Another female teacher has sex with her student

[McC]

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.

And that should be accounted for in all cases of this nature, rather than being an inflexible statute.

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.

Incorrect. My argument is that no one was being taken advantage of (except maybe the husband) in this scenario. Transport the kid forward five years and present him with the same scenario, and I'd bet money he'd make the same choices.

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?

No, I'm saying youth is a threshold that, once crossed, presents a person who is sexually capable, rather than a child who is by definition not sexually capable. Age is only a factor in as much as it informs his ability to perform sexually.

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.

Again, according to you and broad generalizations. Your broad generalizations only serve to weaken your position.

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.

And? I stand by that. Age is not a sufficient barometer for mental faculty. Period. Using it as a threshold to declare something moral or immoral is equally stupid, except when it informs a biological on/off switch (in the case of being pubescent or not). As I've been saying throughout, if she'd had sex with a child, that would've been immoral since the child is not a sexually capable creature. However, she did not -- it was a youth, and youth of significant physical maturity by the descriptions of others in this thread.

[Aaron]

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).

I'm not sure about the US laws but I think there's laws in Canada such as "corruption of a minor" that might cover it. There's also the age of consent laws which state that a 14 year old and a 15 year old can have sex but a 14 year old and a 20 something can't.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

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.

Nevermind. I misread. It was the teacher that said "You're cute" rather than the kid.

[Darth Wong]

She's hot, and she's a fucking pedophile.

I can't believe she got off with a 8 month sentence. She's a sexual predator. Shouldn't she be in prison for YEARS!?!

If the genders were reversed, yes. But let's face it, part of a jail sentence is determined by the amount of harm done. If a 28 year old man molested a 13 year old girl, we would assume that the girl is going to have serious emotional problems as a result. And like it or not, it's difficult to imagine this kid having emotional problems as a result of banging this slut.

As for those people who said it would give him unrealistic ideas about women, give me a fucking break. Do you really think this one incident will make him think that every girl in the world is like that? They're all hot and horny women in their twenties who want to have sex with 13 year old boys? All the other girls in his life will treat him the same way they would have before this happened.

[brianeyci]

And that should be accounted for in all cases of this nature, rather than being an inflexible statute.

Impossible to do with legislation, unless you propose some sort of formula with moving age targets based on variables. Legislation by nature involves step functions. The trick is to select an age that will cover most possibilities.

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.

Incorrect. My argument is that no one was being taken advantage of (except maybe the husband) in this scenario. Transport the kid forward five years and present him with the same scenario, and I'd bet money he'd make the same choices.

He might, and he might not, but all I have to do is allude to human experience to prove my point. Galvatron summarized it well,

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.

Now, do I need to prove that an 18 year old, in general, would consider something more than "line-of-sight" and willingness to have sex? If, in general, a 13 year old thinks like Galvatron (and the majority of 13 year olds probably do), then they are being taken advantage of because they are not mentally developed enough to consider other factors.

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?

No, I'm saying youth is a threshold that, once crossed, presents a person who is sexually capable, rather than a child who is by definition not sexually capable. Age is only a factor in as much as it informs his ability to perform sexually.

So, if someone is sexually capable, then they are sexually capable of making right choices, regardless of what human experience tells us about young children? By your rationale, 13 year olds should be allowed to view explicit hardcore pornography in their living rooms, as long as they can have a hard on and cum.

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.

Again, according to you and broad generalizations. Your broad generalizations only serve to weaken your position.

It isn't a generalization, since most men on this board can tell you they would have agreed to have sex with a beautiful woman at 13 without a second thought.

And? I stand by that. Age is not a sufficient barometer for mental faculty. Period. Using it as a threshold to declare something moral or immoral is equally stupid, except when it informs a biological on/off switch (in the case of being pubescent or not). As I've been saying throughout, if she'd had sex with a child, that would've been immoral since the child is not a sexually capable creature. However, she did not -- it was a youth, and youth of significant physical maturity by the descriptions of others in this thread.

Age is sufficient, when a thirteen year old just needs to be in "line-of-sight" of a beautiful woman and that beautiful woman to be willing, rather than considering other factors. And yes, I'm aware that there are horny losers who will have sex who are 25 and wouldn't factor in anything else, but the trick is to cover most possibilities with legislation, not all.

