Hot teacher who banged student sentenced to 9 months

[Rogue 9]

There was evidence in the earlier thread that the situation was not a standard rape case because he was a willing participant, and all evidence points that way also for the general situation with young boys boinking women.

Are you familiar with the term "statutory rape" at all? Even a little bit? Children that young, by definition, cannot give consent.

[Edi]

There was evidence in the earlier thread that the situation was not a standard rape case because he was a willing participant, and all evidence points that way also for the general situation with young boys boinking women.

Are you familiar with the term "statutory rape" at all? Even a little bit? Children that young, by definition, cannot give consent.

Read what has been fucking said in this thread, and take a gander through the previous thread I linked on the first page. The issue is discussed in quite some detail there, including the statutory rape angle. Yes, I know what it is. Now fuck off.

Edi

[CaptainChewbacca]

All the arguments boil down to "thirteen year-old boys always want sex, and thirteen year-old girls need special protections."

How about this? If boys all want sex, shouldn't we protect them from THAT? How is that rational thinking on the part of the boy? They can't possibly be prepared for the emotional consequences (which do exist for boys) or the physical ramifications. What if she became pregnant? Is he obligated to pay child support, because he gave consent?

[Akhlut]

All the arguments boil down to "thirteen year-old boys always want sex, and thirteen year-old girls need special protections."

How about this? If boys all want sex, shouldn't we protect them from THAT? How is that rational thinking on the part of the boy? They can't possibly be prepared for the emotional consequences (which do exist for boys) or the physical ramifications. What if she became pregnant? Is he obligated to pay child support, because he gave consent?

Roffle, but boyz just care about sex! They're unemotional, sex-crazed robots! Silly!

[Colonel Olrik]

All the arguments boil down to "thirteen year-old boys always want sex, and thirteen year-old girls need special protections."

How about this? If boys all want sex, shouldn't we protect them from THAT? How is that rational thinking on the part of the boy? They can't possibly be prepared for the emotional consequences (which do exist for boys) or the physical ramifications. What if she became pregnant? Is he obligated to pay child support, because he gave consent?

Sexual education in highschool and that situation is no different from any other underage person having sex. For you sex can something for after marriage, but let me tell you you're missing out.

So, AGAIN, what are those emotional consequences?

[CaptainChewbacca]

All the arguments boil down to "thirteen year-old boys always want sex, and thirteen year-old girls need special protections."

How about this? If boys all want sex, shouldn't we protect them from THAT? How is that rational thinking on the part of the boy? They can't possibly be prepared for the emotional consequences (which do exist for boys) or the physical ramifications. What if she became pregnant? Is he obligated to pay child support, because he gave consent?

Sexual education in highschool and that situation is no different from any other underage person having sex. For you sex can something for after marriage, but let me tell you you're missing out.

So, AGAIN, what are those emotional consequences?

Just dealing with questions of sexuality and intimacy, and all that that entails. Generally no 13 year-old is ready for it. He may become sexually promiscuous, or obsessed, or he may be unable to form any future relationships. When a minor is taken advantage of sexually, there's no knowing what the damage could be.

[felineki]

Ha, this sure fired back up real quick. I'm having a blast reading this.

[Darth Wong]

She should have gone to prison for at least 5 years

Fuck all that bullshit about how males and females are different in their adolescent years. Equal treatment under the law folks.

Yes! The law should never make allowances for reality! Not in Jesusland!

[Akhlut]

Assuming he is gay, which is again an anomalous situation and not what you initially specified. Are you going to set down specific parameters, or are you going to keep moving the goalposts?

Fine, parameters: a 28 year old male teacher who engages in non-penetrative (on his part) sex with a male student.

And a 28 year old male teacher who engages in non-penetrative (on his part) sex with a female student.

Let's assume that the student is a girl and we're talking about your oral sex only scenario. In case you had no idea how the mids of teenagers work, here's a little something for you: Most teenage boys will stick their wang into the pussy of any attractive woman the first chance they get. Teenage girls, especially those in their early teens, are most definitely not that indiscriminate. Losing their virginity is not something they do lightly, and they generally don't take their panties off for a male in private unless they plan on doing exactly that. It would, barring very anomalous cases, take a lot of active convincing/coercion to get them to do that. Not really something that is going to go over well with any audience, especailly since it also involves the abuse of an authority position.

