Another female teacher has sex with her student

Post by **Edi** » 2005-08-14 04:08pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Edi wrote: True, but for adlescent boys, physical maturity and the desire to do it are the only requirements that matter when they do get an opportunity. From their own point of view, that is. That's what makes for such a heated debate in this case.

Edi
Personally I suspect that this episode will affect his relationship skills for a long time in the future. As this woman just fell into his lap, he may expect others to as well.

Which would not be much different from any adolescent boy who was popular with girls in school, and in any case he'll get the appropriate smackdown in short order when he charges forth with that attitude.

Edi

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-08-14 04:11pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Personally I suspect that this episode will affect his relationship skills for a long time in the future. As this woman just fell into his lap, he may expect others to as well.

Be that as it may, warping the kid's view of women is hardly a justifiable reason for locking her up, IMO. My own view of women was considerably warped by girls my own age back in school (not to mention my own mother), but none them commited any offense against me severe enough to warrant imprisonment.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-08-14 04:12pm

Mrs Kendall wrote:Hey asshole, don't call me stupid because I disagree with you.

Should I accuse you of changing the premise, instead? You're waving around legality and morality as if they're the same thing. They're not. Stop trying to use it as an excuse to condemn the woman.

Mrs Kendall · Post by **Mrs Kendall** » 2005-08-14 04:16pm

Ok so I should just shut up and move on from the thread because you don't like what I have to say? Screw that buddy! I think the law is there for a reason, it is not moral to screw a kid or a youth (just covering my ass from the stupid pedophile definition crap). It's also not moral to screw around behind your husbands back. Kids are meant to be taught what right and what's wrong, she taught him what was wrong in the wrong way. That's my view and you have no right to call me stupid for thinking this way. So appoligize to me for calling me stupid please.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-08-14 04:21pm

McC wrote:
Should I accuse you of changing the premise, instead? You're waving around legality and morality as if they're the same thing. They're not. Stop trying to use it as an excuse to condemn the woman.

In this case morality and legality are pretty close together. The woman committed statutory rape which is both immoral and illegal. The kid is guilty of immorality because he willingly screwed a married woman, but he hasn't really broken laws.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-08-14 04:24pm

Mrs Kendall wrote:Ok so I should just shut up and move on from the thread because you don't like what I have to say?

No, you should stop trying to change the argument from one thing into another that you can attack more easily. That's called strawmanning.

I think the law is there for a reason

Yes, so that society can function. That's what the purpose of law is. Unless you'd care to point out how driving 10 mph over the speed limit makes every highway driver everywhere immoral.

it is not moral to screw a kid or a youth (just covering my ass from the stupid pedophile definition crap).

According to you. You haven't actually backed this up except with "OMG IT'S SO WRONG!!11!!1!!" reactionary statements.

It's also not moral to screw around behind your husbands back.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

Kids are meant to be taught what right and what's wrong, she taught him what was wrong in the wrong way.

According to you.

That's my view and you have no right to call me stupid for thinking this way. So appoligize to me for calling me stupid please.

No. I have every right to call you obtuse for trying to unify legality and morality. If you did so without the malicious intention of trying to undermine my argument by strawmanning it, you're obtuse. If you did so maliciously, you're dishonest. Take your pick. I chose to go with obtuse rather than assuming you were deliberately trying to malign my position.

Perhaps in Mrs. Kendall world, morality and legality are one in the same. When that happens in the real world, I'll let you know.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-08-14 04:26pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:In this case morality and legality are pretty close together. The woman committed statutory rape which is both immoral and illegal. The kid is guilty of immorality because he willingly screwed a married woman, but he hasn't really broken laws.

See several posts back. The kid wasn't an unwilling participant, thus the 'rape' term is erroneous. "Statutory rape" is a legal concoction, not a moral one, and is thus not subject to the morality of the subject.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-08-14 04:29pm

Mrs Kendall wrote:Ok so I should just shut up and move on from the thread because you don't like what I have to say? Screw that buddy! I think the law is there for a reason, it is not moral to screw a kid or a youth (just covering my ass from the stupid pedophile definition crap). It's also not moral to screw around behind your husbands back. Kids are meant to be taught what right and what's wrong, she taught him what was wrong in the wrong way. That's my view and you have no right to call me stupid for thinking this way. So appoligize to me for calling me stupid please.

He has a point. Equating legality with morality/ethics is a poor form of reasoning. It used to be illegal for black men to eat in the same restaurant with white men, but that certainly didn't make it moral or ethical.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2005-08-14 04:30pm

Man, I wish I had her as a teacher...

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-08-14 04:33pm

McC wrote:"Statutory rape" is a legal concoction, not a moral one, and is thus not subject to the morality of the subject.

Why can not one argue that taking advantage of someone who is not capable of making rational choices yet (a child) is immoral? Taking advantage of a sucker is still immoral (there was a thread about that), and taking advantage of a child which cannot distinguish between right and wrong is immoral.