Brian

[McC]

Impossible to do with legislation, unless you propose some sort of formula with moving age targets based on variables. Legislation by nature involves step functions. The trick is to select an age that will cover most possibilities.

Yes, realistically you're correct. They have to do that. But not because it's morally right/wrong.

He might, and he might not, but all I have to do is allude to human experience to prove my point. Galvatron summarized it well,

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.

Now, do I need to prove that an 18 year old, in general, would consider something more than "line-of-sight" and willingness to have sex? If, in general, a 13 year old thinks like Galvatron (and the majority of 13 year olds probably do), then they are being taken advantage of because they are not mentally developed enough to consider other factors.

I point to Wong's post. Do you seriously think this kid is 'damaged' for this having happened? I don't.

So, if someone is sexually capable, then they are sexually capable of making right choices, regardless of what human experience tells us about young children? By your rationale, 13 year olds should be allowed to view explicit hardcore pornography in their living rooms, as long as they can have a hard on and cum.

Yes, they should. There's no logical reason to deny them this. Hell, most 13 year olds do this anyway.

It isn't a generalization, since most men on this board can tell you they would have agreed to have sex with a beautiful woman at 13 without a second thought.

Yes. So? You're suggesting that no matter what, a 13 year old male having sex is globally bad. I don't agree with that in the slightest. Could it be bad? Sure. Could it be fine? Sure. Your blanket statement is bullshit.

Age is sufficient, when a thirteen year old just needs to be in "line-of-sight" of a beautiful woman and that beautiful woman to be willing, rather than considering other factors. And yes, I'm aware that there are horny losers who will have sex who are 25 and wouldn't factor in anything else, but the trick is to cover most possibilities with legislation, not all.

*points above* You have yet to say why a 13 year old having sex is bad in and of itself.

[brianeyci]

And? I stand by that. Age is not a sufficient barometer for mental faculty. Period.

One only needs to look at the number of trolls or Trektards that end up being younger children or teenagers to refute your statement. But if you want more, take a look at this PBS program (yes google is the lazy man's way and I'm feeling lazy right now).

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Baird says, regardless of their conclusions, teens used a different part of their brains, farther up front, to think about the problem.

ABIGAIL BAIRD: What we found is they actually use their frontal cortex, the cognitive part of their brains. They are actually trying to think about this. They are trying to reason about this and it is not automatic. It is very labored for them.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Yes, realistically you're correct. They have to do that. But not because it's morally right/wrong.

One could argue that it is immoral to do nothing and have no legislation in place, rather than have some form of legislation, however flawed, to cover the majority of the cases.

I point to Wong's post. Do you seriously think this kid is 'damaged' for this having happened? I don't.

Ridiculous strawman, since I never said that the kid was damaged, only that it was immoral for the 28 year old to take advantage of him.

So, if someone is sexually capable, then they are sexually capable of making right choices, regardless of what human experience tells us about young children? By your rationale, 13 year olds should be allowed to view explicit hardcore pornography in their living rooms, as long as they can have a hard on and cum.

Yes, they should. There's no logical reason to deny them this. Hell, most 13 year olds do this anyway.

Of course there is a logical reason, in that their brains are still developing biologically.

Yes. So? You're suggesting that no matter what, a 13 year old male having sex is globally bad. I don't agree with that in the slightest. Could it be bad? Sure. Could it be fine? Sure. Your blanket statement is bullshit.

That's wrong. A 13 year old male having sex is not globally bad, only if it is someone far older who is taking advantage of him. If two 13 year olds have sex, I have no problem with that. Sex is not the issue, but mental development is.

Age is sufficient, when a thirteen year old just needs to be in "line-of-sight" of a beautiful woman and that beautiful woman to be willing, rather than considering other factors. And yes, I'm aware that there are horny losers who will have sex who are 25 and wouldn't factor in anything else, but the trick is to cover most possibilities with legislation, not all.

*points above* You have yet to say why a 13 year old having sex is bad in and of itself.

13 year olds having sex with other 13 year olds is not bad, because arguably both are in the same stage of mental development.

Brian

[McC]

And? What's your point? Reading through the article, the conclusion from that particular section seems to be that teens have to reason through new dilemmas they're confronted with while adults have those patterns pre-existing, so they can know by default whether something is a good/bad decision.

