[Puffer Fish]

Why did a man have to steal another man's wife? There are more women out there. Why couldn't that stupid man find some single woman? That's not right. A wife should not let herself be stolen away either so she's in the wrong as well.

So you do not appear to be a liberal, then.

Society is generally agreed upon the fact that not everything which is morally wrong should be illegal.

But it seems you believe those who commit adultery should be punished.

Only by having to pay money? Or should they be sent to prison or some sort of work camp also?


It sort of amuses and flabbergasts me. I did not expect you to take this position.

[Puffer Fish]

How about we just go back to the old days (before "no-fault" divorce laws) where if a wife cheats, she doesn't get to take as much money away in the divorce?

[Pants-of-dog]

By manipulating her to do what? To have sex with him, of course!

Are you seriously going to tell me that you think he would have been punished for misconduct if he had not had sex with her?

Having sex with her is the entire centerpiece, the "steak and potatoes" of this issue.

If you have sex -- and we're talking about consensual sex -- and that sex ends up causing some sort of emotional damage, and society views that as a situation you really should not have had sex in, you can be prosecuted!

Which was the criminal part?

The manipulation or the sex?

[MistyTiger]

So you do not appear to be a liberal, then.

Society is generally agreed upon the fact that not everything which is morally wrong should be illegal.

But it seems you believe those who commit adultery should be punished.

Only by having to pay money? Or should they be sent to prison or some sort of work camp also?


It sort of amuses and flabbergasts me. I did not expect you to take this position.

I do not believe in being labeled. I have liberal and traditional values. I never claimed to be totally liberal. I don't like being categorized.

I think of marriage as a legal contract. The two married people do sign a register after the marriage ceremony. One person gets the marriage license before the ceremony starts.

Society is made up of rich folks, business people...all sorts of people and not all of them are legal professionals. So following societal opinion is not always wise when discussing or dealing with legal matters.

I believe cheating is wrong. I don't support it. I take relationships and marriage seriously. I think that marriage is unnecessary and can be messy and uncomfortable in the 21st century. Two people have to make it work and compromise or there's no point in staying married. If both spouses are too hot-headed or selfish, the marriage could fall apart. The two spouses have to spend time to discuss and work through issues together, it's not always going to be fun and easy. Life is messy and difficult.

Paying money is bad enough. A lot of people hate paying bills. I think prison should only be for those that pose a real danger to mankind. I don't know anything about today's work camps so I cannot speak on that.

Well, I'm amused that I flabbergasted you. You're welcome. Haha.

[Puffer Fish]

Which was the criminal part?

The manipulation or the sex?

Now we are getting somewhere.

The answer is the sex.

Would they have made it a crime for him to manipulate her if he did not manipulate her into anything?
Think how absurd that sounds.

Or even if manipulated her into something much less serious, like just a kiss, or a non-physical romantic relationship, I can guarantee you they wouldn't have criminally charged him.
I must assume you know this, on some level.

I suppose if you want to get technical, it was the "manipulation" and the sex combined together that constituted the crime. If you want to use those words. But I do not think "manipulation" is really an adequate word to describe the situation.

I'd prefer the phrase "He took advantage of her".

Yes, this implies that women don't have full agency over their own choices, are not always able to think logically, and need to be protected.

I mean it's really hard to imagine a similar case, if the gender roles were reversed, of a woman "manipulating" a grown man into having a sexual relationship, taking advantage of a man's grief.

(I think they used to call that "seduction", but it would never be prosecuted as a crime, unless perhaps if the man were already married)

[Puffer Fish]

Off-topic, but two comical cartoon episodes to watch about "seduction".

South Park "The Succubus" (Season 3, Episode 3) link #1 - link #2 (start at 0:43 into the video)
Powerpuff Girls "Mommy Fearest" (Season 1, the character "Sedusa") link

They present seduction as evil, but comical, definitely not a legal crime.

[Pants-of-dog]

Now we are getting somewhere.

The answer is the sex.

No. Wrong.

Would they have made it a crime for him to manipulate her if he did not manipulate her into anything?
Think how absurd that sounds.

Or even if manipulated her into something much less serious, like just a kiss, or a non-physical romantic relationship, I can guarantee you they wouldn't have criminally charged him.
I must assume you know this, on some level.

I suppose if you want to get technical, it was the "manipulation" and the sex combined together that constituted the crime. If you want to use those words. But I do not think "manipulation" is really an adequate word to describe the situation.

I'd prefer the phrase "He took advantage of her".

The manipulation was the crime. The sex was what he managed to manipulate out of her.

