Gender Politics = Grooming

Broadness in law can be as helpful as it is concerning. With a jury of peers, I can't see how this would go through.

For example, my states' law on college hazing is "strict" and very broad. Per the law, an org can't serve food/beverages, which includes something as simple as water bottles when house touring (summer is HOT). We covered this extensively. Going to meetings or charity/service are the only things permittable. Never got hazed in the general sense (or I wouldn't have joined), but of course I went to parties as a pledge. Never forced to drink and they had strict cut offs for non-members to avoid anyone coming close to blackout. But it was still "hazing" according to the law including serving alcohol to minors. Compared to other horror stories that barely scratch the surface of other orgs, my "hazing" was chuck e cheese in comparison.

With that in mind I have a feeling the people will prevail. I know with it being a red state it can be worrisome, but a male teacher saying "I have a husband" compared to having extensive 1 on 1 talks about what being gay is and how it works for a kid questioning would be a no-go. (And for good reason. I was questioning gay or straight from 11 to when I got to college that I am in fact bi. If I had a supposed "trusted" adult talk to me in depth about what I felt at a flip-flop, or apply a label to me, I'd feel so fucked up from it.) I don't like the broadness but I completely understand that it's gotta be done case-by-case.

/r/PoliticalCompassMemes Thread Parent Link - i.redd.it