I’ve called out the Tucker Carlson’s conservative news and commentary website The Daily Caller for this before. Apparently this is Carlson’s sick and unethical obsession: I guess he can’t stop his sophomoric fantasies and pain arising out of being a high school nerd gazing hopelessly at cheerleaders and the occasional attractive teacher from infecting his judgment and ethical values. Thus he—and his “education editor,” Eric Owens—think rape is ethically acceptable if the rapist is hot enough.
Once again, the site reports on an example of high school teachers exploiting their male students for their own sexual satisfaction with a slimy wink-wink-snort coded piece making it clear that the Daily Caller regards the episode is one big joke. This time the tongue in cheek headline, accompanied by the photographs of the two women involved, conveys Tucker’s attitude:
Male Teen’s Parents Sue Over Son’s 9-HOUR THREESOME SEX TRAUMA With English Teachers
Hahahahahahaha! That’s some trauma! Hey guys, you would have all been traumatized by an epic sex session with these two babes, right? Poor kid!
The Daily Caller, and that means its boss, Carlson, is saying here that when teachers abuse the trust of their employers, the community and the families of their students to abuse their position and power by turning students into sex toys and exploit their trust to serve their own recreational lust, its not only acceptable but desirable…if the women involved are attractive, of course. Carlson would be outraged at a Bill Clinton defender who employed the “consenting adult” argument to give Bill a pass on seducing his own intern, or someone who argued that any young woman would be grateful for chance to service the President of the United States, but two teachers who abuse a 16-year-0ld high school kid being sued for “traumatizing” him?
This is statutory rape, of course, but it’s all just fun for Tucker and his piggish, ethically-inert readers. For some reason my browser won’t let me connect to the reader comments on the Daily Caller story, maybe out of embarrassment, but I saw many of them last night until my gorge started to rise. I read over fifty without a single commenter, all of them male, expressing anything but envy for the child involved.
One said that it it was his son, he’d give him a high-five. His attitude was typical. Heck, it was nearly universal.
It isn’t just educators who are responsible for the deteriorating educational system and the fact that entrusting your children to ethically untrained or certified strangers is now the equivalent of Russian Roulette for kids. Irresponsible journalists like Tucker Carlson and Eric Owens, who encourage a culture that values sex over learning, and that cheers on sexual predators if they are attractive enough.
UPDATE: The link to the Daily Caller Comments started working again, so here is a random section from them, unculled except for the typical idiotic detour where the commenters supporting Ted Cruz and Trump start calling each other names.
49 thoughts on “Yecchh! The Daily Caller And Its Commenters Cheer On Sexual Predator Teachers”
It’s kind of a double standard. There’s this pernicious belief that men can’t get raped by women, because men have to become erect for penetrative sex. Nevermind the fact that coercion and manipulation of this sort are just as much rape as forcible rape, or the fact that your body can want to mate even though your mind doesn’t.
I wonder, would the Daily Caller be cheering on statutory rape if the accused was a handsome man? Somehow I doubt it.
Well, if the handsome man was Tucker…
Yecccch, but only one-half a double standard. If it were the other way around, with a handsome male teacher seducing an underage girl, the DC’s readership, and Carlson himself, would be baying for the man’s blood, and rightly so. However, these two hotties were doing this kid a favor.
I don’t see anything wrong with the Daily Caller article. The article is not condoning the teacher’s conduct. It is written from the standpoint of somebody who is suspicious of the merits of the boy’s lawsuit. Certainly a boy who brags to his friends about hooking up with two teachers and then sues for emotional distress damages deserves some suspicion. He may have a valid lawsuit but probably not, though it has some settlement value. And the article is a perfect fit for a center-right website like the Daily Caller because if (and when) the lawsuit settles, it will almost certainly be the taxpayers who pay — not the teachers.
Based on Dan Abrams comment I had a more close reading of the Daily Callers article and I did not find the “slimy wink-wink-snort” code that Jack refers to.
