teacher boffing student agian

[Catwoman]

Actually, I do. If you can prove that someone is doing the SAME job, in terms of physical or mental exertion, of course they should be paid the same. But I don't think this is true, and it's not always the men who exert more.

Come on radar, you believe in just rewards and just punishment don't you? Why should some lazy ass woman painting her nails at an office desk be paid the same as the hard working dad of three? (By the way, gender is transferable in that sentence).

In terms of THE LAW, surely reparation should be measured in terms of suffering caused (be it physical or material). If there was no suffering, why is there punishment? And before you spout off about the age of consent, yes I am aware what the law currently is, I'm just questioning it. Or is that something you're not familiar with?

I don't think men and women do commit crimes in the same way, with the same kind of intent, or with the same physical or emotional intensity. [/end huge generalisation]

The only difficulty is proof. But that's nothing new.

[Beestie]

Originally posted by Radar
We're talking about equality UNDER THE LAW and whether the man or the woman has sex with a 14 year old minor, it is equally a crime and should carry equal punishment.

I would add that to suggest otherwise would amount to a flagrant Constitutional infraction since it would provide for unequal protection under the law (just like hate crimes do).

[Radar]

Come on radar, you believe in just rewards and just punishment don't you? Why should some lazy ass woman painting her nails at an office desk be paid the same as the hard working dad of three? (By the way, gender is transferable in that sentence).

I'm all for paying people according to meritocricy. Those with the most marketable skills and who perform the best are rewarded while those who are inept, and lazy are punished regardless of gender. If Sally and Bob are working in a loading dock and Sally can load twice as much as Bob in the same amount of time, she should earn twice as much Bob, and the same is true the otherway.

In terms of THE LAW, surely reparation should be measured in terms of suffering caused (be it physical or material). If there was no suffering, why is there punishment?

I know you aren't claiming that statuatory rape is a victimless crime. You couldn't be. Even if the 14 year old offers consent, there is still a victim because the 14 year old hasn't reached an age of maturity sufficient enough to offer that consent. But assuming there were no victim as in prostitution, gambling, suicide, drug use, etc. there should be no law against it.

If you think a 14 year old girl who chose to have sex with a 30 year old man is a victim, you must also agree that a 14 year old boy who chooses to have sex with a 30 year old woman is equally a victim.

I don't think men and women do commit crimes in the same way, with the same kind of intent, or with the same physical or emotional intensity.

Motives and intents are irrelevant. I don't care WHY someone stole my car. They could be stealing it to take dying orphans to a hospital to save their lives and it wouldn't matter to me. My car was still stolen. And the "emotional intensity" of the sexual encounter is also irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not the crime was committed. If it was committed, the punishment should be the same regardless of the gender of the criminal or the victim.

[Cyber Wolf]

I would say that motives and intentions carry weight but not in the determination of the crime itself. If one man shoots and kills another, he should be charged with the crime of killing another person. After its been proven that he did kill the other man, his reasons and motives can come into play and determine how severe the punishment should be. If he shot the man because he wanted the guy's Eddie Bauer jacket, he should have the book thrown at him with a catapult at close range. If he shot the man because the man was in the process of killing (or trying to kill) him, then less severe disciplinary action should be taken. The bottom line is he killed the guy and nothing can change that.

In this case, the teacher did the horizontal BOP with a person well under the legal age of consent. That's not going to change. Whether or not he said "OH GODS YES!" doesn't matter on the whole. She's already stated that she did it because it was against the law. "See this here law? Watch me break it!"

[Catwoman]

Originally posted by Radar
Motives and intents are irrelevant. I don't care WHY someone stole my car. (snip) All that matters is whether or not the crime was committed. If it was committed, the punishment should be the same regardless of the gender of the criminal or the victim.

The law fluctuates incredibly at the mere mention of mental instability (insanity). What is the difference between making allowances for someone's abnormal psychological condition and being flexible to the more subtle psycho-chemical fluctuations with regard to gender differences. Please don't assume the crux of my argument is that all women should be let off crimes because they're emotional and all men should be paid more becuase they're stronger. But think about that sentence. Wouldn't it be stupid to ignore the differences? Your quote above just about sums up everything I detest about the legal system - 'it doesn't matter why'. Of course it damn well matters why. If you know why someones has happened, its cause, you can prevent it happening again. There is resolution, progress.

In this country statutory rape applies when sex occurs against the victim's will or if they are incapable of forming a will (ie a child). I do not think a 14 year old boy is a child, and I think he would have been willing (and my argument is based on this assumption). In that case, the woman is guilty of nothing.

