Thanks to a poster I found (and read) the first trailer park book. I went through the others too, but it seems that book six was due 'sometime in 09'. I checked elsewhere also and it seems like nothing past book 5 part 2 ever came out?
Thanks to a poster I found (and read) the first trailer park book. I went through the others too, but it seems that book six was due 'sometime in 09'. I checked elsewhere also and it seems like nothing past book 5 part 2 ever came out?
First of all, I'm once again amazed by the feedback on this forum. Would that other more mainstream communities had this level of information.
With that said, it's a shame two ways. The story was worth reading and .. it appears the writer made more than one poor choice.
With all this said 'banned from the internet for life': is this even possible?
Maybe. Severe restrictions can be placed on him during parole, BUT see this for a possible way out for him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina
Maybe. Severe restrictions can be placed on him during parole, BUT see this for a possible way out for him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina
Amazing, and unanimous as well. Good for the courts. Although as the one justice pointed out, relevant restrictions could still be "justifiably" put in place. Which in this specific scenario, could mean a remaining prohibition on sites involving erotic literature. Assuming that was part of his initial conviction.
During parole, certainly. Afterwards, I have to wonder.
And, the case you linked is certainly a possible way to reverse the conviction - though the original limitation did explicitly state 'social media', it appears, which is already pretty different.
Then we could go into the entire 'minor' thing but that is a long, complicated and touchy subject. I will just go on record, since we're on the subject, as stating that there should be a difference between a 'minor' who is 16 and a 'minor' who is 11... but there often is not, in law and in public perception. I believe you have made the case yourself.
In any case, I do not think we'll be hearing back from him. I hate unfinished stories.
Then we could go into the entire 'minor' thing but that is a long, complicated and touchy subject. I will just go on record, since we're on the subject, as stating that there should be a difference between a 'minor' who is 16 and a 'minor' who is 11... but there often is not, in law and in public perception. I believe you have made the case yourself.
The recent "thing" in Alabama was surreal on many levels to watch. Considering how many self-identified, non-religious, liberals I've known for 20+ years who flipped out over that, I'd almost be inclined to think some of it was entirely political. But knowing some of them as I do, I'm not so sure about that. Which still leaves me to wonder what exactly was "triggering" them.
Best I can think of is that many of them are now parents of young children themselves, or know parents of young children. As such they've become more socially conservative than they think they are over time and it was an impulsive, unthinking, "Think of the Children!" response as they fixated on the 14YO allegation specifically, and more importantly, the fixation was on the number, and nothing else.
So I guess their mental image was the youngest looking, youngest seeming 14YO they ever possibly imagine. Never mind that by all accounts, the guy was allegedly going for 16 Year Olds(who were "legal" at the time), and the circumstances(parents divorcing) around the 14YO make it likely she actually was one of the "mature" ones.
Still bizarre given they're the generation of things like American Beauty(although its actor also saw himself blacklisted in the past few months as well) and Stacy's Mom. It certainly made for one heck of a "I don't quite get this" type of moment.
Of course, I guess that is in large part due to my own background as a BBS Forum troll as a Pre-teen and through my teenage years, and my constantly being frustrated over the age card being played against me.
In hind-sight, they were partially correct, as teens "lack perspective" that only comes with experience, and age factors strongly into that.
But that still doesn't invalidate quantifiable knowledge, or the possibility that many teens can in fact understand the implications of certain choices. Even if that lack of perspective tends to mean that they require guidance in regards to considering things they wouldn't think about otherwise.
But then, I guess ironically is a "left-wing nanny state" vs "right-wing individual accountability" divide thing. The Liberal answer is that because they "require guidance" they simply cannot be allowed to make a choice. The Libertarian("right-wing") answer is that they should be allowed to pursue obtaining said guidance and be allowed to choose. The Social Conservative(also right-wing) answer is that teens shouldn't be placing themselves in sexual situations in the first place "because teens throughout history have never pursued sexual relations with one another before marriage."
One issue to express outrage at a politician of any stripe is hypocrisy - if that politician takes very religious stands in his public pronouncements, then gets caught doing something that appears to be out of sync.