Read more carefully next time. The title is the first clue, with scare caps that mean “Oh, the horror” as if it really isn’t (especially since the site doesn’t use such caps for outright, multi-death disasters and massacres)
1. “The parents of a male teen student who endured a 9-hour threesome with a pair of high school English teachers have sued the teachers as well as the deep-pocketed local school board.
The sarcastic “endured” followed by the “deep-pocket” reference, suggestion than it is a suit motivated by greed rather than genuine harm…
2. Calling it a ménage à trois, which suggests equal and willing participation on an equal basis by all three parties. (Legally, it’s a gang rape)
3. “That text led to a relationship which budded into a very intense, star-crossed romance. Specifically, according to the lawsuit, Dufresne and the student engaged in an impressive torrent of sex and oral sex — over 40 instances in 36 days.” How is “star-crossed romance” anything but making fun of the story here, as well as mocking the offense?
4. “The threesome is what made national headlines, though. And why wouldn’t it? The epic, grueling event impressively lasted from 9 p.m. until 6 a.m. the next morning, according to local police.”
You say you read this? Actual rapes and torture episodes are reported that that last many hours. A. It’s trivialized as a threesome again. B. “And why wouldn’t it?” is trivializing and flip.
5. “(which Destrehan won easily, 41-7). It was a special night, too, because it was Dufresne’s birthday.” What do either of these have to do with a crime report, except to suggest that it was a lark?
You really read this, eh?
6. “Everybody was fully naked for the romp, police dutifully noted.” You see no offhand trivializing in this kind of comment? Again, would this be considered appropriate in a rape story?
7. “The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation and reputational damage resulting from the multitude of sexual dalliances and the threesome…”
Dalliance: “a casual romantic or sexual relationship.” NOT romantic, and rape is not “casual.”
8. “The male teen at the center of the lawsuit — and who was also at the center of the threesome — is now 18 years old.”
Ha Ha! A play on words, get it? Teachers stalking and raping students is hilarious!
Calling it code was generous. The mockery of the crime was, or should have been, pretty obvious.
Jack I now see your point regarding the language in question.
I should have been specific in the original post. The oldest perception problem of all: what seems clear to you is still not necessarily clear.
By the way, the Comments are now available on the Daily Caller post, and I just added a section. This was call and response.
Thanks for this lesson in close reading, I stand corrected.
Dan wrote, “Certainly a boy who brags to his friends about hooking up with two teachers and then sues for emotional distress damages deserves some suspicion.”
a. according to the Daily Caller the parents are suing.
b. the fact that he brags about is not relevant; if he is deemed to young to give consent than he is also not capable enough to understand all the ramifications of the whole affair.
b. the fact that he brags about is not relevant; if he is deemed to young to give consent than he is also not capable enough to understand all the ramifications of the whole affair.
No. Not bingo. This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case. We can all stipulate he is too young to consent. But that does not prove emotional distress damages. There are no compensatory damages since the teachers presumably did not take his money. If he bragged about it, reasonable people can certainly doubt his later claim of emotional distress.
To further elsborate, if a male teacher was prosecuted for statutory rspe because he knocked up one if hid inderage female students, the fact that the girl bragged about getting her cherry popped by her teacher and having hid baby in her belly is no defense in a statutory rape case. But in a lawsuit for intentionsl infliction of emotionsl distress…
“There are no compensatory damages since the teachers presumably did not take his money. If he bragged about it, reasonable people can certainly doubt his later claim of emotional distress.”
Do yourself a favor, and please Google “Teen forced to pay child support to his rapist.” You’ll find examples, the most famous probably being the case out of Florida, where children as young as 12 impregnated their late 20’s rapist pedophile teacher, and that teacher, figuring out that single motherhood sucks, petitioned the state for “I’ve made really bad life choices” money, and the state goes after the father, regardless of the legally supported fact that he’s a rape victim.
The fact that a teen brags about sex is irrelevant. It’s like the rapper who brags about being shot. It’s still illegal to have sex with children, just like it’s still illegal to shoot someone, even if they can find some kind of positive spin on it.