But the teens are still thinking through it, so the point still stands.

[brianeyci]

And? What's your point? Reading through the article, the conclusion from that particular section seems to be that teens have to reason through new dilemmas they're confronted with while adults have those patterns pre-existing, so they can know by default whether something is a good/bad decision.

But the teens are still thinking through it, so the point still stands.

My point was not that the teens do not think through it (obviously they think, "I want to have sex" is a thought), but rather that they could be made to make rash decisions and not see the long-term consequences of their actions. And you miss the part about the "laboured" thinking process, where it is more difficult for a teen to make a good/bad decisions in general.

Also you cannot just hand-wave and say we should only focus on the biological, which you seem to be doing with the "on/off" switch statement. In reality, human beings are creatures of experience, and if you conceed that at 13 a child does not have the experience to deal with a sexual situation appropriately, then you lose. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean he knows when to do something.

Brian

[McC]

Your entire premise assumes that the teacher somehow manipulated him into doing it. Perhaps she was simply open and he asked her, hm? You're adding an element of malice into the equation that does not exist in anything other than your hypotheticals.

[brianeyci]

Your entire premise assumes that the teacher somehow manipulated him into doing it. Perhaps she was simply open and he asked her, hm? You're adding an element of malice into the equation that does not exist in anything other than your hypotheticals.

No it is not, I don't know why you keep strawmanning me. I don't give a flying fuck whether or not the teacher manipulated him. He is 13 years old, and most 13 year olds don't have the experience and haven't developed enough to refuse an attractive woman in authority. Even if he asked the teacher, that does not excuse her from knowing that he is not developed enough being 13 years old to have asked a rational question and weighed the long-term consequences of his actions.

Brian

[Aaron]

Your entire premise assumes that the teacher somehow manipulated him into doing it. Perhaps she was simply open and he asked her, hm? You're adding an element of malice into the equation that does not exist in anything other than your hypotheticals.

She did send the initial text message to him telling him he was cute. It's on page 3 of this thread. As to who did what to whom first is up for debate, but it's clear that she made the initial move to get him.

[Galvatron]

More

MCMINNVILLE, Tenn. — An elementary teacher who resigned when she was accused of having sexual relations with a 13-year-old boy was described by the teen's mother as a close family friend.

She also said her son was closely supervised.

The boy's mother said she wanted to respond to news reports that her son was possibly not a victim and that he was not properly supervised.

''No matter what happened, my son was the victim here,'' she told the Southern Standard newspaper. ''He can't even attend school because there are (television) news trucks up there every day. How is he supposed to go to class?''

The mother, who was not identified by the newspaper so the boy wouldn't be identified, said eyewitness accounts that her son left basketball games with then physical education teacher Pamela Rogers Turner are false.

''People have made it sound like they left games together and were riding around the county at all hours of the night,'' the boy's mother said in an interview published Sunday. ''He didn't leave games with her. I've been to every one of my son's games. I wouldn't miss them for the world. And when the game was over, he left with us. We didn't just release him to her.''

She said Turner, 27, was frequently around the family, was welcome in their home, went to restaurants with them and spent time with them.

''She was a close family friend,'' the boy's mother said. ''There were times she did walk my son to the parking lot after games, but we were right there with her. She'd get in her car and we'd get in ours.''

Turner had worked as a physical education teacher and girls basketball coach at Centertown Elementary School for the past two years before resigning this month after the charges became public.

Authorities said Turner had a three-month relationship with the boy, described as a star athlete, beginning in November.

The charges against her include 15 counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and 13 counts of statutory rape.

She remains free on $50,000 bail, pending an arraignment today, where she is not expected to appear.

I wonder if this friendship predated their student/teacher relationship.

[Knife]

Rape can only happen if the victim is unwilling

If you don't understand the responsibilities and or consequences of your actions, how can you be willing? This basic idea is incorperated in all sorts of laws.

If you don't understand all the considerations of a choice, you are not making a choice. And if some one is leading you down to that choice that you don't understand, then they are using you.

(and also, where did I talk about rape? I said the potential consequences of sex are severely different for males and females).

