TSA Sexual Assault

 

Is it legal to sexually harass someone as long as you're a TSA agent?

http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assa...

TSA to investigate body scan resister
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-sca...

If I understand this correctly, air travelers options are:
- expose ourselves to a small dose of radiation or
- be humiliated/sexually molested or
- be prosecuted and penalized for refusing to do either one

Is this still the land of the free?

1 2 3 4
<<Page 5

Try reading my response that

Try reading my response that you QUOTED again, where it says, "Because alarms are going off in my head as I draw the parallels with history, and this is a very dark road we are headed down."

This has happened before. It will happen again. Why will it happen again? Because people like you believe that people like me should just bend over, get the TSA and Homeland Security shoved up our asses, and like it.

"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

Winston Churchill said that, though it was a corruption of what George Santayana actually said. While the words Santayana said were slightly different, "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.", the sentiment is unchanged. Understand why atrocities such as the holocaust happened in the first place, and use what you have learned to ensure it never happens again. The problem is, there are endless instances of history repeating itself. What is happening here in the United States now could be avoided if people would only open their eyes and remember their history.

I've made two comparisons in this thread. The first time was comparing the TSA to Revolutionary War England. The second time was comparing the United States (through the actions of the Department of Homeland Security) to the general description of a police state, a classic historic example being WWII Germany. The first comparison regarded England trampling on the human rights of its citizens in the colonies in order to maintain control of those citizens by creating new laws that put an undue burden upon the citizens. The second comparison was a future comparison, between present-day USA and WWII Germany with its overt persecution of people of the Jewish faith, not only because their belief system did not mesh with that of the state, but because they LOOKED JEWISH. It isn't terribly difficult to put two and two together and see how the future could play out: a racist America.

But, at this point I should just shut my mouth and bend over, hmm? After all, you've accused me of racism based on misreading my post and completely missing my point. Which to reiterate, is...

What we in the United States are doing now in the name of security, is the same thing that was done in WWII Germany almost 70 years ago, and done to us 235 years ago by the English. Historically, both times that this happened, it took war to rectify the mistake of history. If we continue down this path, we will be no better than World War II Germany, and could easily end up with a similar fate.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Agreed

I think you nailed it down very well, Strephon. Well done!

--
nüvi 3790T | nüvi 775T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

TSA nonsence... What else is there...?

Full body scanners, and pat downs are the only way, since the US government refuses to spend the effort and money to do proper security, the way EL AL (Israel's airline) does. They haven't had a terrorist incident since the 1970s when they started their good security.... read about it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#Security

The US stuff is what will always happen when you put security in the hands of paper pushers instead of trained and experienced people... these are the same idiots who keep their computer passwords written nice and neat on a paper under their keyboard (or on stickies on their monitor)! What do they know about security?!?!

Do it right or pay the price. The US government is STILL not serious about security, even after Sept 11th... I think it will take a few more reminders like that before they will do something that works!

Comparisons?

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

What we in the United States are doing now in the name of security, is the same thing that was done in WWII Germany almost 70 years ago, and done to us 235 years ago by the English. Historically, both times that this happened, it took war to rectify the mistake of history. If we continue down this path, we will be no better than World War II Germany, and could easily end up with a similar fate.

Strephon, I generally regard your comments as learned and backed up by research, but right now I am not understanding how to make a link between what the US is now trying to do in the name of security and Germany and England in the past.

It seems to me that if I wanted to agree with you I would have to believe that there is a vast conspiracy within our government to enslave the population. My own feeling is that there are a lot of bureaucrats who have been told to improve security and are spending the funds they have been given unwisely. I also expect that they have benn influenced by those menbers of the "free enterprise" system who see the opportunity to make money. Also, I think that certain politicians are trying to leverage the fear of terrorism in the population by throwing money at the problem and then claiming credit for doing "something".

Perhaps the quote that really applies is "Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it."

