Education Over Expulsion At Dalhousie

[Michael Hardner]

Do you seriously believe none of those male teachers fantasizes about the underage females they see all day?

My guess is almost all of them have had such fantasies.

See the principles I have posted above.

[Argus]

Again, depending on how you define 'normal'. And, I doubt that forming an online chat group to discuss such fantasies is common... to use a less loaded word than 'normal'.

Do you believe the entire purpose of that chat group was to talk about doing nasty things to women? There was nothing in there about sports and other stuff?

There's a table of what people fantasize about. Fantasies about forcing someone to have sex are held by about 20% of males, far fewer in number than men fantasizing about having sex with two men.

But you'll also see in your table that more than 60% of men and 50% of women fantasize about dominating another person sexually, and 60% or men and 30% of women also fantasize about tying up someone to have sex. 43% of men also fantasize about spanking or whipping someone for sex. So you can see these domination themes run strongly through the sexual fantasies of both sexes, with men being more likely to fantasize about dominating and women more likely to fantasize about being dominated.

Given that, it's not really very shocking some young guys would joke about using chloroform and 'hate sex'.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you believe the entire purpose of that chat group was to talk about doing nasty things to women? There was nothing in there about sports and other stuff?

Uh, yes I did think that. I re-read the link now and realize I was wrong.

But you'll also see in your table that more than 60% of men and 50% of women fantasize about dominating another person sexually, and 60% or men and 30% of women also fantasize about tying up someone to have sex. 43% of men also fantasize about spanking or whipping someone for sex. So you can see these domination themes run strongly through the sexual fantasies of both sexes, with men being more likely to fantasize about dominating and women more likely to fantasize about being dominated.

Given that, it's not really very shocking some young guys would joke about using chloroform and 'hate sex'.

I don't think it is shocking that they would joke about it. It's unfortunate that they made public statements, though. See the principles I posted above.

[Argus]

It's not the same thing, for a few reasons: "I'm going to kill you" is actually a pretty common expression, especially when used casually between people that you know and trust. Making statements about doing harm to other people is not a common expression.

Would you care to try to reconcile those two sentences?

Moreover, something that's so specific in terms of methodology, and in terms of how it relates to your profession ie. drugging somebody, can in no way be considered the same type of statement.

But as I've said, men are perverts and will consider any sexual use of their business tools. We used to joke about binding clips, for God sakes, as nipple clips. I have little doubt that if we had a store of chloroform in the office some wag would suggest having a few of the prettier girls inhale deeply.

If everybody knows it's not serious then why are people taking it seriously ?

Because a sizable number of activist groups of the feminist persuasion hate men, and hate the idea that men lust after women, and love to seize on any pretext to demonize men and play the female victim card. Add in the extreme political correctness of universities (which basically see all heterosexual white men as the enemy of everyone else) and a media which adores any sort of story featuring sex, and you have a lovely way to satisfy all three groups.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Would you care to try to reconcile those two sentences?

Sorry. Unclear. I mean "making statements about doing harm to other people not present" is not common.

"I'm gonna kill you Vinnie". Common.

"Vinnie - I'm gonna kill Billy next time I see him". Common.

"Vinnie - I'm going to choroform Billy and sexually assault him before he comes to next time I see him". Uncommon.

But as I've said, men are perverts and will consider any sexual use of their business tools. We used to joke about binding clips, for God sakes, as nipple clips. I have little doubt that if we had a store of chloroform in the office some wag would suggest having a few of the prettier girls inhale deeply.

And if he posted that in the common kitchen and signed it... nothing would come of it ?

Because a sizable number of activist groups of the feminist persuasion hate men,

This is your bias, your issue, and it's unprovable and unhelpful to resolve disputes - in that you're imbuing a group with inhumanity and making it impossible to engage with them.

The rest of your post is just built on your strawman....

[Argus]

1 ) Individuals are entitled to feel safe and secure with publicly entrusted caregivers and professionals.

2 ) Individuals are entitled to their own thoughts and private comments, understanding that if comments are made incautiously, and become public then there might be an effect on their livelihood.

Both true to an extent. It's unfortunate we blur the line between people having sexual fantasies, and the reality of them acting them out. Someone once said that if women could see what their husbands, fathers, brothers, sons and boyfriends fantasized about they'd run screaming into the night. Most people, especially men, have at least a few 'forbidden' fantasies, some of them quite outrageous. Yet very rarely are those fantasies ever acted upon.

And in this case it was more a joking around thing. I don't know from what they said if any of those individuals actually have a fantasy about drugging and having sex with a woman. Then again, is the act all that much different from male attempts for much of the past century, to get a girl drunk so her resolve would weaken?

[Michael Hardner]

Both true to an extent.

Yes, and that's why the balance between such principles needs to be discussed, ie. where is the extent.

Yet very rarely are those fantasies ever acted upon.

It doesn't give much comfort to know that.

Then again, is the act all that much different from male attempts for much of the past century, to get a girl drunk so her resolve would weaken?

What is the point ? Any criminal act done within the last century is excusable ? There's just no way out on this one... I think that this incident will make more people understand that words are important.

[Argus]

Yes, and that's why the balance between such principles needs to be discussed, ie. where is the extent.

Generally, people keep their sexual fantasies private, particularly where they concern specific people.

