Man arrested for beating down boy in shower with daughter

[Kratu]

I couldn't give less of a fuck what she wants. She's 16 years old and I certainly don't want her to get pregnant. I'm the parent and I'm in charge.

Indeed!
Parents are in charge of their kids, not the other way around!

Except the teens are at the age of consent and thus in charge of their own bodies.

[Duuuude Im Stoned]

I couldn't give less of a fuck what she wants. She's 16 years old and I certainly don't want her to get pregnant. I'm the parent and I'm in charge.

Indeed!
Parents are in charge of their kids, not the other way around!

Because he know, condoms and safe sex and information and such is old school right! I see. This has turned into a debate over traditions. Medeavil traditions vs Modern ones.

[Silent Majority]

I love the new posts coming in. Love them. Much better than the "Uhh, it's ok for him to break in the house and have sex" arguments.

Break in

[The Scientific States]

I love the new posts coming in. Love them. Much better than the "Uhh, it's ok for him to break in the house and have sex" arguments.

That's not what we're saying at all.

I don't see how me wanting to avoid violence equates to "I want the kid to bang my daughter."

[Free State Of Canada (Ancient)]

Hitting is never permitted unless in self defense or defense of loved ones...

[The DG Elves]

Then I'll help her restore some shred of it.

Thank you for your report of this blasphemy, Don Elves. I will dispatch the Grand Inquisitor to deal with this scoundrel if you so please.



I don't know where you live, but if you were in America and did something like that, we'd call you a loony and throw you in the clink.

Thank god I don't live in your country then!

[Maineiacs]

Ha ha. Severe electric shocks and testicular bruising are so funny. Instead of getting him (and probably your daughter!) pissed off, why not just make sure they're doing it safely and in private? Better to make sure that they can have healthy sex with one another (because they're going to whatever you try to do), and will have good habits for the rest of their life, than to beat the guy up and get both of them (and the police) mad at you.

Because that's not how being a father with a daughter works. Maybe it should. If it did, the poor schmuck in the OP wouldn't be facing criminal charges. But it doesn't. Maybe RObert Schimmel can explain the Curse of Fathers With Daughters better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuUEmGk20MA


Edit: ANd for the record, testicular bruising is hilarious.

Is it wrong of me to hope my daughter turns out to be a lesbian so I never have to worry about boys?

[Senkaku]

Great. I'm sure most fathers in their mid to late 40s will fare real well if they put a 16/17 year old who's probably in decent shape up against the wall. Sounds like a way to throw teenage boys in jail, to be honest.

You force him to fight, or "he has the guts to settle it man to man", and a 40-year-old in mediocre shape is not going to come out looking good against a fit 17 year old. That is the most idiotic idea since pistol dueling.

I'd say most 40 something dads could take most 16-17 years olds, yes. Most 16-17 year olds are lazier than their parents. The dad's would also come from an era when fighting was more accepted, and have more experience. Its not all brute force. Experience helps.

edit: Plus you know, the pschological effect on the kid of holy shit the dad is pissed would also help. Having a dad mad at you is not a good thing.

That's not my point at all. Although you don't seem to know many 16-17 year olds.


No matter who "won" the fight, it would be a bad idea. Either the dad gets his lights knocked out because the kid freaks out, or the kid gets beaten to a pulp. Neither one is acceptable, legal, or healthy.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

For what it's worth, I was probably joking about steel-toed boots. I don't usually wear them. They tend to slow me down and make moving quickly through mud difficult. But as for the rest, like I said, fifty years ago, it would have been a buttload of birdshot. We're making progress I think.

I'm pretty sure normal shoes will do the trick quite nicely. And just because fifty years ago people were unbelievably barbaric (in some regions of the US, which are not highly regarded by the others even today), doesn't justify this.

"Oh, well, at least he didn't shoot the kid! Back in my day..."

I can't even count how many strikes to the groin I received in my lifetime, both accidental and intentional. Way back when NationStates was young, I tried to think back and count and it was in the low to mid 100s. If the kid's testicles can't take one swift kick in the junk, then I suspect they were on borrowed time anyway.

Let me ALSO make perfectly clear that I understand the illegality of assault. I'm not saying it's right. It's not. I'm saying that much like fucking someone's daughter, getting caught has consequences.

[Kratu]

Hitting is never permitted unless in self defense or defense of loved ones...

