Hot teacher who banged student sentenced to 9 months

[Enigma]

This is why I guess Canada side step the whole thing and has the age of consent at 14. Anyone can fuck a 14 year old, male or female.

[Morilore]

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.

I know, but given the fervor of this particular flamewar and the fact that Darth Wong seems quite capable of holding up that front by himself, I wanted to make myself quasi-useful and try to head off any age bullshit at the pass.

[Solauren]

This is why I guess Canada side step the whole thing and has the age of consent at 14. Anyone can fuck a 14 year old, male or female.

That, and it's cold up here, so there's not much else to do

(rimshot)

[Enigma]

This is why I guess Canada side step the whole thing and has the age of consent at 14. Anyone can fuck a 14 year old, male or female.

That, and it's cold up here, so there's not much else to do

(rimshot)

or a rimjob.

[Edi]

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.

Depends on what they do. If it's only him doing things to the student, such as giving blowjobs, he's going to be toast, because the court would in all likelihood use its discretionary powers against him and regard the thing as non-consensual. If the student penetrates him, he's in a better situation, because it requires active effort instead of just passivity to perform penetrative sex. In the latter case there is not much difference to the Pamela Rogers case, but he would probably still get a far harsher sentence due to a number of factors, among them the attitudes toward homosexuality.

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

Unless you can make a really watertight case that everything was initiated by the student, he's toast. That's because without direct, verifiable evidence the assumption that he coerced her would kick in. That is after all the basic assumption in pedophilia cases and it requires evidence to the contrary (i.e. that the student actively pursued things) to get more lenient treatment.

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.

Yes, way to go moving the goalposts yet again. It is a known fact that teenagers (and even some preteens) experiment with sex with their peers and some of them even have intercourse. It does not mean that most of them are ready for it, or that they would want to have sex with an adult. When I was in junior high, I knew some of the girls were boinking some of the guys, bnut that does not mean they would have wanted to have sex with adults. Are you fucking unable to realize what are generalities and what are anomalies?

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

You're a fucking moron. There's a world of difference between girls of 12 and girls of 16. A great portion of 16-year-olds will have had sex, while the portion of 12 or 13-year olds who can say the same is far smaller. That 36% is the fucking average. Would you care to make a specific argument instead of citing a range where there is a huge difference between the end and the beginning?

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.

You're fucking deluded if you think a court of law is going to treat an adult male having sex with a 15 or 16-year old girl the same as him having sex with a girl of 12 or 13. Or that there isn't a difference. Besides, most of the sex prior to age of consent happens with kids of similar age. And 16 is generally the age of consent anyway.

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!

So you have no argument but can only screech outrage that the court did not agree with you 100%. Gotcha.

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?

Being legally incompetent to give consent is no guarantee of being physically unable to do something. This was all discussed in the previous thread. You also have evidence in the form of direct testimony from several male board members that the likely emotional consequences for him are going to be negligible or even positive! Are you going to address that or will you just troll some more?

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?

False analogy. Fraud is getting something from someone by promising them something you have no intention of delivering. Inviting someone to have sex with you is different than coercing/pressuring them to do so, and a beautiful woman needs usually only to invite an adolescent boy, while a man would in all likelihood have to pressure an adolescent girl. A con man always deceives and/or pressures.

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.
<snip>

Well, looks like my bad here. No direct evidence of his willingness, but it was most probable that he was willing.

<snip>

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.

Are you still going on with that strawman of male and female pedophiles (assumed to be heterosexual here) causing an equal amount of harm to their victims?

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 did indeed make a mistake. Doesn't mean that the rest of your bullshit has any merit.

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.[/quote]
Fuck off. The great majority of 13-year old boys would be willing to have sex with a hot woman. Some won't, but on what basis do you assume that this one was different from the norm? You seem to be hell bent on oversimplifying the whole issue, when the goddamn court that judged the case disagrees with your reasoning and seems to agree with mine.

Edi

[Colonel Olrik]

This is why I guess Canada side step the whole thing and has the age of consent at 14. Anyone can fuck a 14 year old, male or female.

Here too, I guess we've had a bunch of ignorant perverts writing the law, who should have consulted instead Rogue 9 and CptChewbacca, since I doubt they'd feel a lot different about a 25-14 years old sexual relation.

[Anguirus]

You're equating male and female with no justification. Why do you think a female would respond to a sexual encounter identically to a male?

I doubt they would react the same way. I also doubt that all females would react the same way. Or that all males would react the same way.

What I'm equating is the predatory behavior of the authority figure who is supposed to be responsible here.

It doesn't bother me that the judge gave her a lesser sentence because he didn't deem that much harm had been done to the student. What bothers me is that I suspect the teacher would have had a harsher sentence had she been a man who engaged in, say, consensual oral sex (both ways) with a 13-year-old girl.

