teacher boffing student agian

[99 44/100% pure]

Originally Posted by Griff

Any chance we could talk you into staying away from guys for awhile?

I'm glad someone else brought it up first, but I do think it germane that Catwoman has a rather, er, unique set of values when it comes to acceptable and appropriate sexual behavior. I'd like to think that most of my peers and members of my community do not share her view on the dog-eat-dog world of human sexuality or her flexible views on morality and justice.

Catwoman, your very own response to lookout's hypothetical '25-MPH-over-the-speed-limit' case shows that you haven't really read or thought about Radar's point about equal protection. What he and I are saying is YES, in ANY instance, the speeder should be stopped. It is not at the time of the violation of the law that all the moral relativism should come into play, but after the accused is actually found guilty. Should a traffic cop have to predict if a speeder is on an altruistic mission? Based on what? That you're driving a minivan with kiddie seats in the back? While the bank robber is in some beat up piece of shit, with ink-stained dollar bills flying out the window?

Sorry, both of you should be stopped. You are both operating outside the acceptable practice of your community, as dictated by statute, and nothing less than our constitution requires that the cop stop you both*. You've got some good explanation that mitigates your guilt? Tell it to the judge. I hope she's locked up, stripped of her teaching credentials and required to do copious and meaningful community service, in addition to paying appropriate restitution to the kid, just as I would wish for a male teacher who had done this with a female student.

*or, as is too often the case, stop neither of you.

[Catwoman]

Joe FauxWe shouldn't be determining the severity of the crime based upon the pleasure provided to the victim. What if she supplied heroin or taught him how to shoplift?

Why not? You are eliminating the notion of choice. At 13, I was presented with the opportunity to use heroin (and other hard drugs). I chose not to. Now, should the dealer who offered me heroin have been punished? What if I had taken it, ended up a crack recluse on social security, pregnant by some pimp and a drain on society? That simple choice could have changed my life. But at 13, I still made it. Rational, capable, objective. Your argument suggests that he should be punished merely for offering it to me, because I was incapable of that choice.

If you argue that the dealer should be punished regardless of my action, you automatically deny the existence of choice, and must surely then be willing to write off every crime as a product of circumstance, beyond the individual's control. If you believe he should only have been punished if I had taken it, you agree that a crime is proportional to the victims experience or 'pleasure' as you term it, ie. he should get a lighter sentence if I didnt take it, because it had no long term effects, and a heavier sentence if I end up as the recluse. Either way, that is a massive contradiction.

I also had a couple of friends who shoplifted. I tried it a couple of times, discovered it didn't make me feel good, and stopped. Should my friends who influenced me to shoplift be held responsible? I don't think so. If I can exercise choice as a peer-pressured, hormonal 13 year old then anyone can. There's nothing special about me. We are all responsible for our own actions.

This is a debate about justice, a concept largely founded on retaliation, not resolution. All I am asking you to do is question this paradigm. I'm not saying I agree either way. Too often in a discussion like this it is assumed that an argument is a personal opinion. I can assure you my argument here is devoid of personal feeling, I am merely suggesting an alternative. 99 I think your judgement may be slightly clouded by the fact you have a 14 year old boy and quite understandably any images are going to be related back to how you would feel if it was your little boy.

99 44/100% pureI'm glad someone else brought it up first, but I do think it germane that Catwoman has a rather, er, unique set of values when it comes to acceptable and appropriate sexual behavior. I'd like to think that most of my peers and members of my community do not share her view on the dog-eat-dog world of human sexuality or her flexible views on morality and justice.

I am only sorry that you consider my argument little more than an emotional reaction. It has nothing to do with my current situation (which, btw, is more or less resolved, and genuine thanks to you especially 99 for helping me through that one ).