I myself often use the statement that "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." However, there are other forces at work in the present that must be considered. One of those forces is dempgraphics. The composition of the US population is changing. What it will look luke in a generation will clearly impact us.

You will probably want to chop me up and throw me in the river, but I must say that you have slipped into seeming to rant rather than instruct. I prefer the latter.

11 Steps To Shutting Down A Free Society

jgermann wrote:
You will probably want to chop me up and throw me in the river, but I must say that you have slipped into seeming to rant rather than instruct. I prefer the latter.

I'm not going to chew you up and spit you out, because you actually read what I have to say and try to understand where I'm coming from.

That said, while I admit I was a little ranty at between 3 an 4 in the morning when I wrote previously, I take accusations of racism rather seriously. I can see where what I posted previously could be seen as racist, especially if people read only what they want to read.

Since you asked however, while I don't believe there is a massive conspiracy to enslave the citizens of the US, I do believe the US is well on the way to becoming a police state. Alternet in 2006 posted an article titled Top 10 Signs of the Impending US Police State, in which they list ten things that to them signalled the coming of the police state. Their list was one of the first, but not the list I was looking for. The list I was actually looking for was the one here, entitled "11 Steps To Shutting Down A Free Society". It's a list created by researcher Naomi Wolf showing how free societies have been shut down by their leaders in recent history. The author of the site added an 11th item to Ms Wolf's list that he thought was missing. The list of steps are:

1. Invoke an internal and external threat.
2. Secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a paramilitary force.
4. Surveil ordinary citizens.
5. Infiltrate citizen groups.
6. Detain and release ordinary citizens.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Restrict the press.
9. Recast criticism as espionage and treason.
10. Subvert the rule of law.
11. Subvert government structures to install fascist authoritarian power.

The site is both an interesting read and a bit of an eye-opener. I encourage everyone of course to draw your own conclusions here, but at the same time I hope that I've made the parallels between historic police states like WWII Germany and the actions of the US in the present day clear.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Read I do

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

you actually read what I have to say and try to understand where I'm coming from.

Thanks for the reply.

Your list contains some troubling points that worry me also. Indeed, the reaction of the previous administration to the 9/11 attacks resulted in secret actions that a free society should deplore (even though I feel they were taken with the best of intentions). however, I cannot, and do not feel others should, characterize the actions by the executive branch as portending a move to authoritarian power.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" applied after 9/11. Fear drove certain people to let things happen that would never have happened if all of the government had been involved.

It seems to me that pundits who blindly supported the actions of the previous administration are the one we should fear - because they use catch phrases (including casting criticism as being unpatriotic) that whip up people into supporting actions even they do not understand fully.

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

jgermann wrote:

Indeed, the reaction of the previous administration to the 9/11 attacks resulted in secret actions that a free society should deplore (even though I feel they were taken with the best of intentions).

"L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs."
--St. Bernard of Clairvaux

The entire government is responsible for the shift to authoritarianism, not just the President. So, all three branches are responsible: executive, legislative, and judicial.

As for the news, there are two reasons I don't watch it.

1. It's perpetually depressing.
2. Government dictates what is to be broadcast, and the owners of the conglomerates that make up the news networks listen.

If I want news, I get it from outside the country.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

We will agree to disagree

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

The entire government is responsible for the shift to authoritarianism, not just the President. So, all three branches are responsible: executive, legislative, and judicial.

The executive branch of the previous administration significantly reduced our moral standing in the world. Not only were they treading on the legal rights of our own citizens, they felt they should administer justice throughout the world.

Whithout reasonable regulation, the legislative branch allowed the collective financial industry to bring the world (not just the US) to the brink of global recession. However, the blame on the legislative branch is indirect, not direct. Now, when there are attempts to rein in those who profit from the misery of others, the call is to get government out of our lives.

As a student of history, I wonder if you see that the collective power of the "titans of inductry" is on the road to taking away the rights of the lower classes? Was that not what has happened throughout history? Wealth leads to power - which leads to the enslavement of others? Does the past of South Africa give us any insights?