It doesn't matter how much the student wants it, he or she is/would be 13 years old and the teacher's got to keep her/his goddamn pants on.

The great majority of 13-year old boys would be willing to have sex with a hot woman./quote]

I don't suppose we should expect anything other than anecdotal evidence of this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems like everyone's making assumptions here.

You realize, of course, that manipulation and seduction can make someone's dick go up quite easily. Would you advocate lesser sentencing for a male teacher molesting a female student if both sides testified that there were physiological signs of arousal in the student?

After all, I'm sure the majority of 13-year-old girls have fantasized about having sex with a hot older guy. I'm sure a lot of women have had rape fantasies, too, let's take that into account while sentencing.

[Darth Wong]

It doesn't bother me that the judge gave her a lesser sentence because he didn't deem that much harm had been done to the student. What bothers me is that I suspect the teacher would have had a harsher sentence had she been a man who engaged in, say, consensual oral sex (both ways) with a 13-year-old girl.

In other words, you categorically reject the possibility that if the genders were reversed, there could have been any conceivable reason for the judge to conclude that the young adolescent was exploited more than was the case originally. Why?

[Anguirus]

^ Because while the gender might be relevant to the amount of harm done to the student, it is not the only factor that should be considered. IF a male teacher engaged in sexual activity with a female student, it was consensual, and the student was unharmed, I simply fail to see what makes it worse than the reverse.

Aside from some sort of assumption that teenage girls are more easily manipulated or more emotionally fragile than teenage guys, of course. I am avoiding that assumption because I am not possessed of convincing data that gender makes more difference here than other factors.

In short, I can see why penetration could make a difference in sentencing, but not gender itself, if that makes any sense.

Why is a young woman assumed to be more exploited than a young man in any case of underage sex, all else being equal?

[Darth Wong]

^ Because while the gender might be relevant to the amount of harm done to the student, it is not the only factor that should be considered.

Blow me; you have produced zero evidence that the judge was basing his decision 100% on gender, so this is nothing more than you throwing up your own clay pidgeons.

[The Guid]

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this. I do want to point something out - I have not seen particular evidence for boys and girls being different psychologically at 13 or around that time. I am not neccessarily contesting it but I would like to be sure that this is genuinly true and not just some rather bizarre throwback of bygone era.

I do think people are making assumptions about the case though. If the genders were reversed I don't neccessarily see proof that the Judge would treat it differently. It would be judged according to its merits and until concrete evidence is given for that all of the one liners will mean nothing.

[petesampras]

^ Because while the gender might be relevant to the amount of harm done to the student, it is not the only factor that should be considered. IF a male teacher engaged in sexual activity with a female student, it was consensual, and the student was unharmed, I simply fail to see what makes it worse than the reverse.

Aside from some sort of assumption that teenage girls are more easily manipulated or more emotionally fragile than teenage guys, of course. I am avoiding that assumption because I am not possessed of convincing data that gender makes more difference here than other factors.

In short, I can see why penetration could make a difference in sentencing, but not gender itself, if that makes any sense.

Why is a young woman assumed to be more exploited than a young man in any case of underage sex, all else being equal?

You can't take out the act of penetration from the argument. The fact is that men penetrate women and women allow themselves to be penetrated. One has a lot more inherent potential to be an abusive act than the other. If this was not the case our values might well be different, but it is. You can't discuss gender in arguments and then remove aspects of gender from the discussion. The fact that it is the woman that can get pregnant also colours our opinions on this topic.

[SAMAS]

IoW, females theoretically have more to lose from sex?

[Darth Wong]

IoW, females theoretically have more to lose from sex?

Yes. This is an objective fact; a female's body is permanently altered by the loss of virginity and it is also potentially subject to pregnancy: two things that don't happen to males.

Why the fuck are people denying that the consequences of sex are different for males and females? I can't recall the last time I've seen such ideologically correct ostrich-style head-in-sand bullshit.

[Anguirus]

Blow me

No, thanks.

you have produced zero evidence that the judge was basing his decision 100% on gender

I didn't say that the judge based his decision 100% on gender. I'm just saying that considering conventional attitudes, I suspect that a male teacher would get it worse for oral sex with a female student. That's all I ever said, and I said that if my suspicion was correct, I would consider that wrong.

If the genders were reversed I don't neccessarily see proof that the Judge would treat it differently.

Exactly, there is no proof. There can't be proof. I'm making an assumption, and I admit to that.

I was under the impression that we were discussing this on a hypothetical basis for, oh, about the last four pages.

You can't take out the act of penetration from the argument. The fact is that men penetrate women and women allow themselves to be penetrated. One has a lot more inherent potential to be an abusive act than the other. If this was not the case our values might well be different, but it is. You can't discuss gender in arguments and then remove aspects of gender from the discussion. The fact that it is the woman that can get pregnant also colours our opinions on this topic.

What bothers me is that I suspect the teacher would have had a harsher sentence had she been a man who engaged in, say, consensual oral sex (both ways) with a 13-year-old girl.

Oral sex is penetration now, with the potential for pregnancy?

We've been talking mostly about the willingness and the enjoyment of the student so far. (i.e. "Most 13-year-old guys would love to have sex with a hot teacher.") I framed my statement in terms of consensual oral sex in order to concentrate on this aspect of the discussion.

In the case of consensual oral sex only, no one's hurt, would you treat a male teacher's activity with a female student differently than a female teacher's activity with a male student?

If so, can you explain why please?

Why the fuck are people denying that the consequences of sex are different for males and females?

Are the physical and psychological consequences of oral sex different for males and females? I kind of doubt that there's been a study to this effect, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Look, if you guys don't want to discuss my "clay pigeon," that's perfectly fine. It IS a hypothetical question. But please don't misrepresent what I'm saying. In the case of consensual sex in which no one has been injured, what matters to me is the behavior and motivations of the teacher. Why the fuck do you have sex with a thirteen-year-old?

Love? No, because love means respect, and if you're having sex with someone that young, that's not respecting them.

Uncontrollable passion? So she's wildly attracted to this guy, and doesn't possess the self-control to do anything else but have sex with him? I find this possible, but rather unlikely. I'm sure she could do better than a 13-year-old.

Thrill of the hunt? Gets off on seducing a kid with no sexual experience? That's sick. It's predatory behavior, with a high risk of repeat offense.

Can anyone think of anything else? I suppose the kid could be blackmailing her, but with what? What's worse than admitting to sexual battery and ruining her life?

Tentative conclusion: this woman's seriously messed up. I'm fine with her sentence, but let's not allow our adolecesent fantasies about "the hot teacher" to influence our view here. She's a sex offender and a criminal. Not as bad a criminal as most, but a criminal. This case should be treated the same way as any other statutory rape case without penetration, injury, or physical coercion. I honestly don't know if it was.

[The Guid]

As I have before I wish to challenge that:

How do you know it would be treated differently in your above case? Do you have a particular case in mind?

[Lord Zentei]

<DELURK>


Ok, just a few quick points:

1) The fact that sleeping with a 13 year old boy is less damaging to the child than sleeping with a 13 year old girl is doesn't really strike me as a powerful defence. Naturally, this by itself is not an argument in favour of punishment, but consent laws are there for a reason: children cannot give consent, they are not mature enough to do so. That by itself implies that she took advantage of a child's immaturity to satisfy her lust.

2) In the example of a 13 year old girl sleeping with an adult male: what if the girl were to have sex with him in a manner that does not involve permanent physical change or risk of pregnancy: up the back passage? Or perhaps she has lost her virginity previoulsy and is using the pill, morning after pill, condoms et multiple cetera? Or perhaps she is sleeping with an adult woman?

3) Anyway, girls mature faster than boys psychologically, so a 13 year old girl's ability to give consent should be greater than that of the 13 year old boy (assuming the aforementioned safeguards are met) - yet it hardly seems apropos to assume that a 13 year old girl is capable of giving consent, even under such conditions.

4) The fact that children will often develop crushes on adults leads me to doubt that the claims of mutual trust and affection are a valid argument. How often have we had a thread in ARSE where some punk-ass comes along and claims to be in love with some girl or other who won't give him the time of day and we have chided him saying "you are too young to know the difference between 'love' and 'crush'"?

5) Apart from this is the non-trivial fact that the teacher's behaviour is a gross violation of professional ethics, seeing that this was a child she was entrusted with - regardless of whether she was on friendly terms with the family both before and after.

[Anguirus]

^ No I didn't have a particular case in mind, which is why I was sure to use the word "suspect."

However, I'm Googling for cases that would fit these criteria. I'll let you know if I find anything.

[Ghost Rider]

LMAO...that produces by far one of the more fucked up mental images.

Glad you liked it.


On a more serious note. I really don't see what the confusion is about here. She fucked a minor that was WAY the hell under the age of consent. She broke the fucking law. 'Nuff said. The only thing I find wrong about this is the double standard in sentencing. Had this been a male teacher that fucked a thirteen year old (boy or girl), he'd get to look foward to 10-20 years of being traded as a cell block prison bitch for a pack of Kools. But because it's a fairly attractive woman that screwed a 13 year old boy (makes me wonder what she'd been sentenced to had she has sex with a 13 year old girl), she gets nine months? Can you say "Holy double standard, Batman"?

More amusing then this topic has become.

Your point it's not held to same standard while true in the purely logical way, is also the fact that the courts are not universally laid out. The law may state one thing, but when given into context of a case, you get the little nagging loopholes of figuring what and where...and thus was justice served?

She got jail time and is divorced. She lost a gret deal of her livilhood and a boy got to inact a fantasy he will likely never accomplsih again. Personally more is not exactly going to happen worse for one party and the other will have to live that he peaked at 13.

[Mr. Coffee]

More amusing then this topic has become.

Your point it's not held to same standard while true in the purely logical way, is also the fact that the courts are not universally laid out. The law may state one thing, but when given into context of a case, you get the little nagging loopholes of figuring what and where...and thus was justice served?

Point taken. Still smells of bullshit, but I understand that different state laws/courts systems aloow for this sort of thing to happen.

She got jail time and is divorced. She lost a gret deal of her livilhood and a boy got to inact a fantasy he will likely never accomplsih again. Personally more is not exactly going to happen worse for one party and the other will have to live that he peaked at 13.

But on an up note, she's got a brilliant future as an escort/exotic dancer when she completes her sentence! From the profile of that picture, she looks like she's got a nice bubble butt... "I... Like... Big Butts! And cannot lie, you other brothers can't deny..."

[Anguirus]

Here's something:

In 1993 in Virginia, a male teacher who had sex wit h three teenage female students was sentenced to 26 years in prison - while the next day, a female swimming coach who had an "affair" with an 11-year-old boy and sexual encounters with two others got 30 days.

http://reason.com/cy/cy060402.shtml

While the harsher sentence was definately given to the male who engaged in sex with penetration, as I can understand, it's the gap that gets me here. 26 years versus thirty days? And the woman did it with an eleven-year old...

There wasn't any information on other circumstances that may have affected the man's punishment, unfortunately.

Ghost Riders right...different jurisdictions gve out different punishments. This is the only example I could find so far that occurred in nearly the same place and time.

[AniThyng]

On the age of consent thing, does this mean if that if a 28 yo teacher has sex with a 14 year old female student of his in Canada, there would have been no statuary rape case at all beyond some sort of "abuse of authority" charge?

That said, I would think that as far as 13 year old guys having sex is concerned, My main concern would be if the kid knows about protecting from STDs ( or even if he knows in a matter of fact way, is mature enough to *care*) and that sort of thing - it's a bit of a stretch to assume the adult to be responsible enough to educate the kid...not tying it to this case exactly, but hypothetical?

That said, was there not a similar case a few years back? Whatever happened to those people?

I for one, would be curious to check back in a decade or so to see what happened to our 13 year old stud to see if the doom and gloom "he is fucked up emotionally by this" or oppostion "he'll brag about this for life" has it.

[Lord Zentei]

More amusing then this topic has become.

Your point it's not held to same standard while true in the purely logical way, is also the fact that the courts are not universally laid out. The law may state one thing, but when given into context of a case, you get the little nagging loopholes of figuring what and where...and thus was justice served?

She got jail time and is divorced. She lost a gret deal of her livilhood and a boy got to inact a fantasy he will likely never accomplsih again. Personally more is not exactly going to happen worse for one party and the other will have to live that he peaked at 13.

There seems to be a rather large gap between the 10-20 years on the one hand and the 9 months on the other - is the difference between sex between girls and boys really that fucking collossal - especially given contraceptives and morning after pills and perhaps the girl not being a virgin?

In the case of these various combinations of man/woman vs boy/girl how would you have handed out sentances?

[Rogue 9]

On the age of consent thing, does this mean if that if a 28 yo teacher has sex with a 14 year old female student of his in Canada, there would have been no statuary rape case at all beyond some sort of "abuse of authority" charge?

That said, I would think that as far as 13 year old guys having sex is concerned, My main concern would be if the kid knows about protecting from STDs ( or even if he knows in a matter of fact way, is mature enough to *care*) and that sort of thing - it's a bit of a stretch to assume the adult to be responsible enough to educate the kid...not tying it to this case exactly, but hypothetical?

That said, was there not a similar case a few years back? Whatever happened to those people?

I for one, would be curious to check back in a decade or so to see what happened to our 13 year old stud to see if the doom and gloom "he is fucked up emotionally by this" or oppostion "he'll brag about this for life" has it.

If he does brag about it for life it'll still be pretty sad; if all someone has to brag about at 23 is something he did at 13, it's pretty telling.

[AniThyng]

If he does brag about it for life it'll still be pretty sad; if all someone has to brag about at 23 is something he did at 13, it's pretty telling.

touche
Well, perhaps I phrased that badly, I meant, he will be a well adjusted guy with a heck of a story to tell when he goes to the "So, when did you lose your virginity and with whom?" thread on his webboard