Define unscrupulous.

Here's where I'm at. Big difference between something consensual and something non-consensual or taking advantage of a minor. Chmura took advantage of a minor. What he did was sick. Ben R forced himself onto several women and then blamed them.

Favre had affairs. Not even a comparison.

I have no problem whatsoever with wanton sex as long as it's consensual. If you have a problem with what Favre did, it's the act on cheating on his future wife. They weren't married yet, let's not forget that. They got married years after they had their first child together.

---

We're all talking about alleged activity, and you're not representing Favre accurately.

Favre ALLEGEDLY sexually harassed this woman on multiple occasions, in addition to cheating.

Rapistburger ALLEGEDLY sexually assaulted how many women now? 3?

Yes, Rapistburger takes the cake. But sexual harassment with intent to cheat + cheating > cheating

Zombie you dont know what he did back in he day thats the point..He "MAY" had done a Big Ben on a girl but one will never know

Chewy was found not guilty (no matter what you or I thinks) he was found not guilty

And I may be an axe murderer.

As for Chmura, I stand corrected. Thank you. He was found innocent. I just looked it up. Whoops.

---

And ever since you wrote, I've had thoughts of Mike Myers using a strong Irish accent. But it's ok, that is an awesome movie.

---

Dakota,
now you've got Myers singing "If You Think I'm Sexy" in that accent running through my head!

---

Not only was Chmura found not guilty, the evidence showed quite clearly he did NOT commit the crime of which he was accused. Therefore he was rightly acquitted. The fact you guys happen to have moral objections to a 31-year-old man being in a hot tub with high schoolers is absolutely irrelevant. Read the laws so you know what the terms mean before you pass judgment on people. Based on the evidence presented -- including the testimony of the supposed victim herself -- Chmura could not have even been convicted of the most minor charge that could conceivably have applied (a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 9 months in jail). Whatever your personal moral qualms with his behavior, it is not criminal. Deal with it.

We can vent all we want about Roethlisberger's supposed lack of remorse or his seeming sociopathic behavior, but the fact is the forensic evidence indicated that nothing happened. (Many of you clearly have no grasp of the probabilities involved with a supposed sexual assault occurring with no traceable DNA being recovered.) The DA himself admitted that even the video showed nothing criminal. The reason he didn't show all that much remorse is probably because he knows this himself. Were his actions slimy? Yes. Is he a redneck loser? Absolutely. But he's not a criminal. Deal with it.

We'll never know all the stuff Favre and Co. did in the "good old days," but based on stories I've heard from people who lived in and around Green Bay during that era, nothing would surprise me. As grungy as it might have been, however, nothing has come to light that could have been construed as criminal. Deal with it.

---

Had that been one of my daughters, it would have been me in defendent's chair. The only sexual problem Chmura would have had for the rest of his life would have been pulling buckshot out of his mutilated genitals. He exercised extreme poor judge all along contending he was morally superior to even shake the president's hand.

Most of the time I just let you ramble on with your educated rants, but don't tell a man entrusted by God to raise daughter(s) what to think of Mark Chmura and then italicise it like he isn't capable of thought.

I also don't give a fuck about a corrupt organization of shitheads known as the American Justice System.

---

With all due respect, I don't think God gives a shit about age differences when it comes to sex. If he does, he's an awful hypocrite.

Only in the Western world -- and only in recent history -- have relations between men in their 30s and women in their late teens raised an eyebrow. (Hell, Almanzo Wilder was 20 years older than Laura Ingalls, and no one flinched when he started courting her.) Throughout most of human history, such relationships have been considered preferable for many reasons, not the least of which that they actually protected women by increasing their chances of women coming into property in their own right. Until very recently, it was universally recognized that women had stronger libidos than men and were usually the aggressors in most sexual relationships. Just read the book of Proverbs or any Greek play and you'll see plenty of such references.

The irony of our modern sexual sensibilities is they were originally driven by "progressives" (the old word for liberals) and feminists, who needed some sort of common enemy to battle against and settled on male sexuality as their bogeyman. Now these concepts -- based on the rather horrifying underlying assumption that all men are sexual predators who must be forcibly restrained -- are championed by self-professed conservatives and Christian fundamentalists (yet more proof there's no difference between liberals and conservatives).

As long as you're willing to to acknowledge your prejudice against these kinds of unions is a personal/societal preference of yours and not some sort of universal moral imperative, fine. Don't bring God into it and try to convince me he has some kind of problem with it. Jesus himself was born to a woman who was probably no older than 14, and may have been significantly younger.

---

Again, let me reiterate I'm not justifying anything these guys did or didn't do. I've been loud in my condemnations of Roethlisberger's actions and scorn for Favre's, for example. But the fact remains we live under the rule of law, not personal moral preference. These men did not break the law, and therefore, in a society bound by law, they should not be convicted. If you don't like the laws, elect men who will change them. But don't advocate that jurors convict on the basis of personal moral indignation, which would undermine our entire republican system of government and would introduce tyranny of the moral majority.

And the fact remains that only in a handful of states is there some sort of issue with a 17-year-old woman fooling around with an adult male. Wisconsin has some of the most restrictive laws in the union.

---