He was raped, and only a ass would be “suspicious of the boy’s lawsuit,” since the plaintiffs are the parents, whose kid was raped, whose child was the victim of a breach of authority and trust and where the school was being sued, not because it had “deep packets,” but because it hired sexual predators who knowingly committed a crime and felony on a 16 year old kid.
I sue lawyers so I’ve been called worse.
The fact that he was raped does not necessarily make it a meritorious civil case, nor does the fact that you bold the word “raped.”
Emotional damages are not just assumed because a crime was committed. Emotional damages are almost always proven with evidence of accompanying physical injuries, and/or evidence from a doctor or psychologist. In the context of a center-right publication like the Daily Caller it is a questionable lawsuit which will likely end up being settled, with innocent taxpayers (who else?) footing the bill.
I think there is room to be appalled at the teachers’ conduct, have some sympathy for the boy and his parents, and still be skeptical of this lawsuit.
Let me be clear: I have no problem with your assessment that the lawsuit might well not prevail on the issue of emotional distress, especially with the attitudes displayed in The Daily Caller piece likely to extend to a jury. (Though working with a litigation consultant I was involved with several cases where a premature introduction to sex and an emotional attachment to a manipulative adults WAS found to constitute emotional harm).
I object to your use of “suspicious,” as if such a suit is frivolous and could only be motivated by greed. That’s the DC’s attitude. A school is obligated to take care that its employees aren’t predators. I would sue in a heartbeat, not because the school district has “deep pockets,” but because there is evidence of negligence.
I also think boasting proves little, if anything. If a teen boasts to deal with his own shame and confusion, that would hardly be unusual in cases like this.
Have “some sympathy” with the parents, when they send a kid to school to be educated and instead he’s sexually molested and introduced to kinky sex?
Dan, I am glad that you made this comment. I too read the entire article and did not find anything in it that suggested that it was cheering on the boy. I did wonder why the headline was partially all caps and the use of the word “endure”. Perhaps that is the code to which Jack was referring.
The use of the pictures of the teachers may not necessarily have been used to show their “hotness”. In fact, names were not ascribed to either of the photos. Given the numerous ads on that site I initially thought the photos were not related to the story.
In fairness to Jack, I have heard Tucker make such a juvenile comment in another cases of a female teacher abusing her power over a teenage boy.
At the heart of the issue is the abuse of power by teachers who should know right from wrong. Irrespective of the age of the young man he was a student and she was in a position of power over him. What bothers me stems from this statement.
“Dufresne faces unresolved felony criminal charges for carnal knowledge of a juvenile. Respess also faces criminal charges for failing to report of failure to report a felony. (hey – was she not involved in the acts as well)
In separate but related criminal charges, Dufresne took a plea deal which included no jail time and no sex offender registration”.
Why the hell not! Had that been a man he would have been prosecuted vigorously (rightfully) and been marked as a child sex offender for life. There are many 17 and 18 year old boys on the sex offender registry after being charged with statutory rape when the parents of the girlfriend find out she is sexually active. Why exactly are only boys subject to vigorous prosecution in these cases.
Is it possible in today’s world where parental notification is not required for birth control or abortion services that a 17 year old female could coerce psychologically an 18 year old boy into having sex? Why do we still cling to the Victorian ideals of female purity whether or not the female’s sexual behavior suggests that we should.
Why do female teachers seem to get off the hook? Mary Kay Letourneau originally received only a six month sentence with 3 months suspended. Had she not violated the terms of the plea deal she would not have been resentenced to only seven years for he 2nd degree rape charge.
Based on the entire article, this school district seems to have a history of sexual abuse by staff toward students. That to me is the Yecch factor.
These episodes beg the question regarding what constitutes statutory rape anymore. When schools and health departments feel it necessary to provide free condoms and other birth control devices to boys and girls it stands to reason that these boys and girls, and the young teachers themselves, see such practices as condoning sexual activity.