Because all humans act exactly the same. Because slutty teenage girls certainly do not exist or get started once they hit puberty. So, I suppose that the 12 year old girls my cousin was having sex with when he was 12 were, in fact, fictional.

And certainly, not a third of girls 12-16 have had intercourse in their lives. No no no, that's simply impossible.

Do you fucking see the difference yet? Especially with all the empirical evidence that is around about how teenage sexuality develops in boys nad girls and how it is different?

Doesn't change the fact that there are, in fact, young girls who would be more than happy to have sex frequently.

What part of "punishment according to the severity of the harm caused by the crime" do you not understand?

She molested a child, for fuck's sake! Just because his cock was capable of shooting semen doesn't mean he's mentally able to comprehend the consequences of his actions. What thirteen year old knows what emotional consequences sex can bring upon him?

And a male child molester involved with a female victim needs to be a fucking lot more active to get what he wants than a hot female with an adolescent boy. Are you deliberately refusing to address this very fucking obvious fact?

Yeah, so what if it's easier to get what she wants? Does that mean that if a con-man has to work harder to bilk someone out his cash that he deserves a harsher penalty than a con-man who can get cash out of someone much more easily?

Fuck you troll. You asked a hypothetical involving a male teacher and both male and female students, and given the psychological differences between adolescent boys and girls regarding sex, I answered that psychological harm was likely, which is readily supported by existing empirical evidence gleaned from studies of child abuse cases. Now you're moving the goalposts again by pretending that a case involving a female adult and an adolescent boy is the same, when you have repeatedly failed to show any evidence for it.

If I do not find studies to support my side within the next, 48 hours, I concede the point here.

Do you happen to have a point or are you just trolling for kicks, you shitlicking pig-fucker? The previous article said the indictment included 15 counts of sexual intercourse with a minor and so forth and that it had also been verified. There was also evidence cited in that article tha the boy was a willing participant, but I guess expecting you to actually acknowledge facts inconvenient to your bullshit position is too much to ask.

Ah, yes, this magical evidence that only you can read? Let's review, line by line, each article and find this evidence of willing participation on part of the victim.

Pamela Rogers, the Warren County elementary school teacher and coach, admitted guilt today on four counts of sexual battery by an authority figure for having a sexual affair with a 13-year-old star athlete student.

Nope, nothing on the male's state of mind during intercourse with his teacher, only that she has admitted guilt of sexual battery by an authority figure.

Rogers, 28, was sentenced to 270 days in the Warren County jail and will surrender her state teaching certificate for life. Circuit Court Judge Bart Stanley also barred her from granting interviews or profiting from her story during eight years of probation.

Blah blah blah, she's sentenced and can't talk about what happened to the media for 4/5ths of a decade.

Her plea avoids a trial that could have landed Rogers in prison for two to 16 years if she had been found guilty of all 28 counts from her February indictment. It was a no contest plea, which has the same effect as a guilty plea in court and in fact contains an admission of guilt in the document.

Had she been found guilty of everything brought against her, she'd be in jail for a lot longer. Also, she pleaded no contest and admitted guilt.

The plea also brings some finality to the teacher-student sex affair that rocked this small Middle Tennessee community when it made national headlines in February.

Closure brougth to small central Tennessee town after being brought to the attention of the nation at large.

Rogers, 28, entered court in a brown pin-striped suit and pink top with rings on both hands. After the hearing, a sheriff's deputy asked her to place her rings and earrings in a brown envelope before handcuffing her in front of her parents and taking her away to jail.

Dramatic recounting of what happens to the foxy teacher.

Prosecutor Dale Potter said Turner could get out in about 200 days with good behavior.

I sure hope that this is self-explanatory.

Potter said sex acts happened at the boy's home while his parents slept, at the teacher's home and at Centertown Elementary.

This might be construed as willingness, but is it equally plausible it was manipulation on the teacher's part. It sure as hell ain't conclusive evidence that he was willing though, merely highly conjectural.

A series of conditions on Rogers' probation will keep her away from secondary public or private school property in Tennessee unless she is accompanied by one of her parents to sporting events

The teacher can't ever be by a school again, barring sporting events if she's with her mommy or daddy.

Turner's father is Lamar Rogers, a state championship high school basketball coach in Fentress County.

Superfluous details on the teacher's father.

Rogers used to be known as Pamela Rogers Turner, but her attorney said today that her divorce from Warren County High School basketball coach Chris Turner is now final.