Yes, this implies that women don't have full agency over their own choices, are not always able to think logically, and need to be protected.

No. There was a specific reason he (as a police officer) was assigned to her, and this was because of a traumatic event which made her susceptible to manipulation.

I mean it's really hard to imagine a similar case, if the gender roles were reversed, of a woman "manipulating" a grown man into having a sexual relationship, taking advantage of a man's grief.

(I think they used to call that "seduction", but it would never be prosecuted as a crime, unless perhaps if the man were already married)

In an imaginary world where women had the same power that men have enjoyed throughout history, this argument might be applicable.

[Puffer Fish]

No. Wrong.

The manipulation was the crime. The sex was what he managed to manipulate out of her.

Pants-of-dog, no man gets sex from a woman unless he first romances her.

Tell us how you think he "manipulated" her.

What did he do to her that other men seeking a relationship with a woman did not?

[Pants-of-dog]

Pants-of-dog, no man gets sex from a woman unless he first romances her.

Tell us how you think he "manipulated" her.

What did he do to her that other men seeking a relationship with a woman did not?

Please read the article.

I will learn nothing from copying and pasting your own post back to you.

[Puffer Fish]

Please read the article.

According to the article, she didn't even make a complaint to police until 15 years later after the relationship was already over, and that was only after she found out he had also had a relationship with another family member.

This is so typical, from many similar stories I've read.

Whether the woman feels "taken advantage of" or "violated" is dependent on the man's fidelity. If he has sex with just her it's okay, but if she finds out he's also been having sex with other women, then there's a problem.

Same reason why the women complained in the Julian Assange case. Wasn't a big problem until they found out about each other.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

You seem to have missed the part where the manipulation was discussed.

[Puffer Fish]

You seem to have missed the part where the manipulation was discussed.

Okay, yes, the article did (mostly vaguely) mention some manipulation, but it seemed to me it was mostly not about that.

I'm still very much of the opinion that the carrying on of a sexual relationship with her (under the circumstances) was the main reason it was felt he did wrong.

To be fair to you, I'll copy and mention the explicit manipulation parts in article, and you tell me if there's any more I missed.


"However, the inappropriate relationship began to sour when the woman's family voiced concerns "after the display of certain behaviours by the defendant"."

"The officer then began calling his victim a "sl*g" and untrustworthy and started isolating her from her friends, resulting in a decline in her mental health."

"In a nutshell he made me feel worthless by constantly undermining me at a time when I was having severe emotional trauma," she added.

"The documents showed Mynott, who was then married, making arrangements to meet the victim in private, and asking her to lie about their relationship. There was also evidence of control and abuse directed towards the victim, police said."

""My brother's death came as a huge shock to me and was traumatising. My world was turned upside down. He exploited this for his own gain. I was often very distraught and confused. I simply did not know how to cope with life."

The last one doesn't really sound like explicit manipulation on his part, just her being vulnerable.


And one more,
"She said the officer had diminished her self esteem by "his emotional and sexual abuse"."

The "sexual abuse" that she refers to, we can assume, was just ordinary sex, but she considered it "abusive" within the wider context.
It's unclear exactly what the "emotional abuse" she refers to actually was. It sounds like she considered everything already described as the "emotional abuse", not any special things specifically. So I think we can dismiss this one. Since we're only discussing things he specifically did that were "manipulation" in themselves, apart from the sexual relationship.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is illogical to dismiss the claims of emotional abuse and manipulation if the judge punished the cop for those exact. reasons.

[Puffer Fish]

It is illogical to dismiss the claims of emotional abuse and manipulation if the judge punished the cop for those exact. reasons.

Not if that supposed "emotional abuse and manipulation" does not represent something apart from the sex and otherwise normal relationship.

A large part of this, I think, is they are characterizing him having what would otherwise be a normal sexual relationship with her as "emotional abuse and manipulation", given the situation in which that sexual relationship occurred.

Pants-of-dog, I will grant you that perhaps there was some emotional abuse and manipulation that was emotional abuse and manipulation unto itself. But I get the feel from the story most of what they are describing by that is not.

A lot of this is just characterization, describing and viewing a set of actions in certain terms.

[Pants-of-dog]

One’s opinion on the manipulation is irrelevant.

The judge punished him for the manipulation.

[Puffer Fish]

One’s opinion on the manipulation is irrelevant.

The judge punished him for the manipulation.

It's not clear precisely and specifically what the judge punished him for, and how much for each thing.

The prosecutor threw lots of evidence and accusations at the defendant.

Not all the bad things he was accused of doing were even specifically illegal. But that did not matter. (You can still be punished for doing things that are not illegal, if there is enough reason to convict you for something else)

It's not like the judge broke it down and said "I am sentencing you to 12 months for this, 4 months because of this."