There’s a lot more Yech in many of our societal policies regarding sex than meets the eye.
There might be a bit of an argument there — in favor of The Daily Caller’s sensitive, subtle and nuanced judgement — had Carlson not chosen to dump it all in the trash of the published commenters. There is no question — if for no other reason than we know at least one opposing reply was censored (re-read Jack’s post!) — that those comments were exactly what The Daily Caller CHOSE to present as their primary opinion. All others (I would bet a vast majority, still coming in) were deleted.
To see the calibre of the Daily Caller’s readership…
Hate groups are now employing perverts to harrass women in female restrooms.
Unable to find any real dangers, they have to manufacture them. To keep the wimmen n chillun safe.
The link says nothing about the Daily Caller. And I doubt a site called “Right Wing Watch” has high-caliber readers.
The article states that it is testing Targets policy by sending men in. You claimed they were sending in perverts to harass women. Why should we believe that the testers are perverts and harassing women in the rest rooms. Your claim is even more irresponsible as some claiming giving access to transgendered persons will give predators a free pass to the ladies room.
The problem with that being that certain people are trying to pass laws that give a free pass to predators under the guise of creating transgender bathroom access. The laws could be written differently so as not to be so overly broad but then it would ruin the fun of men who get a sexual kick out of women’s clothing and they’re trans activism’s bread and butter. People who actually transition and seek medical help are just shields.
I contend that any man who enters a female restroom with the express purpose of sexually harassing women and girl is a pervert by definition. Or do you disagree? Would you claim that their actions are not harassment? Would you say that the fear they are trying to cause is not sexual in nature??
The thing speaks for itself, whether you say it in Latin – RES IPSA LOQVITVR – or English.
A man protesting Target’s transgender bathroom policy caused a disturbance that led to an active shooter response at a store in downstate Bourbonnais on Monday afternoon, though the man did not have a gun, police said later.
He caused a “panic among store employees and customers” but never threatened to shoot anyone, police said.
Merichko was charged with disorderly conduct and transferred to the Jerome Combs Detention Center in Kankakee..
How dishonest are you TRYING to be?
You doubled down on a false-hood you were called on by pretending to back away from another false-hood you were called on.
You have pseudo-backed off the pervert claim, by applying your own opinion to the definition. (Amusingly enough you get angry at people like SMP for calling similar behavior perversion).
But you have reasserted the claim that the testers are going in to “sexually harass women and girls”. The article never demonstrates this.
I hope you aren’t willingly advancing a lie.
Are you Zoe?
I’m slowly coming to the realization that this uproar is actually about bathrooms. Bathrooms. Not change rooms. Stalled bathrooms. The realization blew my mind and I spent precious time scraping my grey matter off my walls.
Ok, show of hands, who’s had a situation like the younger sibling or kid that desperately needed the bathroom, but the appropriate bathroom was full, so they open the taboo bathroom and yell “Sorry ladies (Or gangway fellas), but we have an emergency here.” or been on the receiving end of such an emergency? Did the world fucking end? No? Holy shit.
Zoey’s right. Transgender people generally aren’t going to use the bathroom bill to stalk girls, and anyone who walks into a bathroom for any reason other to use it (and I’d lump “to conduct a social experiment” real high up on that list) at best bloody creepy. And I’d bet…. real good money, that throughout the experiment the guys made sure they were in situations most likely to cause grief. In fact, I’d bet my left testicle that some waited outside the bathroom for a woman to go in first, and I’d bet my right one that a good portion of them attempted small talk.
I was rage typing… “use the bathroom bill” should have been “use the bathroom they identify with” was probably the only thing that would create confusion.
Zoe asserted any of that in this string?
Last I read, she asserted that male perverts were sexually harassing women in female restrooms to prove a point, then linked a ‘proof’ article that showed no such thing.
Not sure what of mine you are rebuffing, but I’ve addressed what appears to be dishonesty on Zoe’s part.