But its not in defense as nothing harmful was happening.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Because that's not how being a father with a daughter works. Maybe it should. If it did, the poor schmuck in the OP wouldn't be facing criminal charges. But it doesn't. Maybe RObert Schimmel can explain the Curse of Fathers With Daughters better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuUEmGk20MA


Edit: ANd for the record, testicular bruising is hilarious.

Is it wrong of me to hope my daughter turns out to be a lesbian so I never have to worry about boys?

Maybe, maybe not. But I understand. *nod*

[Viritica]

Indeed!
Parents are in charge of their kids, not the other way around!

Except the teens are at the age of consent and thus in charge of their own bodies.

And the parents are still in charge of them. Not to mention the fact that they were doing it in his house.

[Silent Majority]

I love the new posts coming in. Love them. Much better than the "Uhh, it's ok for him to break in the house and have sex" arguments.

That's not what we're saying at all.

I don't see how me wanting to avoid violence equates to "I want the kid to bang my daughter."

Hell, I don't see what wrong with these two having sex in the first place. Not only is it the kind of thing people (especially teenagers) do, but they were both of the age of consent.

Nobody has lost any "honor" or any of that bullshit people keep bringing up, and they were hopefully being safe about it. The fact that people seem more offended by the idea of two teens having sex than by some guy beating his daughter's boyfriend up is seriously fucked up.

[The DG Elves]

Hitting is never permitted unless in self defense or defense of loved ones...

But its not in defense as nothing harmful was happening.

Tell that to the daughter who later gets dumped by him and figures out that he has been using her to have sex with her only...

[Streetgrind]

Obviously you don't get it. She wantsto take sensual showers with that dude. You'd just piss her off and end up in jail. Which would piss her off even more, and then no one would be able to prevent her from having anymore sensual showers. And then your entire plan just kinda fell apart....

I couldn't give less of a fuck what she wants. She's 16 years old and I certainly don't want her to get pregnant. I'm the parent and I'm in charge.

There's part of the problem. Look, I understand you would worry and protect your kids from threats. It's the totally rational thing to do. But the fact of the matter is you don't give a fuck about what she wants, so why is she going to care about your rules? That's not very effective. Hell, it's almost worse than having no rules.

I understand you want limits and don't want her to pop out babies like a pez dispenser. Thing is, beating up the kid isn't going to change the fact that she has a sex drive she is willing to satiate. If she wants to have sex, she is going to have sex and there is not a single god damn thing you are going to be able to do to change her fucking mind. Savvy? Violence is only going to push her away from you and teach her to not fuck in the house. Which is counterintuitive. Safest place for her to do the work of God is in a place she knows and you know: her home. Driving her out means finding riskier locations to do the do.

Lastly, why not talk to her about contraception so she doesn't get pregnant, or at least lowers the possibility? That's the safest method. If you really cared about your hypothetical daughter, you'd understand that some rules just aren't worth the enforcing.

[Pensalum]

He was rightly convicted, reacting violently to someone who is not behaving violently towards you is unnecessary, unlawful and wrong. It doesn't matter what the reason is, especially a reason like this. The step-father was not protecting his daughter, as she wasn't in harms way, nor was he protecting himself. It was unwarranted aggression.

[Trollgaard]

I'd say most 40 something dads could take most 16-17 years olds, yes. Most 16-17 year olds are lazier than their parents. The dad's would also come from an era when fighting was more accepted, and have more experience. Its not all brute force. Experience helps.

edit: Plus you know, the pschological effect on the kid of holy shit the dad is pissed would also help. Having a dad mad at you is not a good thing.

That's not my point at all. Although you don't seem to know many 16-17 year olds.


No matter who "won" the fight, it would be a bad idea. Either the dad gets his lights knocked out because the kid freaks out, or the kid gets beaten to a pulp. Neither one is acceptable, legal, or healthy.

I see it as entirely acceptable, and thus should be legal, and somehow I doubt a lot of juries would be too rough on dad's in similar circumstances. And healthy? Eh, life's not healthy. Drama is part of life.

[Senkaku]

Ha ha. Severe electric shocks and testicular bruising are so funny. Instead of getting him (and probably your daughter!) pissed off, why not just make sure they're doing it safely and in private? Better to make sure that they can have healthy sex with one another (because they're going to whatever you try to do), and will have good habits for the rest of their life, than to beat the guy up and get both of them (and the police) mad at you.

Because that's not how being a father with a daughter works. Maybe it should. If it did, the poor schmuck in the OP wouldn't be facing criminal charges. But it doesn't. Maybe RObert Schimmel can explain the Curse of Fathers With Daughters better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuUEmGk20MA


Edit: ANd for the record, testicular bruising is hilarious.