It's not that I want to think of the world in these terms. Come on 99, you're a parent. You're older than me. One could argue by that merit you know a hell of a lot more about the way the world works than I do. Surely you recognise society and sexuality in particular is not always moral and righteous, and that justice is not always fair? Have you never been subject to a disfunctional relationship or been involved in a grossly 'unfair' situation? Why give a child the impression that this doesn't happen? Is it not better to equip them for failure by making them strong rather than bubble-wrap their childhood so they bruise at the slightest adult knock? The most well-formed, competent people I know have experienced some kind of turbulence in childhood or young adulthood, and I am of the opinion that this helps them develop, and doesn't automatically 'scar' them - indeed, it is the reaction to adversity that maketh the man, so to speak.

Joe FauxOriginally Posted by Catwoman
Thanks to her he has been given a true picture of sexuality that is not all about love, respect or reciprocity, but is founded on power struggles, inequality and perversion.
... wouldn't this be a useful lesson for girls too? Why should we throw the book any harder at adult men that commit this crime?
The truth is that children are not legally competent to make these decisions. Until these laws are changed, and I don't believe they should be, she should be measured under the same laws with the same penalties, as anyone who may have committed the same crime, regardless of the genders involved.

Yes it would be a useful lesson for girls, and one that many do learn. We should throw the proverbial book harder at a man for the following reasons:

1. A man can physically overpower a women;
2. A man can force sex (the woman doesn't need to get a hard-on first);
3. A man can get a woman pregnant then bugger off.

All of the above are not transferable to women, which is why a man should receive a more severe punishment.

99, with regard to the speeding analogy, I agree that the act of speeding should be taken as a symbol of a crime (given our current accepted judicial code) and motive should be looked at afterwards. But punishment, surely, should not be reparation for benevolent motive? Isn't this incredibly primal? 'You stole my car to save a man's life - you should be tried for theft?' For god's sake, where is your humility, morality?

99 44/100% pureI hope she's locked up, stripped of her teaching credentials and required to do copious and meaningful community service, in addition to paying appropriate restitution to the kid, just as I would wish for a male teacher who had done this with a female student.

Now this I agree with. The abuse of authority, as I mentioned earlier, is separate. She should be reprimanded for that. The act of having sex with a willing partner, however, is not a crime. The fact that she did it because it was illegal says more about her sexual preferences than anything malevolent, and the fact still stands that if the lad wasn't willing, he certainly wouldn't have been 'up' for it, if you know what I mean. I think the largest disparity in this debate is at what age a child is capable of exerting rational choice. I would argue that 13/14 is probably about the cut off mark, and I can assure you having spoken to many male friends about this that there are lots of things 14 year old boys don't tell their mothers. I wouldn't assume he is emotionally or sexually undeveloped just because you see no evidence.

edited for quote marks

[Cyber Wolf]

"1. A man can physically overpower a women;
2. A man can force sex (the woman doesn't need to get a hard-on first);
3. A man can get a woman pregnant then bugger off.

All of the above are not transferable to women, which is why a man should receive a more severe punishment."

Catwoman,
Doesn't this go back to the whole thing you're talking about in terms of choice? Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but from the tone of the rest of the post, it seems that man should be more severely punished because of what he's capable of and not necessarily because of what he chose to do, like the person who offered you herion.

Besides, not all physical rape is man on woman. There are male rape victims as well. In those cases, because the above list isn't completely transferable to women, should the women get off lighter because they forced/coerced a man to have sex with them?

[Catwoman]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Catwoman,
Doesn't this go back to the whole thing you're talking about in terms of choice? Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but from the tone of the rest of the post, it seems that man should be more severely punished because of what he's capable of and not necessarily because of what he chose to do, like the person who offered you herion.

Besides, not all physical rape is man on woman. There are male rape victims as well. In those cases, because the above list isn't completely transferable to women, should the women get off lighter because they forced/coerced a man to have sex with them?

Oh this is getting tiring. My fundamental arguments are:

1. There are intrinsic differences between men and women that the law should reflect;

2. Punishment should be determined by motive, not a 'one-size-fits-all' philosophy.

If a women forces a man to have sex with her against his will she should receive the same punishment as a man who does the same. All I'm saying is it would be a lot harder for a woman to force a man in this way, for the reasons mentioned in my last post. Coercion is different, and should be treated differently by the law.

I apologise if I am not being coherent. Does this make it clearer?