the one gittin' delayed, I concede), and little is to be gained and much risked by such "mentoring" of a 14 year old or a 16 year old by an older person. But it is part of the picture, so here you go. Professor Thomas Hubbard’s Response to Recently Circulated Rumors on Social Media
IMO, a predictable outcome after Obergefell v. Hodges. If the people, acting through their democratically elected representatives, cannot set the terms of marriage, then they cannot set the terms for anything The Supreme Court should have stayed out of that case. All the federal courts should have. The solution to gay marriage always lay with democracy. The courts should have let the process play out. But they got impatient and assumed jurisdiction over matters for which they lacked jurisdiction. Hubris has always been one of the fatal risks associated with Article I judges.
My daughter is 16. It is not "merely." She is still a child in so many ways including being subject to mental abuse by adults because she doesn't have the power or the self-confidence yet to assert her own rights.
Football players are referred to as kids still, unless they make a big hit or something. Then, they are men.
I think you meant Article III judges, but I get your point. They get impatient when the country or parts of it don't "evolve" as fast as they wish they would, and so they simply overrule the legitimate political process and force their will. It weakens their own legitimacy and fosters resentment toward the Court.
They aren't. Frankly I don't understand the move to empower young people more such as lowering minimum ages for sexual consent, buying booze, or voting. The reason we ever restricted certain activities to younger people is that they don't have the maturity and judgment to do these things. The case for lowering the minimum ages for this sort of thing should be supported by evidence that younger people are more mature and have better judgement than they used to have. I don't see a whole lot of evidence of that.