One issue to express outrage at a politician of any stripe is hypocrisy - if that politician takes very religious stands in his public pronouncements, then gets caught doing something that appears to be out of sync.
No, it was very clear they were flipping their lid over "the children" the Hypocrisy factor was barely even on their radar.
Of course, "the Hypocrisy factor" as it were also is unclear however, given the accused behavior happened prior to him becoming a public political figure. So his stance on those issues at the time in question is unknown. Such is the joys of the "Born Again Christian" in that they can be found to have personally been guilty of all kinds of things, but so long as they "saw the error of their way" and returned to the path, that's the end of it. They're only hypocrites if they continue to partake of the very thing they decry.
Of course, he flat out denied the allegations, so he couldn't even claim "I repented and abandoned that behavior" which by all indications he did. Nothing was found to suggest he has been unfaithful to his wife since meeting her well over 20 years ago.
That said, he's on the other side of the country, so I've only caught most of what I do know from conversations with people who did follow it as I didn't care much. Of note as well, I don't recall anyone pointing out that he was particularly aggressive about "going after" people who did as he (allegedly) did, in public or in a court of law. They're just simply "connecting dots" in relation to his "family values" stance... And so far as "Traditional family values" go, a 30-something YO male "courting" a young woman in her late teens wasn't particularly unusual for much of the 20th Century.... That it is found to be socially distasteful today is another different matter.
And so far as "Traditional family values" go, a 30-something YO male "courting" a young woman in her late teens wasn't particularly unusual for much of the 20th Century.... That it is found to be socially distasteful today is another different matter.
And THIS is the result of infantilizing teens (and now twenty-somethings). It's insane and it's destroying our society.
It's an issue which has been examined from Book 1 of AWLL1 and is STILL being address in Book 9 of AWWL2.
And THIS is the result of infantilizing teens (and now twenty-somethings). It's insane and it's destroying our society.
It isn't entirely "insane" as some of it actually is quite sane. The problem is that those rare instances are the basis for their assertion that EVERY such example must be abusive.
There is a definite power imbalance between a 30-Something Male well on his way in his chosen career field and a 17YO Female still in high school.
There also is no shortage of men who are fully aware of that imbalance and will take advantage of it for everything it is worth and will do everything they can to maximize it.
BUT that doesn't mean that every guy who pursues a relationship with a 16/17 YO is seeking to dominate their life in every way imaginable.
However, the feminists in particular are having fun pulling up historic examples of old men using their patriarchy-granted-power to "arrange" marriages with much younger women, with or without said woman's consent, and thus using those examples as a basis to proclaim any such relationship like that to be abusive on the part of the male.
In some respects, I almost suspect it is a more than mild case a jealousy on the part of many (older) feminists in particular. Men remain "Reproductively viable" for a very long time. Women are pretty much "finished" in that department by their 40's. Biological systems however tend to favor practices that further reproduction, which means (reproduction viable) men are always going to be drawn towards women who are able to reproduce. (See: Trophy Wives)
So thus the "natural response" for the Matriarchy in pursuit of defending their own interests re: MEN is to make it socially unacceptable for men to pursue women "significantly younger" than they are.
Even if older man, younger woman is often a more viable combination from a fiscal and reproductive standpoint. But as that is an "unequal outcome" for older women(who can no longer reproduce), that's unacceptable because there is no biological (or socially accepted) impetus that promotes Older Woman - Younger Male sexual relations as it is a biological dead-end.
Which at present makes the recent social shift actually another example of the matriarchy, insomuch as there is one, is actually the one that is imposing standards on society which results in making life difficult for younger women. All in the interests of protecting the interests of older women, because that's only proper.
At least until/unless Aubrey deGray has his way on the battle against senescence. In which case everyone gets to be "reproductively viable" for however long they want to be.
There is a definite power imbalance between a 30-Something Male well on his way in his chosen career field and a 17YO Female still in high school.
But a large component of that imbalance is created by infantilization. When teenagers are treated as young adults and given the experience and tools to make responsible decisions, the power is suddenly not so great.
On the other hand, if you treat an eighteen-year-old as a child, they will act as a child does, and the power imbalance will grow ever larger...
One issue to express outrage at a politician of any stripe is hypocrisy - if that politician takes very religious stands in his public pronouncements, then gets caught doing something that appears to be out of sync.
It's not just politicians. This is actually the primary reason I have nothing to do with organized religions.
This is actually the primary reason I have nothing to do with organized religions.
In general, there's usually nothing wrong with religions per se, it's the way some people abuse what the teachings of the religion for their own personal and political gains at the micro and macro level that's the problem.
it's the way some people abuse what the teachings of the religion for their own personal and political gains at the micro and macro level that's the problem.
And those are the people who seem to always end up at the top of the hierarchy in any organized religion.
Cream rises to the top, but so does scum.
And those are the people who seem to always end up at the top of the hierarchy in any organized religion.
That's because they're more willing to tromp on others, and shit floats.
As I recall it he was in Australia. As I remember there was quite a lengthy discussion on the ASSTR sex stories moderated group about his situation.
Look at the Russell Hoisington page on SOL - he wrote a number of pieces that dovetailed with Wizard's.
https://storiesonline.net/a/Russell_Hoisington
I don't know if Russell and the Wiazrd knew each other, but before he died Russel did send The Wizard all his notes to complete the unpublished Wynter stories with permission to use Russell's characters etc. It was all discussed on the ASSTR forum over a decade ago.
I am a moderate feminist at heart but can't deny the issues and difficulties that today's woman face, not from the patriarchy but from feminism.
There are many articles about the difficulty of finding a Husband for successful woman in their 30's. (also for poor woman, but they don't write articles on big websites)
Many stories are similar, that the women were College graduates who took work before family and chose to aim for individual financial and workplace success over starting a family.
And when they are finally ready to start a family and want to find equally successful Husbands, they are in competition with women in their early 20's who don't even need a college degree to be considered "wife-material" by 30-something men.
I am a moderate feminist at heart but can't deny the issues and difficulties that today's woman face, not from the patriarchy but from feminism.
I view myself as more of a humanist than anything else. I don't approve of abusive or exploitive practices without respect to gender, race, nationality or religious creed. But I'm also a big fan of equality before the law, and the idea that national borders mean something(but that many borders, particularly in Africa, were poorly drawn).
Of course, "equality before the law" becomes a bit of a stumbling block when you start adding checklists for additional crimes or enhanced penalties based on the race, gender, religion, or sexual preferences of the victim. That's not equal.
And people who think the way to fix a problem is to proclaim "a victim" has been found, absolve them of any and all wrong-doing, and then go about blaming anyone and anything else for the problems at hand are peddling snake oil. It almost never works out that way outside of truly exceptional circumstances.
It is far more common for there to be plenty of blame to go around. But people are far more inclined to act upon the failings of "others" rather than the failings of their own.
I think there was even a famous guy who said something about not plucking out the mote in your brother's eye while ignoring the BEAM(and we're not talking about lighting) in your own.
Was he convicted in the U.S.?
Yes, it was the USA. From what I remember seeing way back when, The Wizard left a thumb drive in his computer at work. Another worker saw it, looked at what was on it to find out who it belonged to, found child pron images, and contact the authorities.
If i found a drive in my friends comp I can make a guess as to who it belongs to.
In most cases you'd be right, but it's doubtful when it's one of a few systems used by whoever is on duty in a multi-shift work situation, which is what was the case there.
Addition to Ernest's info.
It was in Wyoming, and the computer he left the thumb drive in was in an office he wasn't supposed to enter.
As I recall the news items, the pictures alone probably wouldn't have been enough to convict, but in conjunction with the stories...
As I recall the news items, the pictures alone probably wouldn't have been enough to convict, but in conjunction with the stories...
The stories might have been an issue if he was convicted on a general obscenity charge.
However, it was suggested that he was convicted for possession of child pornography. For child pornography, the stories would not be relevant. Under standing US law, only photographs/video of actual children can qualify as child pornography. Drawing/cartoons or photos/videos of adult performers who look underage are legal.
When child pornography was first banned in the US, the US Supreme Court only allowed an exception to the first amendment due to the harm done to the children used to produce the materials.
Congress attempted to explicitly ban virtual child porn (stories, drawings, cartoons, video using underage looking adult performers) in the late 1990s, but the law was overturned by the Supreme Court less than a year later.