Ouch.

I'm not emotional regarding this issue. Rather, I'm stating that this crime be calculated the same across the board regardless of genders involved.

Existing social paradigms do hold the genders in different respect. This is often reflected in the sentencing. People find it hard to accept a woman is capable of being the aggressor and offer her built-in excuses such as "love" or "passion". If the tables were turned and a man stated that he “loved” his victim, the public would have called for a hanging. Yet, when the accused is a woman, society assumes that some altruistic reason transcended the age difference. Her gender alone will automatically and wrongfully mitigate the severity of the crime. (By the way I wonder what the child's parents think.)

The teacher involved in this crime willfully and knowingly acted against the law to satisfy her sexual desires. Period. This cannot be tolerated by the legal system and she should be measured by the same legal tools as any other individual that commits this crime.

The only boundary to explore would be the dissolution of the archaic belief that women should be coddled and protected from themselves. Maintaining the belief that women are incapable such acts is outdated to say the very least. Grown women deserve the credit of being treated like adults.

That's where sentencing comes into play. The judge takes(should?) that into consideration, but no matter what kind of soap opera comes with it, it's still the same crime. :p

In case you'd been wondering what Mary Kay LeTorneau's been up to ...

It seems as though the no contact order remains in place, and the kid is quite focused on violating it.

The kid is 21 now. How can the court forbid them to see each other?

Courts frequently forbid adults to have contact .

PFAs require no contact, as do many probation/parole orders, as is the case here.

The thing that I have to wonder is whether the court has justice in mind or simply punitive protocols? They may genuinely be for each other and I think that they should be able to find out now that both parties are, legally at least, adult.

I think that an in pertuitum decision of this nature is out of bounds.

This story is back. Do you think this chick is nuts? she is hoping a jury thinks she is.

ya gotta click here

Despite the amount of press they generate, insanity defenses are not usually successful.

Without searching, I seem to recall that they work less than 2% of the time as a criminal defense.

With or without twinkie consumption as a factor.

With searching it seems that insanity defenses are presented in only about 0.9% of criminal cases (9 out of 1000, to save you the math), and that it is successful in less than 20% of those cases (1.8/1000).

ya gotta give them props for trying though.

She's not nuts, she's a pedophile. This girl is nuts!

Prepubescent boy = pedophila

Adolescent boy = hebephilia

Or pederasty.

Why do I feel we're seeing more of these crimes?

Are the predators becoming bolder as the shame factor reduces?
Am I just paying more attention now that I'm older?
Is it now socially or financially more acceptable to report such crimes?

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp...0&nav=3YeXT0ZE
http://www.nbc5.com/education/390746...94&dppid=65172
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/20425.htm

And here I thought hebephilia was the opposite of anti-semitism.

:) :thumbsup:

Awww
 

The happy couple has gone through some difficult times, but they still love eachother after it all...

Wedding of the Century

Just think, kids! One day you can MARRY your abuser! Lovely Valentine's Day message. I'm all verklempt. or however you spell it.

I'm also verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. Here's a topic. The civil war was neither civil, nor a war, discuss.....

no, mr noodle you missed the point - they are in love. or maybe his mother is telling him that they are inlove so she can quit raising the kids...

Where's the problem? He's twenty-two now. Let him have a taste of marriage to see if he really means it.

i'm all for him getting his shot, it is still just plain creepy though.

Especially when you consider that she might be older than his mother.

I heard on the news this morning (abc) that a lot of the things they registered for at Macy's have been bought! Don't you think this is ALL a publicity stunt? Supposedly there is a book in the works as well as a 'Movie of the Week' :yelgreedy :yelgreedy

She also strikes me as a little out there..cukoo :confused:

All together now:

"Young love! First love!"

I think this case was remarkably tawdry, what with her being a schoolteacher and him being her 12 year old student when it all began. Without question, she was committing rape, according to the law.

Now I just think it is remarkable. I mean, what can you say? The lad is of legal age and then some. If he wants to marry his rapist, that's his business.

Ya think?
Hey, here's another one.

Doesn't Mary Kay have a lot of kids from her first marriage? I wonder how those poor kids are doing. How embarrassing-to say the least!