As she said “Res Ipsa Loquitur”
She qualified `perverts`to mean anyone that goes into a bathroom for any reason other than to use it. Is that loose language? Absolutely. But the point stands up. I’m not going to get hung up on semantics.
I wouldn’t argue the semantics if I were you either, since your wrong about what I’m identifying is Zoe’s error here.
You see, she does this often. Bold accusations followed up with an article that I assume she thinks no one is going to read. Turns out, her accusations don’t hold up compared to the article.
Her article didn’t even match the site she was complaining about, I’ll grant you, but the point isn’t invalid on it’s own.
Hence I’m not arguing the point. But I do tire of the tactics.
Ack… She didn’t say that. It was ‘I contend that any man who enters a female restroom with the express purpose of sexually harassing women and girl is a pervert by definition.’ Which is, again, loose language. Very loose. But the point stands: If you’re of the mindset that the ecology of a bathroom is so very threatened by chromosomes that don’t match it’ intended use, then destroying that ecology to prove your point is ridiculous. WE don’t have to believe these people are perverts, THEY believe that they are emulating them.
I want this to be a comment on its’ own, I’m proud of it:
‘WE don’t have to believe these people are perverts, THEY believe that they are emulating them.’
I bet Tucker did very well for himself with the ladies in whatever prep school he went to before he never finished college. He’s the heir to the Swanson’s TV dinner fortune. There’s nothing sexier than a fat wallet. Even in high school.
Why are we still having this discussion in 2016?
Two teachers have group sex with a student for nine hours. That’s all that’s important. Its rape and its wrong.
And for those who don’t think so lets change that sentence and see what you think.
Two male teachers have group sex with a female student for nine hours.
Two male teachers have group sex with a male student for nine hours.
One female and one male teacher have group sex with a male student for nine hours.
One female and one male teacher have group sex with a female student for nine hours.
Two female teachers have group sex with a female student for nine hours.
If it had been any of those combinations people would have been screaming for blood but since its two female teachers and male student its ok?
Sorry a man with a girl is much worse. Yes its a double standard. But not every double standard is wrong. We are “having this discussion in 2016” because Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus — the genders are very different, and not just biologically.
No a double standard is in of itself wrong. It can never be right, it is unethical and dishonest and is used by people who don’t practice consistent ethical behavior.
And how is worse? The effects and damages to a male versus a female victims may be different but they both suffer from this act. To think a male doesn’t is ignorant.
One of my classmates had an affair with a teacher, which ended her marriage and destroyed her family. Everyone at the time thought “wow this guy has got it made.” Looking back on 30 years later we see it for what it was , an exploitive manipulative relationship between a older woman and a teenager. Its even more obvious now as they got married and you can see that he is stunted both emotionally and maturely.
To be technically exacting, if you can describe a clear and substantial difference between the actors in the scenarios, then it IS NOT a double standard, but an application of two legitimate standards to scenario that are somewhat similar, though still different. This is of course clouded by the modern push to pretend that men and women are the same. But at long as you assert that there are indeed differences between the genders, substantive enough to merit evaluating their conduct differently, then it is NOT a double standard to do so.
But, good luck getting that past.
Do you have a rigorous mathematical proof that a man and a girl is much worse?
“Sorry a man with a girl is much worse.”
There is no way to defend that statement, Dan.
Men and women ARE different, but we’re not talking about men and women, we’re talking about boys and girls. Children whose brains have not fully developed. Children who are not allowed to sign contracts, vote, drink beer, buy cigarettes, or drive (in some cases). The reason we have these laws is because their brains are not capable of consenting to and properly analyzing such weighty decisions.
So yes, rape is rape — even if the boy liked it OR thought he wanted it. And even if he did, so what? The teachers still are sexual predators and need to go to jail.
That the boy or girl bragged aboutit is beside the point in a stat rape case.
But in intentional infliction of emotional distress…
It is intentional infliction of emotional distress — he just doesn’t know it yet. Most rape victims end up on a therapist’s couch eventually.
Where’s Dan Abrams? He appears to have taken his bias and gone home…