Not when you're the one with it, it isn't. And it certainly isn't funny if someone kicks a guy with steel-toed boots, or really any heavy boots, because that will probably cause permanent injuries. I get that yeah, you get hit in the crotch every now and then, but seriously.


And Robert Schimmel seems like an utter asshat.

[Duuuude Im Stoned]

That's not what we're saying at all.

I don't see how me wanting to avoid violence equates to "I want the kid to bang my daughter."

Hell, I don't see what wrong with these two having sex in the first place. Not only is it the kind of thing people (especially teenagers) do, but they were both of the age of consent.

Nobody has lost any "honor" or any of that bullshit people keep bringing up, and they were hopefully being safe about it. The fact that people seem more offended by the idea of two teens having sex than by some guy beating his daughter's boyfriend up is seriously fucked up.

I have been trying to say this for literal hours. So many people have said same thing. No one listens ......

[Silent Majority]

But its not in defense as nothing harmful was happening.

Tell that to the daughter who later gets dumped by him and figures out that he has been using her to have sex with her only...

Way the generalize there bucko.

Are teenage relationships deep emotional engagements? Generally no. Is there anything wrong with people having sex for the sake of having sex? Again no, so long as everybody consents.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

That's not my point at all. Although you don't seem to know many 16-17 year olds.


No matter who "won" the fight, it would be a bad idea. Either the dad gets his lights knocked out because the kid freaks out, or the kid gets beaten to a pulp. Neither one is acceptable, legal, or healthy.

I see it as entirely acceptable, and thus should be legal, and somehow I doubt a lot of juries would be too rough on dad's in similar circumstances. And healthy? Eh, life's not healthy. Drama is part of life.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Assault should be illegal. But when it comes to family, would that really matter?

[Viritica]

I couldn't give less of a fuck what she wants. She's 16 years old and I certainly don't want her to get pregnant. I'm the parent and I'm in charge.

There's part of the problem. Look, I understand you would worry and protect your kids from threats. It's the totally rational thing to do. But the fact of the matter is you don't give a fuck about what she wants, so why is she going to care about your rules? That's not very effective. Hell, it's almost worse than having no rules.

I understand you want limits and don't want her to pop out babies like a pez dispenser. Thing is, beating up the kid isn't going to change the fact that she has a sex drive she is willing to satiate. If she wants to have sex, she is going to have sex and there is not a single god damn thing you are going to be able to do to change her fucking mind. Savvy? Violence is only going to push her away from you and teach her to not fuck in the house. Which is counterintuitive. Safest place for her to do the work of God is in a place she knows and you know: her home. Driving her out means finding riskier locations to do the do.

Lastly, why not talk to her about contraception so she doesn't get pregnant, or at least lowers the possibility? That's the safest method. If you really cared about your hypothetical daughter, you'd understand that some rules just aren't worth the enforcing.

Or you could just not let her have sex. Put her on lockdown. Stuff like that. It's that whole, "You'll hate me for this, but you'll thank me one day" type of thing.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Because that's not how being a father with a daughter works. Maybe it should. If it did, the poor schmuck in the OP wouldn't be facing criminal charges. But it doesn't. Maybe RObert Schimmel can explain the Curse of Fathers With Daughters better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuUEmGk20MA


Edit: ANd for the record, testicular bruising is hilarious.

Not when you're the one with it, it isn't. And it certainly isn't funny if someone kicks a guy with steel-toed boots, or really any heavy boots, because that will probably cause permanent injuries. I get that yeah, you get hit in the crotch every now and then, but seriously.


And Robert Schimmel seems like an utter asshat.

Seemed. He survived a heart attack and cancer only to die in a car accident.

[The DG Elves]

Hell, I don't see what wrong with these two having sex in the first place. Not only is it the kind of thing people (especially teenagers) do, but they were both of the age of consent.

Nobody has lost any "honor" or any of that bullshit people keep bringing up, and they were hopefully being safe about it. The fact that people seem more offended by the idea of two teens having sex than by some guy beating his daughter's boyfriend up is seriously fucked up.

I have been trying to say this for literal hours. So many people have said same thing. No one listens ......

They may have been at the age of consent, but they had no right doing it in the father's house without his permission! If you don't ask permission and yet fuck his daughter like a man, then prepare to fight like one because most sensible dads will attack!

[Duuuude Im Stoned]

Gtg have fun living in your 17th century minds. bye