Since you said that Galvatron's point was right on, and his point dealt with victims and non-vitcims. That implies rape. If his point isn't right on, don't use it as your point.

This isn't legitimate rape (I take issue with the very concept of statutory rape due to its dependence on a 'convenient' but inaccurate meter like age rather than some actual measure of maturity).

Bull shit, you've just invalidated raping girls who are drunk, raping children, and raping incapacitated people or mentally incapacitated people. If the person is either unable to or incapbable to make a rational choice to have sex, then they are being raped.

While there may be some 13 year olds out there who can make a rational choice like this, the majority can't and thus the law protects them.

The kid consented -- fuck, the kid initiated the whole thing with the damn text message. As far as I'm concerned, rape is only and can only ever be an unwilling sexual violation. There's nothing to indicate that the kid was remotely unwilling.

The kid lacked the ability to weigh the choices and rationally make a decsion, nor does he have the capcity to live up to the responsibilities of those choices. He couldn't have said no (being a horny 13 year old) and if he did, he couldn't have stopped her anyways if she really wanted to. He is unable to deal with the concequences when and if the bitch actually got pregnent and decided to keep the kid.

What? If the chick did get pregnate and kept the kid, would it be moral to get child support from the 13 year old?

As an average. We've also declared that driving before 16 is illegal because anyone under that age doesn't have the mental acumen to perform as a responsible driver.

Except, of course, for all the kids that do. Age laws are a blanket that cripple as well as protect.

Laws are suppost to work for the majority, not the minority. So what?

I didn't see that she threatened his grades if he didn't perform, did you? If I start dating my boss (not withstanding that I'm in a happy relationship and she's married), and then decide to call it off, exactly where in there do I have the right to call that sexual harassment unless she threatens to dock my pay? I don't.

It doesn't matter. She has the power in the situation. If he wanted to break it off with here and she said 'no' what the fuck is he going to do? Sexual harrassment and rape are about power. He had none.

Your silly example non with standing. If your boss used your prior relationship or current relationship against you in any way in your job, it is sexual harrasment. Your point being?

And...what? It's also illegal to drive above the speed limit, yet the majority of highway drivers routinely travel 10 mph or more above it without harassment from police. Legality and morality are not the same thing.

So because some laws don't get enforce, all laws shouldn't? Is that your argument? Or because some people do some things wrong, other people doing worse things is ok? Your fucked up in the head.

Legally and morality are different, but that doesn't mean that some times they can go together. Fucking kids is wrong. Fucking youths when you are an adult is wrong. Using people is wrong. Using your athority to do the above is even worse.

[Knife]

Knife, don't think that I approve of the what the woman did or defend her actions, but it is a fact of life that on average boys are ready for sex earlier than girls are, for a variety of reasons. Or more precisely, ready to fuck, as sex is about more than just sticking it in her and pounding away. It has to do with the psychological makeup of adolescent boys, they are constantly horny, constantly thinking about girls and sex, and in addition they are not the ones who are having the sexual organ of a member of the opposite sex being stuck inside them (like girls are) during intercourse. First time sex is also generally very much less painful for a boy than a girl for the same reasons (the physical differences).

This means that an adult woman screwing an adolescent boy is less wrong than an adult male screwing an adolescent girl or an adult male screwing an adolescent boy. The ethical argument simply is not equally strong, even though the law treats them all as equal.

It doesn't have to be equal to say that one is still wrong. Some women take being raped better than others, are they any less 'raped'?

Besides, most of that argument deals with physical atributes. Sure, a 13 is physiclly ready to boink a chick. But the whole reason we have laws against a 13-28 year old is that the kid is unable to see or understand the concequnces of his choice. Nor is he able to live up to the concequences of his actions.

We don't let 13 year olds into contracts of financial loans because even if the kid understands the damn loan, he is unable to pay the damn thing. Even if this kid is able to understand the responsibilities of the sex and the consequences of it, if the woman got pregnate and decided to keep the kid, would you be for forcing him to pay child support?

The biggest issue here is the abuse of a position of power and trust and the statutory rape laws being what they are, but I do not find anything wrong with the punishment that was meted out. Especially given what I said above and the fact that the boy and his family interceded on her behalf. Judges generally have some latitude in sentencing, and the facts and particulars of this case do not warrant a maximum sentence. Further, it was a plea bargain, where there is generally more latitude than in a straight up trial, and it's also better for the prosecution to not have to suffer through the embarrassment of having the "victim" and his family do their damnedest to sink his case. They could and would also trot out some psychologists and psychiatrists and probably also people who have worked with abuse victims who would more or less confirm basically everything I've said in this post. The outcome would be much worse, from everybody's point of view, and might even give more ammunition for actual pedophilia apologists.

I understand that, but it also keeps this soft ass culture against pedophiles going. She fucked a 13 year old. What about the next one? How about when this chick gets out in 9 months? Recitivism rates for pedophiles are high? If she does it again, will she get 18 months?

At some point, the responsibility of society to protect itself outstrips these ass hats and their pathetic prison terms. Fuck a kid, I don't want to see them for 20 years.

From the legal standpoint, this case might seem like double standards, but from a factual point of view it is not.

Edi

I disagree.

[Galvatron]

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.

If, in general, a 13 year old thinks like Galvatron (and the majority of 13 year olds probably do), then they are being taken advantage of because they are not mentally developed enough to consider other factors.

I'm not sure if I should feel insulted by that or not.

[The Yosemite Bear]

you know I remember us getting a a 25 year old male teacher in my senior year of High School. All the girls were drooling over him during class.

[CmdrWilkens]

Your entire premise assumes that the teacher somehow manipulated him into doing it. Perhaps she was simply open and he asked her, hm? You're adding an element of malice into the equation that does not exist in anything other than your hypotheticals.

Main Entry: ma·nip·u·late
Pronunciation: m&-'ni-py&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: back-formation from manipulation, from French, from manipuler to handle an apparatus in chemistry, ultimately from Latin manipulus
1 : to treat or operate with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
2 a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage

Lets look at the "artful, unfair, or insidious means." specifgically the unfair segment of that since you want to get in to whether the teacher "manipulated" the boy. She was an older more experienced person in a position of power over the boy, she initiated contact on herm terms and held ALL the power in the relationship. By ANY stretch of the imagination she preyed upon his teenage sexual drive artfully and unfairly using the power of her position so even granted that most of the arguments made against your position don't require manipulaiton per se she did, nonetheless, manipulate the kid to her own advantage.

[septesix]

This makes me wonder..if today it's the 13 year old boy that raped this teacher, how would the case have turned out?

[Edi]

Knife, don't think that I approve of the what the woman did or defend her actions, but it is a fact of life that on average boys are ready for sex earlier than girls are, for a variety of reasons. Or more precisely, ready to fuck, as sex is about more than just sticking it in her and pounding away. It has to do with the psychological makeup of adolescent boys, they are constantly horny, constantly thinking about girls and sex, and in addition they are not the ones who are having the sexual organ of a member of the opposite sex being stuck inside them (like girls are) during intercourse. First time sex is also generally very much less painful for a boy than a girl for the same reasons (the physical differences).

This means that an adult woman screwing an adolescent boy is less wrong than an adult male screwing an adolescent girl or an adult male screwing an adolescent boy. The ethical argument simply is not equally strong, even though the law treats them all as equal.

It doesn't have to be equal to say that one is still wrong. Some women take being raped better than others, are they any less 'raped'?

Look, as good a friend as you are, don't strawman me on this issue. I fucking said, as the very first thing, that I do not approve of the woman's actions. They were wrong. But they were not as wrong as if it had been a 28-year old man and a 13-year old girl. What part of that slipped past you? And specifically after I've gone on at length to point out the differences between male and female thinking, biology, physiology etc, you equate adult woman/adolescent male sex (where both were willing, but the other legally incompetent to give consent as far as the law is concerned) to a standard rape situation where a man forces a woman to have sex? That's a fucking huge strawman, and you have no point.

Besides, most of that argument deals with physical atributes. Sure, a 13 is physiclly ready to boink a chick. But the whole reason we have laws against a 13-28 year old is that the kid is unable to see or understand the concequnces of his choice. Nor is he able to live up to the concequences of his actions.

I never did claim that he was fully capable of understanding all the things involved or the consequences to himself or to her, and I'll thank you to find anything in my post that says those laws should not be in place. Simply saying it's the law in an individual case with some pretty damned unusual circumstances is goddamn stupid, because you have to weigh the facts of the case to decide and to determine how much punishment is due. And the facts of biology, psychology and physiology in this case are in the defendant's favor and work as a mitigating factor. I've yet to see you contest that. I've yet to see you challenge Mike's post on the issue either, and he cuts to the heart of the same matter as I do.

We don't let 13 year olds into contracts of financial loans because even if the kid understands the damn loan, he is unable to pay the damn thing. Even if this kid is able to understand the responsibilities of the sex and the consequences of it, if the woman got pregnate and decided to keep the kid, would you be for forcing him to pay child support?

No, I would not, because legal incompetence to perform an action (such as signing a contract) usually makes that action null and void in the eyes of the law. You could apply the same principle here and free the kid from paying child support. Another option is freeing him of that responsibility until he turns 18 or 21 or whatever the fuck is considered the age of majority in the US (which is the more likely option), or possibly some other specific arrangement could be instituted by order of the court. This hypothetical of yours is not a black/white situation and trying to treat it as one just makes you look foolish.

I understand that, but it also keeps this soft ass culture against pedophiles going. She fucked a 13 year old. What about the next one? How about when this chick gets out in 9 months? Recitivism rates for pedophiles are high? If she does it again, will she get 18 months?

Again, what part of the differences between adult woman/adolescent male and adult man/adolescent girl sexual realtionships escaped you? They are not the same despite the law being blind on it, and the judge obviously had the capacity to recognize that even if you don't. If it was a 28 year old man and a 13 year old girl, you'd be hearing me demand that he be strung up by his balls over a slow fire after being flayed alive. Because the facts of the situation in that event would be different.

At some point, the responsibility of society to protect itself outstrips these ass hats and their pathetic prison terms. Fuck a kid, I don't want to see them for 20 years.

So what about that case in Oregon a while back where the situation was basically the same? The woman violated her parole orders by fucking the same kid again, and when she finally did get out a few years later and the kid was an adult, they promptly got married. Afaik they are still happily married, and she never did approach any other kids. Should she still be behind bars? Or can you get it through your thick marine skull that not all situations of an adult having sex with a kid are equally bad, even though they are bad to begin with? Because the sentence of a crime must be in some way commensurate to the actual harm caused by that instance of it being committed, as Mike pointed out.

From the legal standpoint, this case might seem like double standards, but from a factual point of view it is not.

I disagree.

You're free to disagree with me, but you've yet to actually refute anything I said in my first post, and you have not given me any kind of convincing reasons for why my position is wrong. Because I agree that pedophilia is bad and should be treated harshly, but each damned case should be judged by its own merits instead of having a stock answer reagrdless of the facts. The vast majority of pedophiles are men, and the laws against pedophilia of a necessity reflect that. They are very ill-equipped to deal with cases like this because of that default assumption.

Edi

Edi

[AniThyng]

On a tangent brought up earlier, were this a case ofconsensual homosexual male teacher with homosexual male student, how would that affect the moral/ethical arguement?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Look, as good a friend as you are, don't strawman me on this issue. I fucking said, as the very first thing, that I do not approve of the woman's actions. They were wrong. But they were not as wrong as if it had been a 28-year old man and a 13-year old girl. What part of that slipped past you? And specifically after I've gone on at length to point out the differences between male and female thinking, biology, physiology etc, you equate adult woman/adolescent male sex (where both were willing, but the other legally incompetent to give consent as far as the law is concerned) to a standard rape situation where a man forces a woman to have sex? That's a fucking huge strawman, and you have no point.

So your belief is that a 13 year old male is able to give consent and a 13 year old girl can not?

[Kamakazie Sith]

This makes me wonder..if today it's the 13 year old boy that raped this teacher, how would the case have turned out?

I'd say that'd be unlikely. However, if he did then he'd be dealt with in a juvenile court.

[Darth Wong]

So your belief is that a 13 year old male is able to give consent and a 13 year old girl can not?

No, that's not what he's saying; he specifically said earlier that the teacher's actions were wrong. His argument goes to magnitude of harm, hence severity of sentencing; it is not attempt to get the teacher off scot-free.

I'm getting a little tired of certain people in this thread who keep distorting the issue and lying about their opponents' statements. Keep doing it and there will be trouble.