Replies

From your data, the relationship was legal. That the parents and daughter made choices that were less than the best is hardly justification to castrate a man doing what is legal.

To cheer such behavior leads to the lowest levels of mob behavior - something Germany had a problem with about 70 years ago.

Principles count, and the behavior of Daddy and Buds is not to be cheered.

Unless one is intellectually a Klansman, that is.

I am surprised that no FReeper wondered why a girl that young chose a sex partner that much older than herself. I

If she was a paid mistress, that would be easy to understand, if not approve of. But, if she wanted the relationship, then questions arise.

Not being female, I am wonder what her motives were. Any female FReepers have any ideas?

Any Freeper psychiatrists with ideas?

ANybody with any ideas on this subject?

From your data, the relationship was legal.

Distressing to say, that's evidently true. Are they too advanced, or still in the dark ages? Mainly though, were Romeo's (or Abellard's) attentions moral?

...choices that were less than the best is hardly justification to castrate a man doing what is legal.

First: I'm assuming things that may not be true:
a. the father had proof.
b. the father warned the 'suitor' to cease.
c. the father sought remediation and justice through legal channels, but was rebuffed.
Actually, I don't think C is an assumption. As to A and B,due to the brevity of the article, these remain an open question.

But assuming A,B, and C true:
1. The father never expected legal exoneration. He was compelled by an outraged moral conscience.
2. It's not likely he'll receive in those courts the consideration some of us feel the horney codger deserved.
3. Despite this, he did what he felt was just and right, with the aid of two others equally outraged.

"You can't take the law into your own hands!" we hear.
But what if the law is negligent? What other choice is there? Prior law, custom and morality have recognized the inherently exploitive nature of adults who prey on the naive and either prosecuted the guilty, or turned a blind eye when the agrieved do their work from them. Outcomes like this are the result of willful ignorance.

Here's the choice: champion the father of the minor, or her exploiter.

I go with the father.