At the end of the day, we can not know with exact complete certainty why and how exactly the judge made the decision.
I doubt even the judge himself would be able to break it down precisely into all its exact logical elements if he were interviewed.

We are only presenting our own views and opinions why we think he was probably punished.

It's possible there could be two judges who decide to sentence a defendant to the same amount of prison because of slightly different reasons.

Convicting someone of "misconduct" is a very vague description of an overall crime in this sort of situation. It could encompass all sorts of things, if we get specific.

Pants-of-dog, I think you are being unreasonable and unrealistic if you do not recognise that him having sex with her was a very prime and central part of why he was convicted -- the biggest part in fact.

Imagine if he did everything he did except he did not have sex with her or lay in a bed naked with her. If that were the case, most people would tell you it would be unlikely he would have been prosecuted. Either that or he would have been sentenced to far less prison time.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not clear precisely and specifically what the judge punished him for, and how much for each thing.

….

It is clear to me.

Your confusion is not an argument.

[Puffer Fish]

It is clear to me.

I think you are attempting to oversimplify reality. Reality can be complex. It's only natural for the mind to try to put things in convenient category boxes.

As I explained to you, "misconduct" is a very broad category and could consist of anything. This type of sexual misconduct of this man would not normally be considered criminal, but it was in this situation, because he established the relationship with her while working in a public office, and somewhat in a position of trust, even though we are only talking about emotional trust.

In fact I wouldn't even say any single thing this man did was specifically very criminal, on its own, but it is just multiple elements combining together.

Having sex with her wasn't criminal, all by itself.
Cheating on her wasn't criminal.
A little mild emotional abuse wasn't criminal.
Establishing a romantic relationship with her while being a police officer assigned to comfort her wasn't criminal, not really. That's something he might have risked being terminated over, but not something anyone would face criminal charges over.
Having a relationship with her while being married wasn't criminal. (Not only that but it looks like she was aware he had a wife but continued the affair)
Taking advantage of an emotionally vulnerable woman to have a sexual relationship with her isn't really criminal.

But when you combine all this together, it was enough to be seen as a crime.

To see what the most critical parts of that were, we have to ask ourselves which components could we take out and have the rest of it still be a crime?

The fact that he was working for a public office and had the responsibility to help her grieve is one critical component.
I believe the fact he had sex with her was another critical component.

I also strongly believe the fact he was also having a sexual relationship with other women was a critical component, that he would have been less likely to be criminally charged if he had not been married and she was the only one he was having sex with. Or I think the punishment would have been a lot less.

Any explicit specific manipulation was mostly just icing on the cake, in my opinion. Most of the so-called "manipulation" can simply be implied by the circumstances of the situation.

That is why claiming the "crime" was "manipulation" is mostly disingenuous, in my opinion.

Him establishing the romantic relationship and having sex with her was the "manipulation".
That's something that is not seen as manipulation in other circumstances.


Pants-of-dog, in (nearly) no other situation would a man ever be prosecuted for manipulating a woman into having consensual sex with him.
So "manipulation" all by itself cannot be the crime.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

Taking advantage of an emotionally vulnerable woman to have a sexual relationship with her is exactly what he was punished for.

[Puffer Fish]

@Puffer Fish

Taking advantage of an emotionally vulnerable woman to have a sexual relationship with her is exactly what he was punished for.

And yet didn't you try to make the claim he wasn't punished for having sex?

We both agree the sex was consensual, don't we?

It sounds like she even actively took part in the deception to make sure his wife wouldn't find out about them. So definitely not a "rape" situation.


from the article:

"The documents showed Mynott, who was then married, making arrangements to meet the victim in private, and asking her to lie about their relationship."

"At this time he was married with a child. He began showing his victim what she described as special attention - giving her money to pay for petrol and taking her to the scene of the accident where he cuddled her from behind."

"After going to a friend's house to cuddle, Mr Wild added: 'At this time he told her he thought she had been flirting with him. He later took her to his home where he cuddled her upstairs as Mynott's wife and children were downstairs.' "

"Later he took her to his home while his wife was out and they laid on the bed with their clothes off although she refused to have sex. She was then let out of the house just as Mynott's wife had returned."

link to original article:
Married police officer jailed for having sex with sister of crash victim he was assigned to support Retired Kent Police officer, MyLondon News, by Paul Hooper and Ella Bennett, 12 Dec 2022
"Retired Kent Police officer, Ian Mynott, was jailed for 21 months after pleading guilty to misconduct in a public office"