And the husband of the teacher rightfully gets a divorce from her cheatin', pedo ass.

And now, article deux!

A former elementary school teacher pleaded no contest to having sex with one of her students, a 13-year-old boy, and has been sentenced to nine months in jail.

Teacher has sex with student, gets sentenced to jail. Simple enough. Nothing on the victim's supposed willingness.

Pamela Rogers Turner, 28, entered the plea Thursday, allowing her to avoid a trial on 28 charges of sexual battery and statutory rape.

She takes her jail sentence because she doesn't want to get charged with 28 counts of sexual battery and statutory rape.

Turner, who had taught physical education and coached girls basketball for two years at Centertown Elementary, had trouble speaking as she tried to enter her plea to four counts of sexual battery stemming from encounters at the school.

She was a PE teacher and coached girls basketball. She had trouble saying her plea to what she'd been charged with.

She was accused of having sex with the boy at his home and at the school, which runs from kindergarten through eighth grade, between November and January.

Sex at boy's home, sex at boy's school. All in the course of 3 months. No statement on the victim's state of mind.

"I can't even talk," she told Circuit Court Judge Bart Stanley.

She says she can't talk.

After Turner is released from jail, she will be on supervised probation for the rest of an eight-year suspended sentence. The judge also ordered her to surrender her teaching certificate and said she would be registered as a child sex offender. The sentence prohibits her from profiting from the case and does not allow interviews.

Yet more stuff on her being unable to talk about this incident to the press for 4/5ths of a decade. Also, no more teaching kids for her and she's a registered child sex offender.

District Attorney Dale Potter has said Turner lived at the boy's house "for a brief period of time when she was moving from residence to residence."

She lived at his house. Of course, he, being the homeowner, must have been a willing participant if he let her live at his house. Oh, wait, he's not even the damn home owner and she's apparently a friend of the family anyway. STILL no proof in the article's that he's willingly participating.

The mother of the teenager in the case previously described Turner as a family friend and said she hoped there would not be a trial. Potter said Thursday that was part of the reason for the plea agreement

This might also be construed as evidence of willing participation, but it is not a definite "yes! he totally consented to fucking her." There are also instances of male pedophiles ingratiating themselves to families to get close to their prey. This is not proof of willingness on his part.

Turner was a college homecoming queen and basketball player who once appeared as a bikini-clad promoter for a professional wrestling match. Her husband, Chris Turner, filed for divorce in January, at the same time she was indicted.

She's hot, yes she is. And her husband has filed for divorce from her pedo ass.

And no article I've read shows any insight into the mind of the victim.


So, where's that evidence in the article that he was willing? Did you conjure it out of thin air? Or did you get it from your ass?

I'm sure they would have loved to hear how much you know about the victim's state of mind at the time of all these sexual encounters. I mean, there's absolutely no possibility that this is a kid with major dependency issues, is there? Nope, none at all.

If the defense was even the least bit competent, they had an expert in sexual psychology in there saying what I've said here. That aside, there is no evidence whatsoever in the public domain indicating that the kid had any dependency issues. You want to argue that line, produce the fucking evidence to back it up.

Ah, yes, because your position is so wonderfully full of evidence specific to this case! All that wonderful conjecture and hearsay on how willing he was.

Oh, yeah, that's right. You have about as much to go on as I do. But, since all 13 year old males are the same and lack any sort of mental variation at all, let's just assume that he's a willing participant.

[Cosmic Average]

Yes! The law should never make allowances for reality! Not in Jesusland!

So, what are you saying here? That men should be furthered penalized because they're not attractive white women?

[Darth Wong]

Yes! The law should never make allowances for reality! Not in Jesusland!

So, what are you saying here? That men should be furthered penalized because they're not attractive white women?

Yes, although for reasons different than the ones you're obviously trying to put into my mouth. Care to offer a reason to dispute the real argument other than your personal incredulity at it?

[Darth Wong]

Because all humans act exactly the same. Rolling Eyes Because slutty teenage girls certainly do not exist or get started once they hit puberty. So, I suppose that the 12 year old girls my cousin was having sex with when he was 12 were, in fact, fictional.

Hey great, let's introduce anomalies into a sociological discussion! After all, when discussing rules which must apply to the general population, and must therefore be based upon averages rather than exceptions, the best way to disprove any rule is to cite the exception!!!