South Africa was actually

South Africa was actually considered a police state due to the policy of apartheid. So you can't use South Africa as an example.

There are two definitions of plutocracy.

1. A voting system wherein the ability to vote and the number of votes a person or corporation may cast is relative to the wealth of the person or corporation.

2. A statement referring to the excessive influence on political processes by the wealthy.

The United States fits the second definition, but not the first. In the United States, corporations cannot vote, and the citizens have equal representation (one person, one vote).

Historical plutocracies include the city-states of ancient Greece, the city of Carthage, and the merchant cities of Italy (Venice, Florence, and Genoa). A contemporary example of plutocracy is the financial district of London, where the majority of voters are representatives of businesses that occupy the city compared to the residents. The ratio is 45:1.

In answer to your questions, yes I see what corporations are doing in trying to limit the rights of their workers, and have experienced it firsthand (after twenty years of never having experienced it). But no, that is not what happened throughout history. Wealth does not always lead to power, or else plutocracies would have been far more common in history.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

South Africa

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

South Africa was actually considered a police state due to the policy of apartheid. So you can't use South Africa as an example.

I thought that one of your previous posts dealt with police states. I assumed that the reason for the police state was not the issue.

I was wondering what might happen to the US in a generation or so when the current "majority" becomes the "minority"

Rights of workers

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

I see what corporations are doing in trying to limit the rights of their workers

I worry that the US seems to blindly accept that the free enterprise will lead to improvement for everyone. I suspect you would agree that business interests generally trump most other interests. I think this is due to the "wealth" that can be employed to (I am sorry to say) buy elections. There no longer seems to be any counter balance as was true when unions were stronger. However, the unions were responsible for their demise becuse they became too strong themselves and then asked for(and got) too much. I worry now that the only way businesses will be reined in now will be by a financial depression.

I should add that I am an advocate for free enterprise but only with reasonable regulation.

THIS.

I've been pretty much stating this ever since the whole "scope-and-grope" insanity started:

Why do we use this, and why don't we go with something far more effective for detecting bombs--namely, sniffer dogs?

For starters, we've had 26 years of proof that dogs can be used to find contraband and to protect homeland security in some VERY difficult circumstances--every international port of entry by air for the US has a patrol of the "Beagle Brigade", a group of sniffer-beagles used by APHIS (a division of the USDA tasked with keeping foreign insect pests and diseases out of the US) to sniff for contraband meat and vegetables in people's luggage. (Often these get banned to keep stuff like hoof-and-mouth disease or Mayflies or whatnot out of the US.)

Said beagles are VERY effective (something like 95% effective, which is pretty darn impressive when you note they're being trained to alert on things like specific kinds of sausages and Mayfly-infected fruit), are nonthreatening unless you are completely phobic of dogs (the dogs are trained very well, and alert by sitting by a piece of luggage they smelled contraband in), and APHIS has never been sued over dog allergies or any other condition where someone would try to stop the use of dogs. APHIS has NEVER had a problem with dogs...

Then again, dogs are far more sensitive than chemical sniffers; your average hound (like a Beagle) has a built-in chemical detector that is 100 million times more sensitive than that in your own nose, which is better than any chemical detector available outside of labs (yes, including that thing they swab your luggage with with if you alert the detector).

Dogs are so good, in fact, that their in-built chemical detectors can tell the difference between different explosives (German Shepherds--whose sniffers are only really about a tenth as sensitive as your average beagle or bloodhound or other scenthound's nose--can tell the difference between black gunpowder (used for black-powder primitive rifles), commercial gunpowder (used in modern arms), nitroglycerin, RDX, etc. and can even detect those "liquid binary explosives" so much panic has been spread about).

Dogs also have the advantage that--unlike the "scope-and-grope" treatment--they CAN detect a bomb that someone inserted up their nether regions (which IS something that Al Quaida has been experimenting with--fortunately so far with a great deal of fail) and CAN detect bombs in cargo (which gets little checkover even nowadays and is considered both historically and in modern times probably the greatest risk to get a bomb on an airplane).

Out with the scope-and-grope; in with Snoopy as a TSA agent. smile (NO, Mr. Chertoff, you can't has your $200 million tax dividend for nude-o-scopes. Not yours. Beagles are cheaper, more effective, and we're in an austerity economy and need to save money. grin)

South Africa and Businesses (a two for one post)

@jgermann:

I did speak of police states. However, the way I read your post you were speaking of plutocracy, specifically the last paragraph. In mentioning South Africa you implied that South Africa was a plutocracy, when it wasn't.

The apartheid system was NOT created because of wealth, but out of a desire to control the movements of the people. I could spend hours writing out how South Africa's apartheid system grew, but the wikipedia entry on apartheid does a far better job.

The only saving grace in South Africa is that its populace managed to avoid killing each other en masse. Perhaps because they learned from history and thus didn't repeat it, after doing it 38 different times in the space of approximately 70 years. That 70 years though was certainly not bloodless.

The state, and not the corporations, stripped rights from the populace. In the case of apartheid, the white-run factories benefited from a cheap labor source. But the corporations themselves were not in charge, so they couldn't do it themselves.

Businesses in general exist for one reason and one reason only. To make as much profit as possible at the expense of their workers. They're not interested in improving anything. And any regulation that impacts the profit margin is one that they will object to.

It's not wealth that is going to swing elections in this day and age, but easily hackable voting machines that can change the numbers.

Don't believe it when you hear that we're coming out of this "recession", because a: we've not seen the worst of it, and b: we're not in a recession, but a full-blown depression.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

I agree

So many good points made by lots of people. I'm not a fan of being scanned or groped; however, I am also not for profiling... even though I think I was, at one time, for it. Tough issue, no easy answers.

--
"For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."

Perhaps the danger comes

Perhaps the danger comes from unlikely terrorists?

If you were insane enough to attempt terrorism would you wear a sign, or would you look for a way to sneak a device into location that would result in harm to others?

You can be both insane and reasonably smart.

I'm pretty much a Civil Libertarian, I don't like intrusive government, but we live in a different world today and sometimes we have to weigh concerns with liberty with concerns about safety of the population.

It's a thin line, a slippery slope, but I think that we need to develop methods that actually work.

The biggest problem is the scans. Most of the objection would probably removed if the only person who saw the scanned image could not see, or be seen by the person being scanned. It then would become something like viewing a stack of nude medical photos that lack any indication of indentification.

Profiling is a "feel-good" but idiotic method of identifying terrorist. McVeigh would have met no profiling criteria. There are terrorists within every population and ethnic grouping in the world including more than a few WASPs.

Having said that I find flying more annoying than I personally care for. I will, if it is really necessary, but the long lines of security checks pushes me to take the coach on longer trips whenever feasible.

As always, Your Mileage May Vary, and you have the power to choose your travel methods.

--
96 Safari Sahara- 3530, 35', CAT 300 ex 68 Ultra Van. Garmin 765t

Kudos Ultra Ken

Very well said!

TSA

I think people are opting out of flying so they do not have to opt out of the Bug Zapper!. I have drastically reduced my flying because of the hassles involved

--
Dudlee

There but for the grace of God....

Ultra Ken wrote:

I'm pretty much a Civil Libertarian, I don't like intrusive government, but we live in a different world today and sometimes we have to weigh concerns with liberty with concerns about safety of the population.

As you said, "your mileage may vary" as it applies to what each person thinks is a proper role of the government. It seems that many object solely on the basis of whether it causes them some discomfort (perceiving some infringement of "their" liberties) as opposed to thinking about the "common welfare".

We should pause for a moment and consider that Mexico is fighting the drug cartels on its own soil. I doubt that there are many there who think that the Mexican government should stand aside and let the drug cartels exercise their right to bear arms.

I agree with you that it is a different world today and it is much more difficult to promote the general welfare without someone being upset.

Thanks for your post.

Then the TSA needs to come

Then the TSA needs to come up with something that actually works, instead of catering to "security theater". What they're currently doing is like closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out.

I believe that anyone who objects to the enhanced screenings is thinking of the "common welfare", since the enhancements are clearly far too intrusive in the case of pat downs, and life threatening in the case of the scanners.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

You are the one that needs to read again

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

That said, while I admit I was a little ranty at between 3 an 4 in the morning when I wrote previously, I take accusations of racism rather seriously. I can see where what I posted previously could be seen as racist, especially if people read only what they want to read.

Reread my post. I never accused you of being a racist, just pulling the racism card. When arguments are weak, it is an easy cop-out to state that your side of the debate will prevent the racism that your opponents side would promote. Since nobody wants to be on the racist side, you galvanize public opinion towards your side.

Your political views are different from mine. I am anti-political. I recognize our political system as completely broken, and am amazed when anything is actually accomplished. Both parties are far more interested in gaining and keeping power than actually serving. They are also full of lawyers who are so far removed from the common working man that they cannot possibly understand the issues and struggles faced in ordinary life.

And whatever the TSA (or the replacement) comes up with, there will be opponents that will cry that the policies violate civil liberties. Even the Israeli style casual interrogation at the security check would rile up some who would say that the interrogations are treating everyone like a criminal.

I also agree that the current TSA procedures are but a charade. I just recognize that a charade is necessary. Without the charade, the public would be afraid to fly. If the public knew the truth about the security (or lack thereof) and the other safety issues not related to terrorism, they would never fly again.

I'm done on this issue, as I could never convince you of the errors of your views. Likewise, you will never convince me the errors of my views. Our lives have taken different courses and produced different biases that we both view as truths.

Sad but true

WJThomas wrote:

Our lives have taken different courses and produced different biases that we both view as truths.

Most of us, including myself, are guilty as charged. Too often we are trying to win an argument rather than really understand the opposing view. Very few things are black and white - almost all are gray.
We all need to acknowledge the good points of the opposing side's argements.

TSA

I left form TIA (Tampa) a few days ago and found the TSA people very polite and had no trouble at all.
I have had more trouble going through Fargo airport before the new regulations went into effect.

--
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!

Read Your Post Three Times...

WJThomas wrote:

Reread my post.

...and while you did not come right out and say it, you implied I was racist.

Everyone is racist. People inevitably deny it because to deny it is the politically correct thing to do. Unfortunately, political correctness and the darkness of the human heart do not go hand in hand. They say something to your face, then when you turn away talk about you behind their back. Racism is no different. But the 6.5 billion racists on planet Earth all forgot one important detail: we all bleed red.

----------------------------------------------------

You are anti-political. I am anti-government. I fully believe that the government no longer serves the people who elect it. Further, I believe all politicians are corrupt, which goes hand in hand with a government that no longer serves the people, since politicians only seek to increase their personal power at the expense of the governed.

The only way that any real change could be made is if the citizens of the United States rose up as one and displaced the leadership. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen. The people believe they have it good, and if they believe things are good no amount of evidence is going to alter their belief.

The people believe they have it good. I am not one of them. This nation is on life support thanks to the actions of a government who in response to the destruction of the domestic manufacturing base declared that the US is now a service economy. In simple language, instead of making stuff to make money, this country simply shuffles the money from place to place. An economy where nothing is manufactured is an unsustainable economy. You would figure the government would notice this when they see China rapidly becoming an industrial superpower and the dollar weakened in response. Instead, it's business as usual. For all that's really left in this country is to loot it of everything valuable.

The TSA crossed the line from reasonable search to unreasonable when it implemented its enhanced pat downs. It is legalized sexual assault, and thus I will not fly. You believe the charade to be necessary. I'm tired of being lied to by the government. At this point, lying is all the government is capable of, since serving its citizens is clearly out of the question.

You have a nice day there in security theater. *rolls eyes*

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Dosappointed

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

The only way that any real change could be made is if the citizens of the United States rose up as one and displaced the leadership.

@strephon,

As usual, you have correctly identified many things - in particular the fact that the US has become a service economy - just moving things around instead of making things. China is in ascendency and will displace us a the world's superpower unless we change our ways. To me, one of the most important things we need to change is our educational system. Another is that we need become a nation of savers rather than a nation of consumers.

However, I think you are also making statements that when things get better, you yourself would look at and admit that they were a bit extreme. When you say "all politicians are corrupt", you expose the fallacy in the quoted statement above. If the government was displaced, some group of people would have to be in charge or society would quickly fall into the abyss for lack of the services we take for granted.The replacements would then - by implication - become "corrupt" - as the electoral process has, by your definition, not resulted in the electorate being able to choose able leaders.

As I have said in other posts, People in the US think mostly of "me" rather than "us". When we can change that attitude, perhaps we can start on the way back to greatness.

A Little TSA Humor

--
johnm405 660 & MSS&T

Federal agents searched home

Federal agents searched home of pilot who criticized TSA on YOUTUBE...

SACRAMENTO, CA - An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.

He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve Read more... http://www.news10.net/news/article.aspx?storyid=113529&provi...

--
Looking for a place to go this summer? Try Oshkosh, WI, July 20-26, 2015. The largest gathering of aircraft in the world. http://www.airventure.org/index.html

This is not surprising at all

I think the TSA would eat its young to save itself.

bilson wrote:

Federal agents searched home of pilot who criticized TSA on YOUTUBE...

SACRAMENTO, CA - An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.

He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve Read more... http://www.news10.net/news/article.aspx?storyid=113529&provider=top&catid=188

--
nüvi 3790T | nüvi 775T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

Plane flights

When they first put the squeeze on security you could not bring a nail file or nail clipper on board. At that time anyone could have brought a ceramic knife on board. You were they trying to kid? The SICK, LAME & LAZY! Flight is a privilege! If you don't like it don't fly. At times I've have people ride with me in all types of vehicles and you would have been surprised if you ever searched them!

That's funny!

Maverick50 wrote:

At that time anyone could have brought a ceramic knife on board.

I'll bet you still can via carry-on luggage.

All it takes is enough motivation. There is no safety in our world today despite the best efforts. If it's your time, you go.

--
nüvi 3790T | nüvi 775T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

Parallel worlds

Just some observations...

1) Most sexual predators are in a position of trust and authority to those they touch inappropriately. The same could be said of the TSA. The agents say they are touching your privates “for your own good”. Many sexual predators use this same argument....

2) Many sexual predators often hold-out certain privileges in return for the victims consent. The same could be said of the TSA. They with-hold the privilege of flying in return for your consent to being touched when – and in places - you would rather not be touched. Further, gaining this “consent” gives the predator freedom from guilt since consent was given to them. Also, The victim (passenger?) now shares in the guilt for being complacent in the touching they never wanted. So, they don't seek help or change the situation. (This is VERY common in sexual assault.)

3) Sexual predators often give their victims a false choice from which to choose. Again, the same could be said of the TSA. For the privilege and convenience of flying you can either “allow” the TSA agent to touch you in places you would rather not be touched, or you can “allow” the TSA agent to take naked images of you.

I think this is why many people (young and old, male and female) come away from a TSA checkpoint with the feeling that something is not right. They often can't put their finger on it – it just doesn't feel right. (Many sexual assault victims come away with the same feelings.)

So...a well respected person of authority approaches you and offers you certain privileges and conveniences in return for your consent to be touched in ways you would rather not. You are even given a choice: allow this person of authority to touch you (where and when you would rather not be touched), or allow them to take some naked images of you.

So, what are you going to do?

You have to admit – the similarities are striking....

Merry Christmas.

1 2 3 4
<<Page 5