Brian

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2005-08-14 04:43pm

McC wrote:
Don't be obtuse. The law is the law because some people decided to make it that way and in cases of the discussion of being 'sick' or being 'moral' or what have you, the legality of the situation is not the issue being addressed.

We agree that she did something wrong. What we disagree on is exactly what that is. The act being illegal or not doesn't make it right or wrong.

The law is that way because people ruled that a 13 year old cannot give consent, regardless of sex. Having sex with someone who cannot give consent is immoral. A person who cannot give consent cannot be willing.

It's interesting to consider that in Utah she'd be charged with rape of a child, which is a first degree felony.

A child being anyone under the age of 14, which would make her a pedophile in this state. I wonder what the legal definition for a child is in the state in question.

http://www.cr.ex.state.ut.us/community/ ... 402.1.html

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2005-08-14 04:50pm

It's probably a control issue.

Think about it.

Sure, she's a hot looking woman. Fine, dandy.

She's probably used to males being really, really nice to her while she was younger.

Now, as she got older, guys get more mature, and are less willing to bend over backwards for her. (Face it, men will bend over backwards for the woman they love, but not just some girl they are dating). She might have missed it....

Now, we have a cute 13 year old that is willing to bend over backwards for her...

Sad, but easily forseeable.

Moral of the Story:
Damn, where were teachers like that when I was in high school?

Oh yeah, rumour had it my Grade 10 math, Grade 11/12 Programming and Grade 10 English teachers we like that.

And no, I don't claim first hand knowledge of that.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-08-14 04:50pm

brianeyci wrote:Why can not one argue that taking advantage of someone who is not capable of making rational choices yet (a child) is immoral? Taking advantage of a sucker is still immoral (there was a thread about that), and taking advantage of a child which cannot distinguish between right and wrong is immoral.

Because you can't arbitrarily declare that the kid can't distinguish between right and wrong. Furthermore, age has nothing to do with being capable of making this judgment call. Unmarried people on this board sleep with married women. Are they immoral for doing so? You're assuming that she duped the kid for her own ends, which frankly doesn't seem to be the case at all. It looks for all the world that it was a completely consentual situation.

And like it or not, kids do have sex that young.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-08-14 04:54pm

This scenario is very much not child rape or molestation, regardless of what the law says. When one says rape, I immediate think non-consentual sex. You can argue that the 13-year old is not capable of making consent but it doesn't change the fact that he initiated the affair, which says a lot more than if he was convinced to have sex with her. The teacher was highly irresponsible for following his lead but to say she raped him is clearly skewing the reality of the situation.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-08-14 04:56pm

McC wrote:
Because you can't arbitrarily declare that the kid can't distinguish between right and wrong. Furthermore, age has nothing to do with being capable of making this judgment call. Unmarried people on this board sleep with married women. Are they immoral for doing so? You're assuming that she duped the kid for her own ends, which frankly doesn't seem to be the case at all. It looks for all the world that it was a completely consentual situation.

And like it or not, kids do have sex that young.

Then why are their age of consent laws? Why do we label people as minors until they reach a certain age?

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-08-14 05:01pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:You can argue that the 13-year old is not capable of making consent but it doesn't change the fact that he initiated the affair, which says a lot more than if he was convinced to have sex with her. The teacher was highly irresponsible for following his lead but to say she raped him is clearly skewing the reality of the situation.

She initiated it. Well, actually, she gave him a compliment via text message. We don't know how he responded. For all we know, he replied back with, "OMFG!!1! You are so fucking hot! Can I please fuck you?!"

When I was 13, "convincing" me to have sex with a beautiful woman would have required little more than her being in my line of sight.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-08-14 05:02pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Then why are their age of consent laws? Why do we label people as minors until they reach a certain age?

See back several posts. It's a legalistically convenient meter rather than anything remotely representative of actual maturity. There are 13 year olds that are more mature than 18 year olds, and there are 13 year olds less mature than 8 year olds. The age barometer is a shitty one for making laws, but it's convenient, which is why it's used. Throughout my entire life, I've thought age laws are retarded. Guess what: I still do, even though I can now legally do all of the stuff age laws restricted me from doing.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-08-14 05:04pm

McC wrote:Because you can't arbitrarily declare that the kid can't distinguish between right and wrong. Furthermore, age has nothing to do with being capable of making this judgment call.

False dilemma. Of course a child can distinguish between right and wrong, in certain situations. In the area of sex though, saying that a young child can distinguish between right sex and wrong sex is incorrect. It's called biology. A child's mind isn't fully developed yet. It might be developed enough to differentiate between killing someone or not, but maybe not sex.

Unmarried people on this board sleep with married women. Are they immoral for doing so?

They would be immoral if they were an older adult sleeping with a young child under the age of consent.

You're assuming that she duped the kid for her own ends, which frankly doesn't seem to be the case at all. It looks for all the world that it was a completely consentual situation.

Nope, I don't give a shit whether or not it was a "dupe". The point is that it is immoral to take advantage of a person who cannot make a rational choice.

And like it or not, kids do have sex that young.

Who cares. It's not about sex, it's about whether or not a child has the mental faculties of an adult, which they do not.

Brian

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-08-14 05:12pm

brianeyci wrote:False dilemma. Of course a child can distinguish between right and wrong, in certain situations. In the area of sex though, saying that a young child can distinguish between right sex and wrong sex is incorrect. It's called biology. A child's mind isn't fully developed yet. It might be developed enough to differentiate between killing someone or not, but maybe not sex.

Your own statement undermines your argument. "Maybe not sex." Yeah, maybe not. Maybe so. Age is not the barometer by which that can be measured. If the kid's outlook was "omg sex so cool!" and not "omg help me!" then the entire idea of the teacher taking advantage of the student falls flat.

They would be immoral if they were an older adult sleeping with a young child under the age of consent.

See back several posts for distinctions between children and youths. This kid was a youth, not a child. Utterly different scenario.

Nope, I don't give a shit whether or not it was a "dupe". The point is that it is immoral to take advantage of a person who cannot make a rational choice.

So...every time my girlfriend teases me by telling me I have to do some chore or another before I can have sex, it's immoral? When faced with the choice of sex or no sex, 'rational choice' becomes a very dubious statement for anyone of any age. So throw me another one.

Who cares. It's not about sex, it's about whether or not a child has the mental faculties of an adult, which they do not.

You're reaching, plain and simple, and it's blatantly obvious. This mental faculties bullshit is such a load of tripe. You're making baseless assumptions based on a reactionary position and it's transparent, moderately dishonest, and wholly irritating.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-08-14 05:14pm

Any else start hearing Van Halen's "Hot for teacher" in their heads?

Attendence would surely have been up if we had these teachers in high school.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-08-14 05:31pm

McC wrote:Your own statement undermines your argument. "Maybe not sex." Yeah, maybe not. Maybe so. Age is not the barometer by which that can be measured.

You are looking for a perfect "barometer" in an area of social science. Sure, some 13 year olds may be more mature than 18 year olds, but as long as the law works for the majority of younger children, then the rationale is fine because social policy is not an exact science.

If the kid's outlook was "omg sex so cool!" and not "omg help me!" then the entire idea of the teacher taking advantage of the student falls flat.

Your argument is that someone needs to know that they are being taken advantage of to be taken advantage of, clearly false. Let's say it was a 20 year old instead. Would he be more able to weigh the consequences of his actions for long-term benefit with the short-term benefit of sex? Yes he would, and that is the argument.

See back several posts for distinctions between children and youths. This kid was a youth, not a child. Utterly different scenario.

By saying that "youth" is enough for consent, are you saying that age is a barometer to measure rationality? If so, consession accepted. If not, then what the hell are you using to say that he is a youth, other than his age?

So...every time my girlfriend teases me by telling me I have to do some chore or another before I can have sex, it's immoral? When faced with the choice of sex or no sex, 'rational choice' becomes a very dubious statement for anyone of any age. So throw me another one.

More red herrings, the point is that a thirteen year old child cannot distinguish between good sex and bad sex in general and therefore having sex with a thirteen year old if you are older is taking advantage and immoral. You can, so you are responsible for your own actions. A thirteen year old is far less capable of doing so.

You're reaching, plain and simple, and it's blatantly obvious. This mental faculties bullshit is such a load of tripe. You're making baseless assumptions based on a reactionary position and it's transparent, moderately dishonest, and wholly irritating.

Your argument is that age is not necessary to determine mental faculty, which is retarded. Yes you wrote that, and let's remind you of that by looking at the top of this post.

Brian

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-08-14 05:31pm

Are there no special laws that prohibit any sexual interactions between people taking care of younger ones (teachers, instructors,...) and students/pupils/wards?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-08-14 05:33pm

Dahak wrote:Are there no special laws that prohibit any sexual interactions between people taking care of younger ones (teachers, instructors,...) and students/pupils/wards?

It's pretty much covered under the statutory rape laws.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-08-14 05:39pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Dahak wrote:Are there no special laws that prohibit any sexual interactions between people taking care of younger ones (teachers, instructors,...) and students/pupils/wards?
It's pretty much covered under the statutory rape laws.

We do have those, as well. But also laws for cases of student/teacher relations (which includes "kids" up to 18 years, while age of consent starts at 14).

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-08-14 05:41pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Dahak wrote:Are there no special laws that prohibit any sexual interactions between people taking care of younger ones (teachers, instructors,...) and students/pupils/wards?
It's pretty much covered under the statutory rape laws.

There's also laws that prohibit teacher/student dating for college age
levels as well, as that can lead to things like teachers violating privileges and such. So it's not exclusively covered in statutory rape.