It doesn't give much comfort to know that.

No, not likely to. But let's face facts, if you're an attractive young woman, chances are just about every male in your classroom has fantasized about having sex with you in a variety of ways, since junior high. Same for the guys at work, some of your father's friends, your coach, your uncle, that guy who is often on the bus, the grocery store cashier, etc. etc. Men's minds, particularly when young, are filled with porn clips of their own making with partners who would be, for the most part, grossed out if not horrified to find out they were co-stars.

You worry that a high school teacher voiced a fantasy of having sex with his students? Guess what, they all have those fantasies!

What is the point ? Any criminal act done within the last century is excusable ?

But it wasn't considered a criminal act until relatively recently.

[Michael Hardner]

Generally, people keep their sexual fantasies private, particularly where they concern specific people.

And that's fine. Regulating private thoughts isn't in the realm of public debate right now.

You worry that a high school teacher voiced a fantasy of having sex with his students? Guess what, they all have those fantasies!

They don't "all" have them. The percentages across the population seem to be quite low, and that - on the other hand - may be some comfort.

But it wasn't considered a criminal act until relatively recently.

Again.... I'm not sure what the point is here.

[cybercoma]

Argus, you were a manager. If guys were joking about this publicly, in the lunch room at the office for instance, how would you handle it? Just laugh along with them? Or would it be a problem for them to be openly discussing how they're going to drug and rape female colleagues at their desks?

[Argus]

Argus, you were a manager. If guys were joking about this publicly, in the lunch room at the office for instance, how would you handle it? Just laugh along with them? Or would it be a problem for them to be openly discussing how they're going to drug and rape female colleagues at their desks?

I'm not a manager. I work for myself. But again, you have to examine the context. We actually did get one harassment complaint when I was with the government (dismissed) from a female term because, among other reasons cited, she thought the discussion in the board room where we all ate together was too sexually explicit. But even she admitted the majority of that came from the women (80% of the team were females in their 20s).

Do we have the exact wording of the statement on Facebook, btw? How I would react would depend on what exactly was said and how. The closest approximation I can recall would be someone (female) who suggested another female was such a prude she had probably never had sex and never would unless someone got her drunk. To which another colleague (male) suggested he'd like to get her drunk. General snickers ensued. No one thought him serious, nor was he. But that was just four of us in a car.

For all we know this was a general comment in passing which happened once in the same sort of manner and was thereafter ignored.

[Smallc]

Argus, you were a manager. If guys were joking about this publicly, in the lunch room at the office for instance, how would you handle it? Just laugh along with them? Or would it be a problem for them to be openly discussing how they're going to drug and rape female colleagues at their desks?

I am a manager now. You'd tell then to be more discreet, and that such talk probably doesn't belong at work. It wouldn't go much past that unless it persisted.

[Michael Hardner]

she thought the discussion in the board room where we all ate together was too sexually explicit.

This is surprising to me. I work with mostly young people (under 30) and nothing explicit comes up during group social times... young people just know better, I guess...

Edited December 30, 2014 by Charles Anthony
fixed attribution of quote to Argus; MHardner mistakenly attributed it to SmallC

[Smallc]

This is surprising to me. I work with mostly young people (under 30) and nothing explicit comes up during group social times... young people just know better, I guess...

I didn't say that...but, you certainly don't associate with the same young people as me.

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't say that...but, you certainly don't associate with the same young people as me.

Associate ? or work ? The young people that I associate with - that I am friends with - make inappropriate jokes constantly. But it's not at work.

[Smallc]

Work or not.

[Michael Hardner]

Work or not.

What kind of workplace allows inappropriate comments to happen without comment ? That can go wrong pretty easily.

[Smallc]

What kind of workplace allows inappropriate comments to happen without comment ? That can go wrong pretty easily.

It happens all of the time.people are just generally more quiet about it at work. Edited December 29, 2014 by Smallc

[WestCoastRunner]

It happens all of the time.people are just generally more quiet about it at work.

Um, if I walked in on a conversation of my students talking about chlorofoming and raping their patients, they would be gone, expelled, on the spot! They abused their privilege of being in the dental program. They were a mere few months away from graduating and practicing on real life patients. Give me a freakin break! They blew it.

There are plenty of students waiting to fill those spaces and probably better qualified.

Edited December 30, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[Smallc]

That's unrealistic. You'd have to throw out all of them men. I know people in many professions. They all talk like that, even at work.

[WestCoastRunner]

That's unrealistic. You'd have to throw out all of them men. I know people in many professions. They all talk like that, even at work.

Great real. You are totally unrealistic. To allow for 4th year graduate students of a dental program, a mere few months away from treating female patients, give me a break!

[Smallc]

What does any of it have to do with treating female patients? Oh that's right - nothing.

[jacee]

That's unrealistic. You'd have to throw out all of them men. I know people in many professions. They all talk like that, even at work.

On facebook?

The firefighters got fired.

The dentists should too.

.

[Michael Hardner]

What does any of it have to do with treating female patients? Oh that's right - nothing.

I don't think that 50% of your customer base should be regarded as "nothing".

[cybercoma]

I don't think that 50% of your customer base should be regarded as "nothing".

Calling them customers takes away from the fiduciary responsibility dentists have with their patients. A shop owner would have no such responsibility to their customers.