And what is with all these women being so gorgeous? What is with that?? Pam Turner is gorgeous and so was LaFavre or whatever her name was.

Is it me, or is the tone in this thread today a little different than the tone in the NAMBLA thread?

In the NAMBLA thread, the accused men only planned to do what the women in this thread actually did.

You have posters in the NAMBLA thread calling for life in prison. You have people in this thread wishing the couple well.

Even Ms. LeTourneau is pretty attractive when she's not in prison garb.

I wasn't going to be the first to mention the appearance factor, but now that Brianna has spoken up (all the better since she's...well...a she), you would think that attractive young women would be aiming a little higher. Is there much research on female child molesters? Certainly, the greatest majority of offenders are males, or so it would seem.

Perhaps it is the male nature, rampantly present even at the tender ages of 10, 11, or 12 that causes us to appear to have fewer such cases? I mean, if someone who looked like that gym teacher had wanted to do me when I was 11, I would have fallen to my knees and thanked Jesus. No way would I have told anyone and risk being cut off.

Is this *why* we have fewer apparent cases of female child molestation?

Here's a fox story linked from the NAMBLA thread

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147179,00.html

If the kid, now 22, wants this, loves her, wants to be with her, and keeps wanting this (theorizing, here, since I can't see into the future), and wanted it them, is it terrible now? If they're married 30 years from now, was she still a rapist (not legally, because legally she is, but in your eyes), was she still doing something wrong?

Abso fucking lutely.

Why?

In my eyes, yeah, she did something very wrong. The fact that she was a teacher makes it even more offensive. I am the mother of a 15 year-old boy and although he thinks he's ready for sex, believe me, he is not. I don't care if they live "happily" ever after-she used that boy. The relationship is sick.

So even if the kid involved [who is no longer a kid] spends the rest of his life happy with her, and in love with her, and informing anyone who asks that he is happy, and actually is happy about what happened, it's still bad?

So, even at 50 he doesn't have the right to know what he wanted through his life?

I'm not saying this is a way to justify boning preteens, that they might, later in life, not think that it was bad.

But...

I'm saying she ABUSED him. Some people confuse abuse with love, like this kid. IT's WRONG to have sex with children. Do you see that? Or, in your mind, the end justifies the means?

Having sex with a 12 year old is WRONG. I don't care how long they are together.

It is illegal, and it is wrong. But that doesn't really answer the question of the validity of their present relationship.

This is a damn twisted, and damned interesting set of circumstances.

Imagine if the situation were reversed-a man coming out of prison marrys the woman he raped while she was a girl-the shit storm that would be! I read a newspaper article where a friend of the family says how it's "long overdo" and how great it will be to see them "finally get hitched"-! Tainted love indeed.

What is your reasoning for this? I'm not saying I think it's right; I just want to hear a reason (besides "it just is") why it's wrong.

Children are not mentally, physically or spiritually prepared to have sex. They are immature beings. An person who has little experience with the world, a person who's brain is still growing, forming new neural pathways related to experience, cannot give consent to something like sex. That is why we don't let children own guns, vote, drink alcohol or sign legally binding contracts. They DO NOT understand the ramifications of their actions. They are practicing who they are. To engage a child in sex interferes with their development as whole human beings. My son is a big kid-6'4" and 190 pounds. He may LOOK like a man, but he THINKS like a child. Wouldn't you agree that children THINK differently than adults? They live more in the "moment"? A child simply cannot give consent based upon their relative immaturity.

Drew and Adam used to say that it is taking advantage of and a violation of a certain trust between children and adults. And furthermore very much a trust relationship with a teacher involved. Children look to adults for appropriate behavior and depend on the supposedly-responsible adults to act in ways that do not prey on their weaknesses.

At what point does every child become an adult? 16? 18? 21? Is there a clearly defined line? I know some 17 year olds who are more mentally mature than 22 year olds I know. But, those 17 year olds cannot legally have sex with anyone over 17, at least in my state. Because they're not mentally capable. "Feel any different now that it's your 18th birthday?" "I feel mentally, spiritually, and emotionally capable of making decisions for myself!"

