Subject: A Reader Responds to My Ehtical Dilemmas
By: Kelly <pghkelly@yahoo.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!!!WARNING!!!!
This file is a work of fiction containing sexually explicit material which may
include depictions of underage, nonconsensual and unprotected sex as well as
incest and adultery. It is not intended to implicate any person or action by
them or me, nor advocate such practices. If you can't separate fantasy from
reality, get professional help - FAST!
The material is distributed as "For Adults Only" and possession by a minor is
strictly forbidden. If you are not legally empowered to be in possession of
this material, do not read it and delete it immediately.
This work is copyrighted to the author ©2010. It may be posted to non-commercial
"free" sites, or in the "free" area of commercial sites so long as no changes
are made AND the author information is retained.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:
Submitted by: Dan <whalesrevenge2009@gmail.com>
Yahoo ID: whalesrevenge2009
In my article, “Ethical Dilemmas” I describe a number of situations that I
actually have found myself in as a result of publishing this web site. This is
what one guy sent me regarding some of them. Do you agree with his analysis?
These are the “dilemmas” from my article that Dan has addressed so far:
# 1 Dad and His 3 year-old Daughter
# 2 Dad and 11 year-old Daughter
# 3 Dad and 3 year-old Son
# 4 Cheating Fiancé and School Teacher
#12 Unfaithful Husband
#13 How far to go for a job?
#1 Dad and His 3 year-old Daughter
==================================
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 5:26:49 PM
Dear Kelly,
Before I offer you my feelings on Dilemma 1, which you might be surprised to
find to be rather supportive, I thought it would be a good idea to lay down some
general ideas that bound my thought process for all my comments on the dilemmas.
First, "if I were you" is an unobtainable perspective. I am not you, and if it
were "me" AND I was as thoughtful as you by laying down in writing some personal
principles to be guided by, well, they would be different personal principles,
wouldn't they? After all, you don't want a sycophant, do you? For example,
assume for the sake of argument that I was an interventionist Christian
minister. In the physical world, I would be use to walking some pretty tough
streets; ministering to some pretty "lost" people; and regularly being
confronted with behaviors outside the cultural norm as the cost of doing
business. These situations and these places are where Christ's message was
ALWAYS the most powerful, even during Jesus' own ministry. It would be no
problem for such an interventionist minister to cruise your webpage. For him, it
might even be BETTER than cruising the streets because so much of your webpage
is probably fantasy, not real. But if a UK man was totally in your power of
suggestion to the point that he was IN REALITY putting his cock up against her
naked back, well that interventionist minister (if he/she was not corrupt that
is) would surely advise you that if it had been HIM, he would not have provoked
the father in the first place. The reason is obvious: Because his ethical code
was built on different moral foundations.
But I'm not an interventionist Christian minister! I AM a life member of a very
large Christian church, and I will gladly admit that the singular impact of
Jesus' ministry on the history of the world leaves me almost breathless with
awe. But I ain't here to preach. This translates into I'm not going to confuse
your ethical dilemma with a moral dilemma. Nor am I going to suggest that you
HAVE a moral dilemma (well, maybe but only because you seem to, see the last
paragraph). After all, you are exotically and erotically intoxicating because
you make it clear in your webpage the firm notion that you are a sincere
believer in a Christian church. My God! Isn’t this better than sex? I would say
I am a sincere believer, too. But does that mean I live by the Church’s teaching
without question? No, I do not. For example, is it a sin that my wife and I have
always practiced artificial birth control? I found it ironic that in church
today, the gospel reading and the homily was devoted to the difference between
the rules of an earthly religious institution, and those of God (Mathew Chapter
V). So am I in the holier than thou position of living to someone else’s
external moral code without exception? Nope. And thus for the sake of discussion
(but not necessarily action, by the way) I WILL NOT hold you to any particular
moral standard. After all, I'm reading your web page and lovin it: Who am I to
preach? Before I was married, I was as promiscuous as my conflicted
inhibited/uninhibited personality would permit. When the head on the third leg
took over, the uninhibited self did well in the seduction role (before I was in
a monogamous relationship with my future wife, that is). Does that make me a
slut before marriage? I guess so. It is even more ironic that when I was deep in
thought about all of this last night I walked through the living room where my
girls were watching an episode of “House” (they are addicts). The show must be
based exclusively on sexual themes because, even thought I have never watched an
entire episode, whenever I walk through the living room the sexual nature of the
plot, and most sub plots, always seem to jump out at me through the dialog. This
time what caught my attention? A quick sound bite from Dr. House: “Yesterday’s
slut is today’s empowered woman!” Ok, Ms. Wells, I guess you are an empowered
woman!!!
So, what's the point? Easy, an "Ethical Dilemma" assumes rules have been chosen
by the individuals expected to live up to the ethics. At least to the extent
that it is practical to do so. For example, in a republican democracy we not
only delegate rule making (i.e., to elected officials), but then submit to
majority rule. And when joining a profession, we might accept, or even feel
forced to accept, the professional rules of conduct because we want to be one of
the professionals (a specific point that I will find relevant in addressing your
last dilemma). But we also have the opportunity to change the rules by
participating in the profession's rule making processes.
In this case, the ethical rules are set by one person and one person only: You.
I can't get into the body of Kelly Wells (Freudian slip?) when commenting on the
ethical dilemmas. It is indeed extraordinary that you even care to ask for
comment. After all, aren't you the rule maker, judge and jury all rolled into
one? Perhaps your erotic need to push your correspondents to come as close to
reality as possible leaves you vulnerable to guilt. Well, you said as much in
your Ethical Dilemma piece. I'll take you at your word; but that goes to the
heart of a moral code, not an ethical code. More on that below.
I'm going to assume that you don't want my GUESS at YOUR opinion, you want MY
opinion (at least I think that's what you said) about the case as it reflects
against YOUR ethical rules (not mine). To offer that opinion, I'm going to look
at your other statements about yourself. What do I think you should have done IF
you were being consistent with your own ethical rules? The answer from me will
be something different from your actions ONLY if you were clearly NOT being
consistent with your ethical rules.
In the case of the first Dilemma the outcome of my reasoning may surprise you:
I think you did the right thing when you did it. Why? Because the facts of his
behavior, in my opinion, were consistent with all of your guidelines (with one
technical exception that I argue your reasoning resolves anyway) for a Daddy
Daughter moment. In that case, you should have felt the need to close the window
only when the session no longer served YOUR needs for erotic or intellectual
stimulation. “To be fair” the daughter was, by your own admission, not being
molested by what you saw or knew of at least. But you had lost interest in the
continuation of the sequence of events, and the image transmission had even
become unwelcome to you. So you terminated it because the chat had lost its
purpose from your standpoint. The daughter’s well being and needs were not being
adversely impacted by your encouragement in the chat cycle. Well, maybe in
society’s opinion it was; by “Society’s” definition maybe she was already being
molested! But as you define it in your various discussions on this subject in
the “About Me” section, nope, no molestation. And, in many countries, the images
might not even be considered child porn. Thus, in your ethical paradigm, only
the needs of the Daddy and you were in play. Let's examine this first case a
little closer to see why my opinion in this case follows that conclusion.
You are chatting with a father with a daughter. That immediately puts him in
your special incest category as documented in your underage sex statement. In
addition, in that same document you put some rather remarkable allowances for
activities between very young girls and the male cock. Not only that, but you
specifically allow very young girls to participate in oral sex (even though they
don’t know they are “participating” in anything) even to the extent that it
might relieve the sexual tension of the male partner (admittedly, that’s in the
preteen section, but as you will see below, if the reasoning is right, it
applies even more so to younger girls!). I drew the unmistakable conclusion that
you anticipate and thus accept that the outcome of THAT could include him
blowing a huge wad of his sperm in her mouth, face, hair, nose, eyes, etc etc.
Yum. You justified this conclusion with the notion that physical contact with a
cock was pretty much like physical contact with the man's finger, and, anyway,
only he was truly aware that sexual activity was involved (defined as
stimulation of someone's genitals resulting in sexual gratification). And what
sexual gratification it would be! The acceptable case was carefully limited to:
1. Lack of touching of the young girl’s pussy or chest. And maybe butt too? (But
hell that goes on everywhere without sexual intent by either party, so I'm
kinda convinced that you left that one off on purpose).
2. The male is related or unrelated and any age (i.e., unrestricted). And...
3. The girl is 6 years old or older.
The facts of the case are that you came to believe the man was responding to
your highly persuasive chat suggestions with a real girl who was his daughter
aged three. So what? What you saw never seemed to even approach a technical
violation of rule (1). Rule (2) is no rule at all. That leaves curious rule (3).
Why six, Kelly? If I understand the justification for rule (3) from your own
written statement of ethics on the matter, then I believe you set an arbitrary
standard for age. It seemed so obviously arbitrary to me when I first read it
that I dismissed it as being simply a cop out to keep the flaming emails down a
little bit. However, when you realized that he was sending you real-time
produced child porn (at least in the eyes of one democracy, ours!), you reacted,
based on your PERSONAL preferences, by no longer participating. I can only
speculate why, but the nature of your statements in your dilemma piece suggest
that certain issues of self interest were involved, including a desire not to
participate in the receipt of the images, and your lack of erotic interest in
continuing to participate. But neither of those issues was ethical in nature, at
least with respect to your rules.
In short, I think you were right to press him to go as far as you wanted him to
go, even if it was real (cause it's more erotic that way) because any violations
of your rules of ethics were technical (really only rule (3)) and subject to
dispute anyway due to the possibility of arbitrary limits not consistent with
the actual intent of the rule. Therefore, WAY TO GO GIRL! Nobody persuades a
chat partner to take a daddy daughter situation to within your cherished
framework of incest better than you do.
What keeps this from being a total open shut case? Well, the HINT of a moral
dilemma on your part. Here are the telling sections: “Still, it was shocking to
say the least that anyone would do that to a girl that age…” and “Of course, I
never believed for a moment that he would actually DO it when I made those
suggestions!” Why not, Kelly? Does this mean you don’t REALLY want a daddy to
act that way around a very young daughter? Masturbate in the open near her? Have
his erect cock come in contact with a non-sexual part of her body? If it’s just
the age difference, well, baloney! A three year old is not any more able to
discern she is in a sexual situation than a six year old. It’s just a finger
against her back, isn’t it? So, at the risk of angering you on the first try
(please humor me if you feel anger, it is NOTHING personal), I guess I’m asking
you to explain to me if you are consciously or unconsciously signaling a qualm
about the moral foundations of your own ethical rules.
I am eager to hear how this discussion makes you feel.
Love,
Dan
P.S. If you found this interesting and worth continuing (and I certainly hope
that you do), feel free to suggest to me the next ethical dilemma you
would like me to tackle. I can go in chronological order unless you
suggest otherwise. And I won’t continue until I get feedback from you. If
you don’t find it interesting, for God’s sake tell me why! I want you to
enjoy this. Then you might be motivated to allow me to enjoy what comes
later.
P.S.S. I thought you might also be interested in knowing the impact you’re
having on me. Last night at dinner, the kids left the table and my wife
was talking to me. All idle chatter of course. But I knew that by
listening I was giving her indirect emotional support. You know what I’m
talking about. Because if she (or most wives) feel you are NOT listening,
then they become disappointed, not because the information in the
conversation is that important, but because the unwary husband has failed
to give needed and valued emotional support. Well, as I was listening, I
was thinking ALMOST too much about you (i.e., almost missed a couple of
cues). Why might that interest you? Well, in a sense I am trying to give
YOU indirect emotional support by writing these pieces. It’s really not
that strange. After all, writing personal letters to other people was for
centuries exactly how you gave indirect emotional :)
#2 Dad and 11 year-old Daughter
===============================
Dear Kelly,
The next topic is a man and his fantasy for his 11 year old daughter. Only, you
have adequate proof over a long enough period of time to be confident that you
were, at least some of the time, not seeing fantasy but reality. This is, of
course, the first necessary (but not sufficient) condition for an ethical
dilemma to arise. For as even the U.S. government admits (with supervision from
the Supreme Court), you and I can fantasize about ANYTHING without it being a
crime. The difference between you and the larger societal norm is that you
encourage going to the limits. Of course, no one can complain about a fantasy
never revealed, but many different types of societal institutions advocate
limits for the sake of reinforcing cultural norms. It’s sort of like public
education. The content is normed by the society doing the teaching.
I once discovered this to my amazement in a context unrelated to fucking 11 year
old girls. (Funny, in my day job that subject just never seems to come up!) I
once had a graduate student from the “former” Soviet Union (Gorbychev and
Perestroika was “over” by the time of this conversation). While I fiddled with
my office door, I found myself stammering to be polite by trying to address him
as a citizen of whatever country he was “from” now. And since I happen to
believe the Soviet Union actually was an “evil empire” I didn’t want to tarnish
him with THAT label. He finally stopped my stammering and simply said “I view
myself as a Soviet.” Not a former Soviet, but a Soviet. Hmmm, that’s when I
realized that this guy did not feel “liberated” by the fall of the Soviet Union
at all (however, make no mistake, the one’s subjugated in Eastern Europe sure
did!). I realized, this guy received a public education (no other kind was
permitted) and was normed into accepting and desiring his political system.
Well, he was a damn good graduate student, so what did I care? And he was
perfectly willing to be a “Yankee Doodle” while he lived and worked in America.
Heck, he even knew and loved the Ford Taurus (not just his, ALL of them!). Great
guy, really.
So what’s the point, Danny me boy? Society wishes to teach us what fantasy’s we
should WANT to have (well, the limits on them anyway), but not even the law
forbids us from accepting Kelly’s motto: Fantasies should have no limits. The
corollary is, of course, you cannot have a fantasy too extreme. Thus, there is
no ethical dilemma until it starts to get real, so that’s the entry point. And
from the description of the problem in Ethical Dilemmas, that point with
reasonable probability had come.
Since we have a POTENTIAL ethical dilemma, the question is, did you go over the
line, cumulatively or at anytime during the rather long run up to the sudden
disappearance of the father from your communication channels? Remembering back
to my “General Thoughts,” in addressing that question, I am not going to use
Dan’s ethical paradigm (might be a good idea, cause, who knows? I may or may not
have rules as trustworthy as even naughty Kelly Wells’ rules). My conclusions
must address the following: either “you should not have done this when you did
it;” or “you should have stopped all of this sooner;” or “carry on Kelly, you
did nothing wrong.”
If we look at the ethical constraints driving the discussion over Ethical
Dilemma 1, the three rules for underage sex, we get little or no help here. For
all practical purposes, none of those rules were broken. But, as we progress
through all of the ethical dilemma’s, we will take increasingly critical looks
at the facts of each case to see if there are unwritten rules, analogous to
“common law,” to help provide extra guidance. In considering dilemma 2, I make
the first effort to examine, codify, and use these unwritten rules. Where might
I find them? Well, they might reveal themselves in your agreements about
positions or principles concerning specific events offered to you by others
(think of these as similar to a “contract”). Or they might consist of systematic
behaviors revealed during the course of chats whether related to this case or
not. The latter reveal “cultural norms” for the land of Kelly. In the following
discussion, I will invoke and consider both types.
So, what other circumstances of this dilemma should we consider? Well there was
the unauthorized use of the sexy 11-year-old fuck muffin’s lingerie for sperm
target practice. At first glance, you might ask “WTF? If I can cum in a six
year old’s mouth, why would anyone give a damn about a cum stain on an 11-year-
old’s lingerie?” Ditto with the tooth brush and the mouth wash. After all,
cumming directly in the mouth just eliminates the middle man; err, the middle
brush or bottle, I mean.
Well, Kelly might.
(Kelly, please note that from here on out I’m going to switch between first and
third person when speaking to you or about you for purely rhetorical reasons.
Don’t take points off, please!)
If we read a juicy Farrow-Kelly chat about this “John-Alicia” story (please
note: I’m working that in from memory, might have been another lingerie shoot
out!), Farrow (God I hope that one is real!!!) tells Kelly that it is perfectly
ok for John to want to use his daughter’s bra as a sperm-cell swimming pool, but
really it is an invasion of her privacy to do it without asking. (Hmm, given his
last brush with the law and the battle axe’s continuing feelings on the matter,
just the suggestion of asking is practically stand up comedy!) And, in all
fairness to Farrow, there probably is a difference between leaving a greasy
smudge in a first grader’s Cinderella panties and leaving that same present in
the new thong the hyper-sensitive, hormone-riven teenage slut just talked her
mom into buying for her with the neighbor boy in mind. Farrow’s suggestion, so
clinically and objectively correct, while avoiding all hint of judgment (jeeze,
she sounds like my mother!), is that the wife should buy him instead surrogate
lingerie. Naturally, from the description of the wife’s feelings of betrayal and
humiliation at the husband’s past history, the cold day in Hell will come first.
So what’s a guy to do, especially with Kelly encouraging him in the way only she
knows how to do? Well, cum in the daughter’s panties, of course! Just don’t
miss; the sheets are much harder to change.
Is there even a gray area here with respect to Kelly’s ethical paradigm? All I
could find was that Kelly seems to agree with Farrow when she writes this
prescription (i.e., the prohibition on violating the girl’s privacy). But Kelly
could have been just being polite for the sake of conversation and not wanting
to look like she was challenging the highly trained and licensed sex counseling
professional. And Kelly’s agreement sure didn’t look like a contract to me.
Heck, I would have done the same thing (“yeah, sure, sure, Farrow” while
pressing on with John in the other chat window). And nowhere else have I found
on Kelly’s webpage that it is written “thou shalt not leave seminal fluid in an
11-year old’s lingerie.” So, Kelly, I figure it’s not really something that you
disapprove of. Looking at the chat sequence between John and Kelly, one sees
the usual occurring, namely Kelly using all of her persuasive powers to cause
that very thing to happen! “And John, don’t forget to send the pictures!!!” I
have no evidence that this is a violation of any rules in Kelly’s ethical
paradigm, so I will dismiss this in summary judgment. No ethical dilemma here.
John, fire away at the little girl’s underwear!
Now, let’s turn to bigger fish than some little girl’s cum rags. In looking at
the John-Kelly chat record, I have come to see from time to time and on a rather
persistent basis, apparently significant departures between what I read in your
rather emphatic rules and advice testaments found in your “About Me” section and
what I read you advocating in the Chat sessions. In some places, they are simply
in complete and total contradiction. Why, I ask myself? Here are three
possibilities:
1. Kelly, in the heat of the erotic moment, will compromise any and all of her
core principles. We’ll call this the “Hypocrite’s” Hypothesis.
2. Kelly, in asking for things that appear to violate her core principles that
apply to reality is simply role playing in fantasy space. We’ll call this the
“Role Player’s Cue” Hypothesis.
3. Kelly, in asking for things that appear to violate her core principles that
apply to reality, is transferring the responsibility to the father/mother on
the other side of the chat to decide for themselves whether to do a
disapproved act or not. We’ll call this the “Free Will” Hypothesis.
Let’s look at a couple of examples to see if we can spot a likely correct
hypothesis for the specific event in question. If we see that the “Hypocrite’s”
Hypothesis is the only truly plausible one, then I'll have to say that you acted
outside of your ethics. Let’s begin with the following chat sequence from
chat_john080412.txt:
Kelly (10:46 PM): little cuties, I think sometimes about you and them
John (10:46 PM): oh really
John (10:46 PM): what do you think about
Kelly (10:46 PM): picking one out for you
John (10:46 PM): mmmm
John (10:46 PM): and
Kelly (10:46 PM): keeping her after school
Kelly (10:47 PM): so you could fuck her in my classroom
John (10:47 PM): young and hot
John (10:47 PM): and me fucking her right on your desk
John (10:47 PM): her parent with NO idea
Kelly (10:48 PM): while I sit on the end and masturbate for you
John (10:48 PM): that would be so fucking hot
Kelly (10:49 PM): there is one that is so cute
Kelly (10:49 PM): you would love her
John (10:49 PM): what's she look like
Kelly (10:49 PM): reminds me of Alicia which is why I think she is so hot
Kelly (10:49 PM): naughty little grin
John (10:50 PM): how old is she
Kelly (10:50 PM): just turned 11
Key facts:
1. John did not initiate the idea of choosing a girl in Kelly’s class for him,
Kelly did.
2. Kelly explains her motivation is so that John can fuck the chosen girl.
3. The girl is young enough and the circumstances involving power over the child
clear enough that in the event it would likely be out of Kelly's own safe
harbor for preteen sex.
A key differentiating factor from other "more cautious" tales is that Kelly does
not ask a rhetorical question “so you WOULD fuck her in my classroom?” That's a
turn of the phrase that Kelly often uses to protect herself with plausible
deniability; i.e., invoking “Free Will” as justification for her advocacy. But
in this case, she does not need it. Because John has no access whatsoever to the
little girl in question and Kelly has taken no steps to make it possible for him
to meet her, and she has MANY reasons not to ever reveal enough information for
John to even know who she is, let alone take her up on the proposition, we can
conclude that this is a fantasy and thus protected. There can be no ethical
dilemma arising from this chat sequence. Are Kelly’s comments, then, simply the
“cues” that are necessary for the role playing chat sequence to go forward? As
Yoda might say: “Practiced chat partners role playing are these two.” One,
meaning ME, may look with squinty, questioning eyes, but the evidence is not
there to accuse Kelly of ethical departures.
But what about the following chat? Kelly once again initiates the idea of sex
with a preteen in away that at least pushes the envelope of her proscriptions
for acceptable preteen sex. And the discussion COULD cause a leave of fantasy
for reality.
Kelly (11:44 PM): actually, the real reason it turned me on was imagining it
was you and Alicia
John (11:45 PM): would you like to see me fondle Alicia while she sleeps
Kelly (11:45 PM): omg yes
Kelly (11:45 PM): seeing your dick growing as a sign of your lust for her
Kelly escalates John’s lust, confirming her desire, not just his. Are we
dangerously close to the “Hypocrite’s Hypothesis?” But now she grows wary,
retreating to a question, rather than an admonition. The retreat keeps the “Fee
Will” Hypothesis a viable option.
John (11:46 PM): knowing I want my dick in her
Kelly (11:46 PM): you want that bad, don't you?
John (11:46 PM): fuck yes I do
Kelly (11:47 PM): would you like to fuck her right now?
John (11:48 PM): I would love to have a cam hooked up and having riding my
cock on cam so you could watch
Kelly (11:48 PM): are her pajamas easy to take off tonight?
John (11:49 PM): yes
John (11:49 PM): loose elastic waist
Kelly (11:49 PM): pull them down to her knees this time
Is the above sequence Kelly at her best? Escaping a “Hypocrite’s” fate in the
nick of time all in the face of serious lust? It would seem so. Careful naughty
girl!!
And, then, the grand finale:
John (12:13 AM): would you get turned on watching me fuck that little one
you are sending me pics of
Kelly (12:13 AM): mmm, yes
John (12:13 AM): not just saying that to please me are you
Kelly (12:13 AM): I don’t do that
John (12:14 AM): I know... just teasing you
Kelly (12:14 AM): I would love to just watch
John (12:14 AM): see me between her tiny thighs... my dick slowly
disappearing into her little baby cunt
John (12:43 AM): and I want to share my daughter with you... I really do
Kelly (12:44 AM): I know, that is what makes it even hotter for me, that you
really do
Pure “Free Will” territory here. Kelly is back in her safe harbor, encouraging
by asking questions or acknowledging her understanding of what HE wants to do;
but not directing the show. As the chat closes, veiled language is used.
Kelly (12:44 AM): so now tonight I want you to show me
John (12:44 AM): mmm ok
Just what does Kelly mean? It seems John probably does not know for sure. Kelly,
in an earlier part of the sequence, tells him to use his imagination, as that
would be more fruitful than her telling him everything.
So, Kelly, what to make of all of this? To summarize my conclusions:
1. No obvious or certain departures from your “core reality principles” (CRP’s,
yeah, I know, shitty acronym :) ) were observed by you during the course of
the relationship. You saw no evil.
2. No obvious advocacy on your part for departures from your CRP’s. While you
came awful close, you are an experienced pro at getting absolutely as close
as possible to your erotic reality show without crossing the line. You spoke
no evil.
3. You did not chat with a previously known pedophile. Despite the best and most
vigorous efforts of the FBI, a state or federal prosecutor, and expensive
legions of shrinks, this guy was cleared of being one. You don’t have to
assume on your own authority that he was/is one. You heard no evil.
WAY TO GO GIRL! You played it loose and close, but within your own rules. You
may not earn that gold star in discussions of every dilemma, but we’ll take ‘em
one at a time. For me, the closer you get the reality show to town the higher
the sperm flies at the end of the hand job.
Luv,
Dan
P.S. Who knows what happened to him? If the wife found his written record, then
at least a frying pan upside the head, I’m sure.
#3 Dad and 3 year-old Son
=========================
Dear Kelly,
In referring to the "real" you (and yes, I have taken careful note of that
admonition throughout your web page), I think you raise an interesting issue
that is at the center of my thinking about Dilemma 3. In fact, you may notice
that from here on out I'm going to be building on the themes enumerated in the
Dilemma 2 feature. The real "dilemma" with you, frankly, is that the "distance"
between no limits for fantasies and real limits for realities is so
fantastically large (infinitely large in fact, therefore incomprehensibly large)
that it gives some dangerous wiggle room. Combine that with your admitted erotic
thrill to stalk reality if it looms as an opportunity, and now you know why your
loyal fans would blow their sperm over half a phone book just to correspond with
you. But if you profess to have limits in real life, AND you pledge (at least to
yourself) that the "real" me will govern your behavior when it all becomes real;
then I need to ask who was in control when the shit hit the fan? Who was in
control right BEFORE the shit hit the fan? Yes, it matters.
To use a tired cliché, what did you know and when did you know it? Because
intelligent people (and you are definitely one of those, that's why you blow
people away with this web site) can make predictions about the future, and
depending on the circumstances, can even make extremely accurate predictions,
then you can't get away with trivial excuses every time: "I didn't think he
would REALLY do it" etc. etc. You can't, that is, if you truly wish to live by
your ethical code. In other words, you might have to operate a bit more
conservative when all of the information points to your participation, through
extreme encouragement of a highly susceptible-to-suggestion individual, in REAL
events that in hindsight you do not condone (but go ahead if you condone them,
or if your pulling our leg about not condoning them). Are you being fully
honest with us and yourself? Why would you bother asking people to comment on
your ethical dilemmas if you weren't willing to examine this question? Since I
don't know you except for what you've written, meaning I don't KNOW the REAL you
(through, for example, personal acquaintance), then I'm going to take you at
face value and assume that you do care about this question.
The law knows all about this issue of encouraging susceptible people or crowds.
Aren't the one's that incite the riot generally held most culpable? Wasn't Heath
Ledger's Joker (OMG, what a MOVIE!!) the really bad guy, not all of his dumb ass
assistants? They pulled most of the triggers but they were all brainwashed by
him, right? But, hey, I don't want you to think that I've suddenly gotten
judgmental. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Like I said in the
beginning, you don't want a sycophant, do you? This question, in my mind, is at
the heart of Dilemma 3.
But, I don't want to get ahead of myself. Expect Dilemma 3 tonight sometime. The
wife has carpool duty for soccer practice, and that gives me some quality time
to be a pervert. Or, at least, draft commentary while THINKING perverted things.
Love,
Dan
*************
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 3:59:32 PM
Subject: Dilemma 3, at your service
[Prologue: I’ve tried to inject some levity in the monologue that follows.
These commentaries have been getting kind of heavy, and I didn’t want them to
sink clear out of sight due to their own weight. But, I have a bad habit of
laughing at my own satire, so if you read some of it and instead of lol (or
thinking about it) you get that “this is sick” kind of look on your face, well,
hold that emotion and accept my sincere apology. Because when you get to the end
of this commentary, you might be able to recycle that “this is sick” emotion!]
Dear Kelly,
The next topic is the man and what-ever-walks-within-arms-reach-and-can’t-get-
away-quick-enough case! In this case, it would be his three-year old son.
First, let’s establish something about myself. While I’m not homophobic, daddy-
son stories are not my thing. I remember being in college and my roommate and I
would cruise our local neighborhood and dare each other to belly up to the bar
in the local gay establishment. And way back then at the dawn of time, that was
one roaring gay bar. Lesbian bar, too. (But don’t try to pick ‘em up, unless
rejection is your preference.) So we would strike up a friendly chatter with
the natives, while fending off the passes, and next thing you know we found
ourselves one very late night sipping a post-bar-closed-down beer in the private
residence of this fair member of the same sex. He was giving us insight into
the existential pleasures of being a gay man that has sexual relations with
other gay men. All I can remember from this coming of age episode was the young
man assuring me something to the effect of “you just can’t believe how exciting
it is to have a massive load of cum in your face!” I decided to take his word
for it in lieu of taking the lab course. Ever since then, I understand the
human reality of homosexuality, but I don’t wish to fashion it into my
fantasies. (Unless, of course, we’re talking girl-on-girl, then Whoo! Whoo! Let
the party begin!)
What’s this anecdote teach us about Dilemma 3? Nothing, actually, because the
father’s decision to engage in oral sex with his three-year old son on his end
of an open cam channel with you did not appear to me to be a sincere expression
of homosexual interest in his son. It DID appear to be an extremely lustful,
uncontrolled response to a Kelly demand. How do we know, at least about the
lustful uncontrolled responses? Well, no less an authority than Kelly herself
tells us so in fantasies/A Naughty Dad and His Kids.txt
One thing I have learned about a horny guy – once he gets to jerking off,
there's not much he won't do for me! Mike was no exception and soon he had
covered the glass over a wedding picture of him and his wife with a full load of
cum.
Then, the 3-year old son makes a mistake. No, it’s not that he toddled into the
same room as his father. After all, we can assume the little boy has covered
this territory in his random walks before without finding himself dancing in the
sperm shower. (Hey, it was a RAIN shower when I first saw the movie!!!) No, his
mistake was walking into the line of sight of the cam camera while Kelly was
thinking of giving the guy the send off for being boring. Now, Kelly gets an
idea:
Kelly: "Ever masturbate with your son in the room?"
Mike: "No, never."
Kelly: "Well, strip for me then."
Mike: "LOL - OK"
And., of course, the rest is history: Following no nonsense instructions from
Kelly, in which she could see cause and effect before her very eyes, the young
son gets to smoke the magic cigar and claim the jelly toast (minus the toast, of
course).
But do we have a violation of the ethical code of Kelly land? Is Kelly willing
to abandon her own ethical code with respect to real events as soon as it
becomes possible to do so? We begin by reading the entire “fantasy” which we
discover by her own admission is not a fantasy, but merely an embellishment,
and, indeed, she does not deny that the “real” events she says she saw on the
cam were, well, actually seen by her in real life. But, since I'm searching for
a high standard of guilt, this alone is not enough. To see why, we need only
examine what she actually insisted the daddy do and compare to the letter of her
code. With the son, the letter of the code is not all together clearly violated
because her underage sex code pretty much allows for:
1. Receiving oral sex from children (just a rite of passage, so Kelly says); and
2. Returning the favor with a large dose of sperm delivered anywhere convenient
on the child’s body. To be fair, I’ve merely assumed this to be ok after
Kelly wrote that “It also provides the men with the opportunity to satisfy
their needs.” Well, we can guess what THAT means.
Anyway, it does not look like a slam dunk case, YET. We do have Kelly worrying
about the lack of righteousness of a daddy using his 3-year old son as a cum
rag, and acknowledging that she was pushing him to do it. Is this true remorse?
Or just crocodile tears? We don’t know, but if we want to pursue this to a
“jury trial,” we need a “smoking gun” for evidence. Sorry, that may have been a
poor choice of words. How about “incontrovertible evidence that Kelly lost
control of herself in her lust and crossed her own ethical line.”
Well, you can find THAT no problem by examining the basic repeat of the cum-on-
the-son game with the guy’s 4-year old daughter. I won’t bore you with the
details, but let the record show that Kelly abandons all safe harbors and
plausible deniability by just telling him what to do and when to do it (that
would be NOW!). The result is at least a fully documented pussy molestation.
Licking cum was Kelly’s next friendly suggestion, but fucking was on the table
earlier. But now the father, relieved of a sack full of sperm and the crazy lust
that let it fly, shunts Kelly’s suggestions to ground. HE regains control over
the situation, DESPITE Kelly’s preference. She wanted “moar.”
How does all of this stack up against Kelly’s rather detailed ideals for non-
fantasy line crossing?
“Well, let’s see Ms. Kelly. I’m your court ordered legal counsel in this first
district court of Kelly land. Looks like you’ve been pushing the ethical limits
again, huh sweetie? I’ll tell you what, with this cam thing, and the chat
record, and your own written confession (why do my clients always do that?!),
looks to me like we need to do some deep belly scraping toward the prosecutor.
Fortunately for you, he and I go way back. In fact, all the way back to law
school, when he and I were working on our community service points by helping
out at the public defender’s office trying to get those oppressed towel heads
out of Gitmo and back into polite society. While your case is not quite as
wrenching as Achmed the terrorist, I think I can work a deal.”
Ok, the above “scenario” is a bit embellished. But so was “A Naughty Dad and His
Kids.txt.” Nevertheless, according to Kelly, it wasn’t all made up. It seems to
not even have been mostly made up:
I almost couldn't believe they were real! I must have cum half a dozen times at
least as I thought about how nasty he had been.
But would Kelly take the “objective” public defender’s advice and plead guilty
to an ethical violation? Think again:
I am a firm believer that ANYTHING is OK when it comes to fantasies and if a guy
wanted to fantasize about doing things with a little girl then that was fine
with me. Mike, on the other hand, had crossed the line between fantasy and
reality and I struggled with the morality of what was happening. Once again I
wondered if I was in some way responsible for this? In all fairness, how could
I be blamed? I was just sitting in my room all alone and he was far away. It
wasn't like I was forcing him to do anything. He was completely responsible for
his actions so was it bad for me to watch? I didn't think so. Besides, if
anything I was now more curious than ever as to how far he would really go!
In other words, she just won’t own up to the seemingly obvious (at least in the
opinion of the non-lust-crazed non participant) that this would NOT have
happened if Kelly had not “caused” it to happen through her advocacy across the
chat. Instead, she rationalizes away her culpability. Why??? What motivation
does she have to avoid facing the difference between her WORDS, and her ACTIONS?
Somehow, in her mind, she does not cross the line, only Mike does. Can Kelly
EVER cross the line? Well, her argument is technical and based on the “Free
Will” hypothesis discussed in the Dilemma 2 discussion. This “he did it, but not
because of me” defense is common for Kelly, and often justified by Kelly’s
careful management of her chat dialog. But at times, like in this scenario, she
abandons all pretense of “Free Will” and instead DEMANDS action, and demands it
now. How can she now absolve herself?
Well she can’t, of course. But she rationalizes it away anyway. After all, she
is addicted to the reality show, and it does not matter how young the boy or
girl is except, maybe, for them to be younger if possible! Kelly ignores here
“ideals” as soon as the opportunity to receive gratification from the reality
show reveals itself. And because it IS real, AND she has power over the adult on
the other side (themselves co-opted through their own lust) her gratification is
magnified many times. Anyone that has studied, or experienced, behaviors subject
to addiction knows just where the little matter of “ideals” stands in all of
this. The ideals are the first to be ignored, run over like kindling under tank
treads. And Kelly describes all the classic symptoms of addiction. Reckless
behavior and escalation of needs, for example:
One of the criticisms about sex and porn is that like drugs, people get bored at
a certain level and continually push the bar higher and higher. I don't
personally know much about the porn or drug aspects as I don't get into it them,
but I do agree when it comes to sex. I find myself always looking for something
new and exciting…
And then there’s the lack of regard for others,
No, this was more a case of me getting off based on what her father would be
doing, not her. At least, what I HOPED he would be doing to her. My mind was
racing with possibilities, each more perverted and naughty than the last.
And a willingness to say whatever she must to get satisfaction:
Given that what he had done so far was bad enough, if I continued to chat with
him, what would be the next step? As bad as it may sound, the truth of the
matter was I wanted to know! Deep down it made me horny as hell when he did
those things with Justin and in some perverted way I was curious as to how far
he would go with him.
Addiction to the reality of molesting the little boy AND girl. “Moar,” not less
is always the answer to Kelly’s needs. Ideals? Kelly knows what happened to
them:
“What I wanted to see at that moment went completely against all my morals
and upbringing. What I WANTED was to watch his son suck his cock.”
While it may be ok to WANT it, but to ask for it?
Kelly: "Rub your cock on Justin's face and lips."
What more to say? There is nothing more. Ideals hacked to get what she wants.
But what judgment does this behavior deserve? That kept me up one night. Should
I censure her?
“Kelly, you bad, bad woman.”
Hmmm, that didn’t seem to come out right. After all, who am I to call Kelly bad?
And what about the rest of her readers? (Even the flamers, after all, are
reading this shit, too. Who do you all think you’re kidding?) Just reading
Kelly’s webpage would get many of our better halves demanding mandatory
counseling. That’s when I realized, in Kelly land, what would a “jury of her
peers” look like? Targets of an FBI investigation, no doubt. That’s when I
surprised myself and realized that I was missing something way too fundamental,
something that up to this point, I had simply overlooked in my co-opted world
view. Maybe I did not realize that I was still in the shadow of the morals that
I had grown up with. Why was Kelly or I paying attention to those?
Then it occurred to me, that my feeling of censure was a sign of corruption.
Sexual inhibition. Sexual oppression. Exactly what our larger society teaches.
Some struggle psychologically with their repressed feelings for sexual freedom.
How many marriages flounder on the divide between what the husband wants and
what the wife will do? And who’s to blame the wife for being inhibited? Who did
that to HER? Did she secretly want to explore her sexual identity as soon as
puberty would allow, only to deny it or risk the awful public brand of “slut?”
When gender normed for feelings and willingness to act on those feelings, aren’t
both girls AND boys sluts? You bet they are. I’ve been there, done that.
But what about the appearance of using the little boy and girl as sex toys? So
what of it? It’s one thing to kidnap an 11-year old girl from a home and family
filled with love. And then, after she had already reached an age in which she
was aware of the prevailing culture of inhibition, and having already learned to
accept it herself for better or for worse, just rape her? Yes, that is wrong,
and the resulting psychological damage is real.
But what about using a child that can’t and doesn’t understand “sexual activity”
and using her as a sex toy for the pleasure of those that provide all that
brings her physical and mental security? And then, when she is old enough to
understand the decision to “fuck or not to fuck?” let her make the decision to
continue? Will she be harmed? Society will say she is brainwashed because, in
all likelihood, she will resist switching to society’s norms (and all the
shrinks know this, just read their case histories). Need further proof? Look at
what the graduate student said when his ability to “belong” to the Soviet Union
as a citizen had disappeared completely and irrevocably. He was still, in his
mind, a Soviet. What would a former fuck toy do when she had the cognitive
ability to make sexual decisions herself? We know that biological factors
inseparable from human nature are certain to make this occur over a known range
of ages. That allows the users of the fuck toy to adjust to the new reality. In
other words, stop the use, and instead begin to engage the potential partner.
Well then, I surprised myself with my conclusion. Kelly, why shouldn’t you use
his children as fuck toys to satisfy your sexual needs and for that purpose
alone? Why not indeed?
Kelly, if you have the moral courage to change your written statements on the
matter, please go ahead. If not, we don’t care about them anyway. Be what and
who you want to be. If that means persuading a dad or mom to use their young
children for your own exclusive sexual pleasure without the slightest concern or
consideration for the fuck toy or toys involved, what are you waiting for? You
know you want it.
Love,
Dan
P.S. Ahmm, obviously, you didn’t wait; all signs suggest you’re already a pro!!
P.S.S. The above conclusion would not go over well at the average dinner table.
I advise extreme caution before using this topic to stimulate a boring cocktail
party. :)
#4 Cheating Fiancé and School Teacher
=====================================
Whoa! This one was a nice break from the supreme court briefs covering the first
three dilemmas. I hope you like it.
Dear Kelly,
And now for Dilemma 4, the guy who is having so much fun with Kelly that he
forgets which drawer he keeps his underwear in. You’d think he would have
noticed the lack of room for his balls in those thongs. Anyway, compared to what
we’ve discussed so far, this definitely goes in the misdemeanor file.
What’s the dilemma? Something about should Kelly have filled in the fiancé with
her lingerie’s dance card while she was away? Jeez, it’s like the nutcracker or
something. And who can blame Kelly for helping the fiancé understand that, no,
that rather strong smell of Clorox wafting up from her “clean” panties is not a
slip up with the wash. I mean, this is just girl-girl talk, right? Throw in a
clip or two from the webcam to eliminate all doubt, and the fiancé is just
getting a cheap education into the kind of leftover weirdo’s she might have
waiting for her if she doesn’t get married soon. Please, just don’t let it be
this guy.
Seriously, why the guilt? He’s the one that slipped up and let her find out
about his Kelly antics. Why wouldn’t Kelly complete the circle with a little
delicious gossip? Especially about the women’s own fiancé! Looks to me like
Kelly did a community service. Now he’s free to go out and find someone else
adequately covered with tattoos and piercings to meet his expectations.
And her? Well, now she’s got one more good reason to stay out of those “Downtown
Disney” bars. Too antiseptic, if you ask me. A titty bar in downtown Orlando?
NOW were talking!
As far as sending the pictures and webcam clips to the guys principal, jeez
Kelly, can’t you find some lazy dog to kick? That’s just plain mean. Save that
sort of stuff for people that deserve it, like that fucked up headmaster of
yours. But THAT dilemma will have to wait its
turn.
Love and kisses always,
Dan
#12 Cheating Husband
#13 How far to go for a job?
============================
“What does Jesse James, Tiger Woods, and the Headmaster at Kelly’s school all
have in common?” asked one reader of Kelly’s website to the other.
“They all got caught!”
And so begins the discussion of my response to the interesting, difficult, and
enigmatic position that Kelly maintains on the subject of Adultery. Her “About
Me” section is quite direct on her beliefs about adultery. Or maybe it’s just
her desires dressed up conveniently as beliefs? You see, depending on how you
look at adultery, through the prism of how it may or may not have affected you
personally, this topic seems guaranteed to produce roaring flames of
controversy, disagreement, judgmental declarations, and plain old hyperbole
almost regardless of the position one may take, so long as it is taken in a
“public” forum.
In private, on the other hand, adultery is preferred as gossip of the most
delicious kind. Why, just the other night while climbing into bed what did my
wife tell me? After I mentioned a women’s name that we both knew well from a
past job-related acquaintance, she had to fill me in on the news from the
grapevine picked up from her fellow gym rats. It seems the woman had an affair
with somebody at their church. Indeed, my wife’s friend assured her that
“EVERYONE knows about THAT one.” For some reason I was not surprised about the
news, although I don’t know exactly why. After all, we both agreed that the
woman seemed an unlikely candidate for adultery. She seemed too uptight to pay
attention to sex, despite being married. And we both knew that she had surgery
to correct a female problem that made intercourse painful. My dry comment at
hearing this tale was “well, the surgery must have been successful!” That my
wife and I talked about the woman at all was only because I had bumped into her
at the gym that very evening and had a strange feeling that the she was acting
“unmarried.” I don’t know whether she’s still married or is divorced now. But
the general consensus from some in our circle was that her husband had gotten a
raw deal when he married her.
Of course this routine piece of unlikely gossip is but a leaf in the wind
compared to the first two names that open this commentary. So why does this
fairly common event in the lives of real people cause such public and private
interest? I can say with authority that I personally know of many cases of
adultery with friends and family and I will recount one of them later in this
piece. But I know of NO case of incest, Kelly excepting of course. Well, my
cousin was getting a bit fresh last summer when on vacation, but we were both a
bit far in the bottle. And nothing happened worth reporting. So let’s move on.
Kelly herself leaves us no doubt about her desire to be married to a faithful
man. She describes in quite specific language what will happen to HIS family
jewels if he strays. But in more candid moments in chats she shows angst about
her own commitment to that ideal, and accepts no responsibility at all for
participating in an adulterous affair with someone else’s unfaithful husband
until such time as she is married. Indeed she is powerfully attracted to sex
with a married man because of the “triumph” she perceives at attracting his
attentions over the competition from his wife. Is this hypocrisy or simply an
inevitable result of examining the issue in “Kelly land” under Kelly’s rules?
Before offering an opinion, however imperfect, on that question I should first
assert some authority for making the attempt. After all, I’m supposed to be
responding to one or more of the dilemma’s that Kelly laid out. And prior to
this work, I have stuck to that mandate. Why not? I had a lot of fun doing it
with dilemma’s 1-4. They are interesting opportunities to poke fun at
conventional wisdom and to preach a bit to Kelly (always followed by a good
natured “you were right in the end Kelly!”). I mean, WHO on ASSTR would even
waste time writing down the dilemmas in the first place? Nope, this is too
unusual to pass up.
Having said that, the word “adultery” only shows up in dilemma 5. And it’s not
about Kelly fucking some lucky dad. In fact, in that dilemma Kelly does NOT
invite comment on her personal interests in fucking married men. If “we”
(meaning “I”) want to move onto the bigger picture (i.e., Kelly’s
rationalization that allows her to simultaneously fuck married men while not
condoning adultery) we need to dispense with the particulars of dilemma 5
quickly. Ok, here goes.
Man gets turned on chatting with Kelly. Man sees that Kelly is familiar with the
subject of adultery and confides in Kelly his desire to cheat on his wife. Man
identifies a suitable target to seduce into consummating mutual adultery (both
are married at the time). Naturally, they find each other through Kelly’s
preferred medium of church. If I didn’t know better, I would smell a contrived
story to allow Kelly to showcase several of her themes at the same time. In
fact, I DON’T know better. After all, where do I go to check the facts? I
can’t, so I’ll assume that it’s all true just the way Kelly tells it. After all,
does it matter? And besides, a lot of my stories would sound too convenient to
be true. But they are true. So I’ll accept her description of events as is.
If so, this is no-brainer. His wife deserved it for not taking care of her
husband’s needs above all else. If she had, he wouldn’t have met Kelly
(virtually of course) and would not have been encouraged to commit adultery by
her. Not that he needed encouragement. Because his wife probably felt secure
with the scrap of paper legalizing her marriage she became complacent. She
probably felt there were no negative consequences to leaving the needs of her
life’s partner to their own devices (his problem, not hers). Since she lost
sight of her responsibilities to that commitment, she lost her life’s partner
(if not physically, then at least emotionally). If she found out, she probably
decided he wasn’t her life’s partner after all, but she could have saved
everybody a lot of trouble if she had just put her husband’s needs high enough
in her priorities to avoid the trouble in the first place. This is consistent
with Kelly’s beliefs and thus is not a contradiction. In that regard, Kelly is
brutally honest and to the point when she wrote at the end of her explanation
for why she fucks married men:
“The way I figure it, odds are the wife is mostly to blame anyway.”
But before we retire this dilemma with an all clear for Kelly, I have to point
out that in the same paragraph she says:
After all, I honestly encourage every husband to remain faithful to his wife.
Oh really? By her own admission, she did the opposite with the cheating husband
of dilemma 5! But I’m willing to score Kelly with only a minor misdemeanor. She
exaggerates her innocence in her answer to one of her FAQ’s “Why do you like to
have sex with married men?” But who doesn’t? Her crime is most likely one of
rhetoric. She fails to remember to avoid absolutes and therefore gets caught in
a white lie. In the grand scheme of things, this is not worth the prosecutor’s
time.
So much for dilemma 5. A minor nuisance, really, except for the fact that we
spot Kelly struggling to avoid the contradictions in her own thinking about
adultery. That’s a point she is willing to concede might superficially occur in
the mind of those that have not thought through her position well enough. In her
own words she says
“At first I realize that this may all seem a bit contradictory and maybe even
a little hypocritical.”
A little? Ok, that sounded judgmental, which I agree is unnecessary and
unhelpful. She recognizes the reader may not be persuaded by her explanations,
so she enjoins...
“Hopefully if you think [about] it more then you'll understand it's not
really all that bad of me.”
The trouble with thinking about Kelly’s position on adultery is that to an
objective observer it appears to be influenced by her motivation for fucking
married men. Dealing with this idea will need some development, which ought to
be postponed for now so that we can examine the other dilemma, dilemma 12, for
any insight it might bring.
The word “corruption” can mean many things in the English language. It can refer
to the specific acts of individuals or groups to accomplish something through
unauthorized influence or it can simply refer to a process that has gone bad. If
Kelly made a one time mistake and compromised her principles in, for example,
the events leading to dilemma 5, that is one thing. Or perhaps the mistake was
one of rhetoric only. Perhaps she does not actually believe that she should not
encourage someone to commit adultery in every case. I mean, there’s an exception
to every rule, right? Perhaps she simply made a mistake with her language. In a
sense, the process got fouled up, but her principles were not discarded in a
premeditated way.
But when we look at the “facts” of dilemma 12, it gets harder to view the
transaction in such a trivial way. At a superficial level, a transaction is the
apt description. And not one particularly connected to adultery. At that
superficial level, many would argue that the events leading to Kelly’s rehiring,
if accurately portrayed, represented official corruption by an official and his
interlocutor, not an average case of adultery between a married man and
unmarried woman. It wouldn’t have mattered if the headmaster was married or not.
This is NOT how hiring decisions are supposed to be arrived at (perhaps
excepting certain lines of work like making porn movies). Certainly NOT the
hiring of teachers in the secondary education system, public or private.
Ok, that’s simply stating the obvious, even though Kelly hedges around that
simple principle. She worries instead that her reputation as a qualified teacher
should not come about through sexual persuasion. Or she frets about the
practical problem of staying employed when and if this becomes public knowledge.
I might add that the risk of failing to keep this quiet is much higher than,
say, earning some extra points on a test for the favor of sucking off a
professor in his office. It is interesting that Kelly makes this distinction
herself (the latter she did not do in college). And she clearly frames the
questions at the end of the dilemma in the form of the classic dilemma caused by
systemic corruption. She asks the reader if she should have had sex with the
headmaster in return for her teaching position.
Well, Kelly, the answer is no. I don’t need to lecture you. You can lecture
yourself. I grant that you don’t feel demeaned by the simple act of giving a
blowjob and swallowing the results. Well, good for you! I’m willing to celebrate
that part of your sexual identity. And giving the boys a suck job to get their
homework, well, I don’t recommend it, but so what? That’s not corruption, its
two parties of equal power sharing the workload. (Sharing the workload? A pun
and a metaphor, all rolled into one! Cheesy you say? Well it fucking sounded
good when I wrote it!) But earning a job in a profession with both credentials
and a hyper sensitivity to the values that one might impart on the subjects of
your profession has resulted in some pretty lofty public expectations for the
selection process. And what about the allowable termination of employment for
cause on grounds of moral turpitude, or something similar, that is virtually
certain to be in your employment contract? I could be a prude, but I'm iffy on
the notion that the definition of good moral behavior in your community
accommodates the events leading to your rehire, at least in most peoples' minds,
like the parents paying to send their kids to your school. The distinction I’m
trying to make is the difference between Kelly’s rules and society’s rules. When
should behavior be bound by the latter? Kelly has reminded ME of that
distinction at least once. Turn around is fair play.
As everyone knows, there are individuals and influential organizations in our
society that would have, at least in theory, defended you if you had said “no”
and then taken appropriate recourse. You characterize the decision as being
forced upon you. You had to make a choice that was offered to YOU by HIM. If
true, the power was totally with him, and the law would have been totally with
you. But is that what really happened? Just exactly like that?
By necessity we only have Kelly’s description. But Kelly prefaces that
description with the ready admission that in plenty of other situations she can
be the initiator of the sexual card if it is an expedient and probable way of
getting what she wants. Granted, she says that this method of getting the
teaching job back was not the first card she would pull out of the deck, and I
believe her. But do I believe that she was not prepared to pull it out at all
when it seemed like the next best option to failure?
I don’t know because I wasn't there, of course, but I wonder if I have seen in a
movie what might have actually happened (or roughly so) in the headmaster’s
office that day. The movie is Sherrybaby starring Maggie Gyllenhaal. In that
movie there is a scene that is described in a short and to the point fashion by
Wikipedia as “Sherry needs to work, but is unable to have the preschool job she
wants because she has not finished rehabilitation while still on parole. She
uses sex with the employment agent to get the job.” Clips of the scene are
widely available on the internet, and the clip paints a much richer experience
than the Wikipedia sentence can convey.
The movie is remarkably neutral about who the villain is and who the victim is.
The employment agent looks at the facts of her background and tells her like it
is. He tries to be helpful. He is not demeaning. He tries to explain that her
recent background simply does not fit the profile that is consistent with the
rules governing a job with preschoolers. One can almost feel sympathy for him as
he tries to find a tactful and encouraging way to explain that while she does
have options for getting a job, she is not qualified for THIS kind of job now.
But she won’t listen. She gets frustrated. She presses him. And then in the act
of reaching over to point to something in the paper work in front of him, her
hands find their way into his grasp. Did he initiate the sudden intimacy or did
she? The director is coy. By making it happen fast the audience is not led to a
particular conclusion. But when it happens, his demeanor changes. It’s not like
he suddenly becomes a jerk demanding sex. He simply acts like a human being
suddenly aware of the opportunity and signals an apparent willingness to
participate in corruption if the offer is made. Sherry senses her opportunity
and presses home the attack. She quickly starts unbuttoning her blouse and yanks
up her bra. The resulting display is left there with an unmistakable “put up or
shut up” look on her face. “Here it is, want it?” her body language seems to
say. When she sees that he is willing to be corrupt, she makes the customary
offer. “Look, I’ll suck your dick if you’ll give me the job.” He agrees and
she’s on her knees before the camera fades away.
This doesn’t mitigate his role in the corruption. He’s the official, and
official corruption is his responsibility to prevent. But he does not. The
interesting thing about this piece of Hollywood is the neutrality in the
storyline. The director is willing to portray the episode not from the
perspective of anyone’s particular political point of view (for example “women
are always victims of men in power” or an opposite point of view “morality has
become the victim of women’s rights”) but from the simpler story of two people
willing to accomplish the interlocutor’s goal through means of unauthorized
influence. When it was through, the viewer is left with the unmistakable
impression that the act of two consenting adults negotiating to a particular
corrupt end probably happens all the time when motivated purely by the personal
benefits to the parties involved. And this, of course, is the usual motivation
for most acts of official corruption.
I myself have felt on only one occasion that the “offer” of some kind of favor
in return for an improved grade was being made. It was a female student who came
to talk to me after the final grades for the semester were posted. As is always
the case with female students, I positioned her in a chair across a table from
me. The open door to the hallway was to her back. She was in complete control of
the physical situation. I could not prevent her from leaving if and when she
wanted. She could not be trapped in my office to experience inappropriate
influence. I had the power to change her grade for sure, but I also had a
carefully documented reasonably objective process by which her original grade
was assigned. I had power; but not over her as she had had the opportunity to
compete for and earn the grade she wanted under the same conditions as the rest
of the students. When she realized that the time had passed leaving no easy
solution to increasing her grade, she blurted out with a sudden smile “Ok, what
do I REALLY have to DO to get an ‘A’?”
It sounds like a bad movie, but that’s what she said. Was she offering sex?
Maybe. Probably, actually. She was not a native of the U.S. She came from a
foreign country where it is widely known that official corruption is pervasive.
A young woman in the university system in that country might have felt she had
to do some things for reasons that are more compelling than covering up for a
bad grade caused by a frat party the night before.
But I did not explore the answer to the question. Before the echo of her
question came off the masonry walls of my office, I replied “NOTHING! There is
NOTHING you can do now to get an ‘A’.” And there it stood. The easy smile went
away and so did she a short time later. In nearly two decades of doing what I
do, that was the only time I thought I was offered a chance to choose official
corruption in return for a sexual favor. Maybe some reader thinks that’s only
because I’m some bald-headed professorial geek who couldn’t get an offer in a
Bangkok whorehouse. Think again. But more on THAT later.
Having said that, I must admit there WAS one other time. But it wasn’t about ME
getting MY dick sucked. No, the girl in that caper must have assumed I was
cheaper than that. Let’s just say it was a potential case of “unofficial”
corruption. I’ll save that sordid “affair” (it still makes me mad thinking about
it) for the grand finale at the end.
(By the way, before I am accused of stereotyping women from the subcontinent,
let me say that some of my best students have come from that same foreign
country, including a phenomenal woman with whom my wife and I still keep in
touch and who is a consummate and highly skilled professional. But unfortunately
some others may have come to rely on sex to get them things in life. And because
of that they may have missed opportunities to get them without the blowjob.
Kelly knows that. She said so herself in dilemma 12.)
So, Kelly, you were there with Mr. Headmaster. Did you feel you really had to do
it? Or, like Sherry, did you want to simply because it would prevent temporary
failure in achieving what you really wanted? And if so, how much did you prompt
the opportunity?
This whole dilemma appears to have become mute by what Kelly said she did and
reported to the rest of us on her website last Fall. Namely she “came clean”
about Mr. Headmaster’s affair with her — by telling Mrs. Headmaster!! In reading
the detailed description of the meeting between Kelly and Mrs. Headmaster I was
struck by the incredible courage that Kelly displayed in going through with it
(and I told her so). But I was also struck by how much the whole thing had
morphed into being about an extramarital affair rather than an act of official
corruption. Certainly Kelly’s description does not omit Mrs. Headmaster’s
concern about her husband’s career or what impact the corruption scandal might
have on Mrs. Headmaster and her family. But in the end a lot of the dialog could
be condensed down to one sentence. “You dirty slut. Stay away from my weak and
easily led astray husband or ELSE!” This is the typical point of view of a wife
whose husband has been cheating on her and the cause of the betrayal is a hot-
looking, sexually uninhibited young woman by the name of Kelly. In other words,
the very threat to an older woman’s marriage that she dreads most of all!
And with that, we are lead back to the topic I wanted to write about in the
first place. Namely, the notion that an unmarried woman who participates in a
relationship that results in the man committing adultery with her still has no
responsibility for the commission of adultery. So, without further ado, let’s
join that program!
THE END
A Reader Responds to My Ehtical Dilemmas