Get this straight: every social rule has to be based on the most common parameters, not exceptions. It is impossible to craft laws and rules that account for every conceivable scenario and unusual situation, which is why you have a certain amount of judge's disgression when it comes to sentencing. Don't be a fucktard.

In any given molestation case, one must try to assess the harm done, the level of exploitation, etc. This is a more complex task than you are making it out to be, and oversimplified analyses of complex situations are not superior to complicated ones.

[Akhlut]

Hey great, let's introduce anomalies into a sociological discussion! After all, when discussing rules which must apply to the general population, and must therefore be based upon averages rather than exceptions, the best way to disprove any rule is to cite the exception!!!

One third of a population is one hell of an exception.

In any given molestation case, one must try to assess the harm done, the level of exploitation, etc. This is a more complex task than you are making it out to be, and oversimplified analyses of complex situations are not superior to complicated ones.

Yes, I'll agree with that, but I still don't think that Ms. Rogers deserved such leniancy. Her breach of conduct and ethics, her likely manipulation of a minor, and the act itself all seem to indicate to me that she should have gotten a harsher sentence than she did.

[Darth Wong]

Hey great, let's introduce anomalies into a sociological discussion! After all, when discussing rules which must apply to the general population, and must therefore be based upon averages rather than exceptions, the best way to disprove any rule is to cite the exception!!!

One third of a population is one hell of an exception.

Except that you haven't proven it's an exception at all. The fact that a lot of girls have sex young does not mean they are as sexually aggressive as guys; this non sequitur does not prove your case at all.

In any given molestation case, one must try to assess the harm done, the level of exploitation, etc. This is a more complex task than you are making it out to be, and oversimplified analyses of complex situations are not superior to complicated ones.

Yes, I'll agree with that, but I still don't think that Ms. Rogers deserved such leniancy. Her breach of conduct and ethics, her likely manipulation of a minor, and the act itself all seem to indicate to me that she should have gotten a harsher sentence than she did.

And you were in the courtroom? You heard all of the testimony? You have studied the transcripts and seen the experts testifying on this matter?

[Cosmic Average]

Yes, although for reasons different than the ones you're obviously trying to put into my mouth.

And where in my post did I attempt to 'put reasons into your mouth'? I simply asked you to clarify what you were trying to say.

Now then, what are the reasons you believe that men should be held to a seperate standard than women when it comes to child abuse? I'm not saying that she should be punished more severely than she has been, but I don't think she should be given any allowances just because she's an attractive woman.

Care to offer a reason to dispute the real argument other than your personal incredulity at it?

I'm not certain which particular argument you mean, so..

The child is not emotionally or intellectually developed enough to enter into an adult relationship with an unbalanced woman. We certainly don't place adult responsibilities onto thirteen years old, nor do we give them full 'benefits' of adult hood, even though they might want them(like driving or consuming alcohol).

[Kamakazie Sith]

Just dealing with questions of sexuality and intimacy, and all that that entails. Generally no 13 year-old is ready for it. He may become sexually promiscuous, or obsessed, or he may be unable to form any future relationships. When a minor is taken advantage of sexually, there's no knowing what the damage could be.

So basically you're speculating into something for which you really don't know what you're talking about.

How about you show how consensual sex is harmful to 13 year old boys and stop giving your opinion on the situation.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, although for reasons different than the ones you're obviously trying to put into my mouth.

And where in my post did I attempt to 'put reasons into your mouth'? I simply asked you to clarify what you were trying to say.

I'm trying to say that men and women are different, and it's absurd for the law to ignore this. They may get equal rights under the law, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that they are actually identical under the law.

Now then, what are the reasons you believe that men should be held to a seperate standard than women when it comes to child abuse?

Why shouldn't they be, since they are not the same?

I'm not saying that she should be punished more severely than she has been, but I don't think she should be given any allowances just because she's an attractive woman.

What do you think sentencing should be based on? Harm to the victim or some arbitrary standard subjectively chosen by you? If it's harm to the victim, then one must factor in a psychological assessment of the actual harm done to this boy. Is that too complex for you?

I'm not certain which particular argument you mean, so..

The child is not emotionally or intellectually developed enough to enter into an adult relationship with an unbalanced woman. We certainly don't place adult responsibilities onto thirteen years old, nor do we give them full 'benefits' of adult hood, even though they might want them(like driving or consuming alcohol).