Legally mature and true maturity are different things. Yes, some 17 year-olds are more mature than some 22 year-olds. Some 12 year-olds are more mature than some 42 year-olds. It still doesn't change the fact that children are experiencing the world differently than adults and to have sex with them is predatory. Period.

Do you feel it's right for the state to decide (aka making laws) when I person becomes a spiritual or emotional adult?

Without concrete definitions, laws cannot be applied equally. And 'equally' is as close as we can get to 'justly' in the real world.

What about a mandatory ten year sentence for an 18-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old?

If you're asking me, I think the law should include an age difference requirement for statutory rape, as it does in many states.

He wasn't in for 10 years. I bet we hear from this guy again.

Let me ask you a question, 6. It's of a personal nature.

You're 24 now, if your profile is correct.
At what age did you first have sex?
Was it consentual?
How old was the other party?


How is this different in your mind from a teacher who sexually molests a student?
How can a 12 year old know what they are getting into? A 12 year old is generally in the FIFTH grade!!

Imagine you have a child in the 5th grade.
You're saying it's ok for the teacher to have sex with your child as long as they end up married for 30 years?

I think comparing then and now is a bad idea.

OC: If I could guarentee for a fact that my 5th grade would spend the rest of his life happy and in love and emotionally well, then sure, go at it.

Of course, there's no way to guarentee it. There is no possible way to guarentee anything.

People used to get married at 12-14 all the time. *gasp* everyone must have been a monster back then. I'm so glad we're aware of it now.

Not of their own free will. Many if not most of those were "arranged" marriages where the female of the couple was assigned a husband. Today, men ask dads for their daughter's hand in marriage as a courtesy (if at all). Back then, the dad actually made the decision. You don't really think that those marriages were actual 'boy meets girl and asks her for her hand and then daddy throws them a big wedding' did you???

Those 12-year old girl getting married things were often social relationships between families and not simply 'husband-and-wife' things.

Why its wrong is self evident: a child cannot be assumed to have the faculty to adequately deploy reason over emotion in personal or business relationships requiring either a commitment, an understanding of the risk/reward or the consequences arising from the relationship/agreement. Neither can the child/young adult be expected to assume full responsibility for the consequences of the relationship or commitment. Enough minors have been taken to the cleaners such that a law banning the practice was finally enacted.

Did you even consider the consequences if he had gotten her pregnant. I think its well within the purview of the law to forbid relationships where one of the parties is clearly not able to support a child emotionally or financially.

Repeal the law, watch the atrocites mount and then you shall have the answer to your question.

All right. One more case doesn't make an epidemic, but holy cow. Don't these people read the news?

This one gets high stupidity marks for having her two year old in the back seat while doing it in the front.

Teacher Has Sex with Pupil While Baby in Car

You're talking about things which have little or any relevancy to age. How would you write such a law? How would you enforce it?

But you can't. No one can. The child in question's parents can't, either. Out of all the marriages that end in divorce, (2 out of 3 I think the latest statistic is running), do you really think they'll make it? You're willing to gamble a 5th grader's life on it?

Exactly my point! You said, "if I could guarentee for a fact my 5th grader ..... then sure, go at it" but you can't. So is it no longer "sure go at it"?


People used to get their daughters pregnant all the time back then, too. Just because something was "back then" doesn't make it ok.

The laws are already written - every state has one - an age minimum for marriage. I was basically providing some rationale for the existing laws not proposing anything new. Sounds like I didn't make my point very well.

All I'm saying is there are plenty of people over the age of 18 who aren't able to support a child, financially or emotionally. What's the law supposed to do about them?

Nothing. Unless abuse is involved. And I don't have that big a problem with financial deprivation. Poverty doesn't kill people in America (generally speaking) - heck, some of us were poor growing up. Emotional deprivation, however, ruins lives and is difficult to repair even in adults. But, that is not an area for legislative intervention until and unless it results in abuse.

Here we go again...
 

Five students.

Teacher in West Virginia accused of sex abuse.

Yikes!

http://www.wowktv.com/images/0303050...oods_toni3.jpg

Now that IS abuse. :scream: