Prince Namor

The reason is because he knew it was inappropriate and bordering illegal. If she'd been 18, he may not have felt the same. He might have fought it. Because she was 17 for... a week? A month? A whole year? Do we even know? Those texts could've been a week before she turned 18 for all we know, we she magically became a full functioning adult. I get the lack of grey area when it comes to this but... AND the reason why... But in this instance there is no crime any way.

Now you're just being outrageous. Again, no crime was committed here. There was no sex involved. There wasn't even physical contact and from what. it looks like, less than a few messages. Stop reaching.

First of all, there's NO CRIME HERE. So why do you keep referring to it as if there was? ALL we have to establish is WHY he decided to continue talking to her after he found out her age. Was it just an attraction of an older man to a younger girl? Or did they really have something common? Well they DID. It may not nullify the other, but they DID have something in common. Their weird, uncomfortable, sexualized, art. And THAT makes a statement toward the overall view of the entire situation.

Yeah, no one said that. You're being ridiculous.

Oh for god's sake. Ask Mike Diana how that works. Ed didn't break the law. No one is defending what he did, but he didn't break the law. And I'm sorry, but there are plenty of examples of 17 year olds all over the world who are smart enough, and crafty enough and 'adult' enough to take advantage of the protection they receive due to their age. I'm not saying that's what Molly did. Again, I feel like she said what she felt inside. I HOPE that's the case. If this DID go to court, I'm sure the defense would try and do it's best to portray it as kindred spirits in art, and show the art work she did, compared to Ed's. That there was a bond there. A creepy one, but one that exists. Yeah, he knows he made a mistake. What are you trying to say?

Every time someone says, "This is blowing up on Twitter", I just cringe. You could have 100 people say the same thing on Twitter, that's NOTHING compared to whatever it is the entire world thinks. And there are people who then USE that power to try and manipulate the thought process in people heads... it's mind boggling how dangerous following the heard can be.

Here's some of her work. And again, because of how some people want to portray this... it has nothing to do with what she's claiming. It's simply to show she wasn't creating Mary Poppins comics in her spare time. There's a reason she sought him out... she also liked to draw extreme art. That was... adult in nature. (I've put a spoiler on the pics because they are NSFW, so beware)

What? You don't think Piskor's comic book work was used in accessing who he is as a person? And I'm not even referring to this as guilt or innocence in what Molly SAID, I'm referring to you saying she seemed like an innocent 17 year old who didn't know better. My statement has nothing to do with the validity of her claims. I view those as what she believes is the truth and what she shows as facts.

It's NOT social responsibility to Ed. It's to herself. She has to live with the aftermath of it. Is the pain so bad that whatever happens as a result of going public... worth it? I ask myself that question every day when I write about this stuff from my past. What will happen to me? How will it affect me? Is writing it down enough to heal? Or do I scream it from the mountain tops to let every one know and then live with whatever the residual is? I GET that for some people they MUST do something to stop the pain of what they went through. They BRAVELY sit before the judgmental eyes of the world and state their case and fight for it. It IS worth it for them. For some it's not.

Have you seen Molly's comic book art? There's a reason she connected with Ed. It was by no means My Little Pony. Thats what I said.

No one said anything about gate keeping or stopping her from saying anything. I was looking at it from my own perspective as to how to approach it. In my writings I'm currently working on events from my childhood... events that have shaped me as a person. If I name names and make it public in this book, it will invariably effect the lives of others. DRASTICALLY. What I went through and what I saw and what I experienced was illegal. It was bad. I have no legal recourse, nor am I interested in one, I personally find the writing of it to be extremely therapeutic and more than enough... but I understand my RESPONSIBILITY in regards to making it public. And what happened to me is 1000 times worse and more criminal than what happened to Molly in this situation. So yeah... I don't have an issue saying, maybe people should think about it and get professional advice first. I'm 100% for female empowerment. It doesn't block my view of social responsibility though.

I don't disagree. But actions have consequences, as we've seen here. Yeah... much as some have to live with the stress and accusations and negativity of going through a law suit like this, Ed had already seen what that would've been like. Regardless of what the LAW is here... Ed didn't want to relive those bad decisions over and over in court to be rejudged by society and rejudged by society... women go through the same thing from the other side. Ed wasn't strong enough to handle it.

No, I don't blame her for that. But do we hold her accountable for the way she did it? If you're going to come forward, come forward with an attorney. Press charges. Now maybe she TRIED to and an attorney said, "You don't have enough there to DO anything." And so she just decided, I need to get this off my conscious. I need to speak out so that maybe others won't be afraid to speak out. I don't blame her for that. It's just an unfortunate outcome as a result of it.

I thought they both said it wasn't. That they had no physical contact when she was underage.

What is it specifically you find offensive? Correct. And in many states she isn't. Ok. And no one is debating that here... If 17 year old teens are still falling for it... how is that getting smarter? A 17 year old has access to more information than ever before, a MILLION times more information than they did even 20 years ago. The goal should be to teach our kids, THIS IS WRONG (if that's what the parents believe), so that they can, THEMSELVES, make an informed decision. This type of thinking begins early... first you put protectors in your wall sockets, so your baby can't stick their fingers in the wall, but ultimately as they get to an age where you can teach them - you teach them to just not do it. Those pesky open holes of electricity will remain as a possibility to shock them, but at a certain point they just know, NOT to put their finger in there. I've worked with hundreds, HUNDREDS of 18 year old strippers over the last 25 years. And either they had a Matrix-like download of information to their brain at 18 that suddenly turned them into... 'experienced adults', or... they knew a lot more before that 18th birthday than I guess most people would give them credit for. And I don't mean that just in terms of BAD stuff. I mean in terms of understanding sexual harassment, understanding the laws around it, understanding politics, understanding the world we live in, understanding history... the LAW says 18. But let's not act like it's a magical age where they suddenly become a real adult in any means other than the eyes of the law. The Law is there to protect them legally. The responsibility of parents, should be there to do the real work of TEACHING them critical reasoning skills. He did defend himself in the letter. There was no court of law, because there were no charges filed. He was convicted in the court of public opinion by, as you said, 'not having all the facts'.

The problem with society's understanding of these things is that everyone has some of these in small doses that they're easily able to 'get over'. As you know, for someone who has full-blown PTSD or Aspergers or Depression, there's no 'getting over it' EVER. You learn to function. And then deal as best you can when any of those decides rear back and smack you upside the head. Most of society has absolutely no idea what that's like to go through each day dealing with that.

Then there'd be no point in discussing it. As it is, we discuss it based on what we DO know. Would she show the bare minimum of information to get her point across? Or did she show the worst of it to make sure she got her point across?

Exactly. Because there were no charges. She decided to out him for whatever the reason was, and it socially and financially crippled him. And being.. a socially awkward person in the first place... he just couldn't handle it. My son has Aspergers, and it's full on Aspergers, and for him... he can't even be on Facebook, just because of the negativity of it. He can't handle it. Different levels of pressure, negativity, complex emotions... they hit different people in different ways... Our society likes to think of every one as exactly the same. Able to handle any situation the same as the next person. It's not even close to that.

Without a doubt. And as much as I question what happened in this instance with Piskor and his accusers, I certainly think it's females BY FAR who've gotten the short end of the stick through the legal system, and even the process leading up to the legal system by family, friends and even so called professionals.

What is the minimum for what would be considered 'grooming'. If those are the only texts relating to the allegation over a one year time frame, I would think that wouldn't qualify.

More judgement from things that didn't happen...

Yep.

That's not what happened here. At any point, she could've just blocked him on social media. Instead, she continued that friendship. She was never sexually assaulted. If those couple of texts are the WORST that happened...

Yeah... I think it's important to remember... he didn't actually break any laws or do anything illegal. Creepy, yeah. Worth a dad's anger? Oh yeah. But nothing illegal. I simply asked on another forum, if he had been convicted of anything and immediately got blasted for it. Everybody's ready to be a victim in this society. This was before he'd even made a statement on it. He was convicted by the Internet mob, before he even had a response. A 17-year-old female in modern society isn't the same as a 17-year-old female from 20-30-40 years ago. Today's kids grow up with SO much more information at an early age. In America, 75% of kids get a cell phone by the age of 12. Freakin' TWELVE. The things they can see, before they even reach any sort of maturity is... pretty frightening. If I was her father, I would have, at the very least had words with Piskor over this and probably made some threats. But I would've pulled her aside as well and asked, "Why were you still talking to him? A guy TWICE your age? You should've BLOCKED him immediately. You have to know better." That's not blaming her. That's teaching her to be smarter. Nobody wants to accept responsibility for anything... they just want to be the victim and have people sympathize over some failed romance BS or WORDS. Well... backfired pretty badly. I hope the whole world learns a lesson but... I doubt it. Last time I saw Ed was at Baltimore Comic Con last year. He was set up with Jim Rugg. I bought that Public Enemy Figure Box Set from him and we talked about Hip Hop Family Tree and topics for the Internet show. Between them two and Don Simpson right across the way from them, that was my favorite part of the show. This whole thing really sucks.