Ah, I see. So it's either OK or not OK, 1 or 0 in your mind, with no ground in-between. And once you've decided that it's 1 rather than 0, everyone should get the same sentence. Interestingly oversimplistic thinking.

[Akhlut]

Except that you haven't proven it's an exception at all. The fact that a lot of girls have sex young does not mean they are as sexually aggressive as guys; this non sequitur does not prove your case at all.

As I told Edi regarding another contested issue, if I can't provide studies supporting my view within 48 hours, I concede.

And you were in the courtroom? You heard all of the testimony? You have studied the transcripts and seen the experts testifying on this matter?

No, but then no one here should then have any strong opinions on the sentencing if they haven't studied the transcripts, heard the testimony, or were present in the courtrom.

[Darth Wong]

Except that you haven't proven it's an exception at all. The fact that a lot of girls have sex young does not mean they are as sexually aggressive as guys; this non sequitur does not prove your case at all.

As I told Edi regarding another contested issue, if I can't provide studies supporting my view within 48 hours, I concede.

And you were in the courtroom? You heard all of the testimony? You have studied the transcripts and seen the experts testifying on this matter?

No, but then no one here should then have any strong opinions on the sentencing if they haven't studied the transcripts, heard the testimony, or were present in the courtrom.

Except that the only strong opinion presented so far has been that the people screaming for long prison sentences don't have any substance to back up their arguments, so in order to back up your claim that tougher sentencing is required, you must provide the evidence, not us. We're simply saying that we haven't seen any real evidence that the judge in this case (who did have access to all of that information) was in error.

[HemlockGrey]

Just dealing with questions of sexuality and intimacy, and all that that entails. Generally no 13 year-old is ready for it. He may become sexually promiscuous, or obsessed, or he may be unable to form any future relationships. When a minor is taken advantage of sexually, there's no knowing what the damage could be.

Why the fuck are you commenting on sex at all?

[Cosmic Average]

I'm trying to say that men and women are different, and it's absurd for the law to ignore this. They may get equal rights under the law, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that they are actually identical under the law.

Women should then be given lighter sentences when they have sex with children? I'm having difficulties understanding what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying that men and women should be prosecuted under different standards and guidlines?

Why shouldn't they be, since they are not the same?

What differences warrant being prosecuted differently?

What do you think sentencing should be based on? Harm to the victim or some arbitrary standard subjectively chosen by you? If it's harm to the victim, then one must factor in a psychological assessment of the actual harm done to this boy. Is that too complex for you?

How about a standard, basic penality for engaging in sexual intercourse for deterence, coupled with damages done to the child?

And is the psychological battery available to the public? My main issue with this is that the judge might have been swayed by the physical appearance of the defendant.

Ah, I see. So it's either OK or not OK, 1 or 0 in your mind, with no ground in-between. And once you've decided that it's 1 rather than 0, everyone should get the same sentence. Interestingly oversimplistic thinking.

I'll concede that some children are more 'mature' than others, but wouldn't you say that the vast majority are emotionally unprepared to enter an adult relationship with a teacher, a person who holds authority over them, who's more than twice their age and who's undoubtedly unbalanced?

[Darth Wong]

I'm trying to say that men and women are different, and it's absurd for the law to ignore this. They may get equal rights under the law, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that they are actually identical under the law.

Women should then be given lighter sentences when they have sex with children? I'm having difficulties understanding what you're trying to say here.

What the fuck part of "judge's disgression" and "assessment of harm" are you not capable of understanding, you stupid fucking asshole? I'm getting really tired of the way you keep trying to crystallize my position into a blanket one-liner for your own convenience. Are you trying to test my patience? Do you have some bizarre interest in seeing just how much bullshit I will tolerate?

[Soontir C'boath]

The way I see it, this is the equivalent of a guy walking into a club every night and instead of asking women out, a woman takes the initiative and walks up to him and asks "Can we go somewhere else?" in which he gets his sex for the night except this is with a student and a teacher.

[Morilore]

Women should then be given lighter sentences when they have sex with children? I'm having difficulties understanding what you're trying to say here.

Something someone should point out. This kid was an adolescent, not a child the way people usually think of child-rape. If he was, say, 7, the situation would be different. If we want to get into what people's attitudes would be in that situation, look up PatKelly when everyone thought it was a female.

[UCBooties]

Well yes, but a 13 year old girl is also an adolescant, so that distinction is a seperte one from what the other debators are trying to prove or disprove.