A 14 year old girl, as someone mentioned earlier, could get pregnant. She is also more likely to get emotionally involved. She is also physically powerless to stop him. The woman did not force herself on the boy, she lay back in the car with her legs open, naked from the waist down. He was on top of her. And the presence of his cousin in the car - if he really wasn't willing it wouldn't have been that difficult for two 14 year old boys to overthrow a 23 year old woman. There is no way that can be called rape.

edit spelling

[Radar]

Whether or not a girl can become pregnant is irrelevant and whether or not she can overpower the person she is willingly having sex with is irrelevant. We're not talking about forced rape, we're talking about statuatory (legal) rape. And a 14 year old boy is every bit as much a child as a 14 year old girl. And a 14 year old girl is not any more interested in "love" than a 14 year old boy, but if she were, it would still be irrelevant.

The young woman or young man are equally victims, regardless of the size or strength of the person having sex with them, the location they had sex at, the gender of the attacker, whether or not they wanted an emotional attachment, whether or not someone else was in the room, what religion they happened to be, what they ate for lunch, when was the last time they went to the bathroom, etc.

None of that matters. All that matters is whether or not the adult had sex with a 14 year old. If they did, they committed a crime. Nothing else matters, and no situation you can mention will change that.

If you don't think a 14 year old is a child, you'll have to argue with the court about it. I think 17 year olds are children and until they turn 18 they have no say what-so-ever in their own lives and may not consent to sex. Until they turn 18 they are basically the property of their parents, and their parents have sole decision making authority over thier lives.

When I was 14 or 15 I'd have fucked a snake if you held it, but does that mean if the horny lady next door let me bang her 9 ways from Sunday, it wouldn't be rape? No, it doesn't. I was so filled with hormones I couldn't make a rational decision and perhaps she would have gotten pregnant and I'd be stuck at an early age having to raise a child? Pregnancy can happen both ways and in neither case is the child responsible enough to make such decisions.

Having sex with 14 year olds is wrong. If the teacher was that horny, there's plenty of 18 year old guys who would have helped her out.

If you were honest, you'd admit that a 30 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl, is not even one bit morally, ethically, or legally different than a 30 year old woman having sex with a 14 year old boy.

[Catwoman]

Originally Posted by Radar

Pregnancy can happen both ways and in neither case is the child responsible enough to make such decisions.

With that I agree. I am assuming she used protection. If she didn't, and was willing to risk pregnancy and his premature fatherhood, she deserves no sympathy.

Originally Posted by 99 44/100% pure

I guess you don't have a 14 year old boy. I have one, and I can assure you, while he may fantasize about having sex with an adult woman, but he is not emotionally ready, and I expect the incident would be a net negative for him in the long run. If this deranged woman had touched so much as a hair on my son's head, not only would we be pushing to prosecute to the fullest extent allowable by law, but we would also probably seek some more personal forms of 'justice.' (snip) In addition, while not explicitly spelled out in statute, the community has less tolerance for those who hold positions of authority in childrens' lives, and abuse that authority or proximity. (snip) Just remind me not to live in YOUR community, if your beliefs and behavior are reflected in your local laws.

Abuse of authority is a separate issue. He may have thought he was obliged to bone her because she was a teacher. Arguably that is wrong, as it constitutes manipulation, misrepresentation, deception, etc. It may also have given him a misguided sense of authority, leading him to bone future bosses, superiors, etc. Emotionally he may now have formed the opinion that all women are domineering, conniving and out for what they can get. What better introduction to the real world? Most people never face up to this reality, believing their whole lives in a fairytale existence of white weddings and perfect love. I may not have a 14 year old son but I know enough about life to know it is nothing like the storybooks you get in school or the ubiquitous pink-filtered romantic comedies. 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. Sorry if that doesn't fit the view of the world you wish you could give your children, but hey, that's life. The sooner they learn, the better. Then maybe they can do something about it.

Originally Posted by 99 44/100% pure

Originally posted by Catwoman:
How then can you apply a 'one size fits all' mentality to law?
That's the whole point of an effective justice system. EVERYONE is subject to the laws, and should be charged if they break them. If the accused's peers determine that there is enough evidence to support the charge(s), the defendant is guilty. All the subjective/motivation/extenuating/mitigating/aggravating/whining excuses stuff comes into play during the SENTENCING phase. That's when the bimbo can explain that the 14 year old was unusually mature and able to give consent, etc, etc. Living within the law IS and SHOULD BE a "one size fits all" game; that's where the "equal protection under law" part of the constitution comes into play.

So everyone should be subject to the same rules, regardless of motivation, mental capacity, environment? Don't do the crime if you don't want the time? The law is a secular set of commandments and if you break one you receive your 'just' punishment? I assume you agree with all this.

If an action could be viewed in isolation from circumstance, I would concur.

But realistically, it can't. To answer lookout's question, if we were both driving at 25 over the speed limit, but you had just robbed a bank and I was rushing my contracting sister to hospital, should we both receive the same punishment? Should I be punished at all? On the surface, our actions look the same. Our motivations, however, are vastly different. Isn't this what should be 'punished'? Isn't this what the law should exist for? You might argue that taken to its natural conclusion this constitutes 'thought police' and is largely immeasurable. Maybe. But surely this is preferable to a backward, limited and often completely WRONG legal system that offers nothing in the way of prevention (other than deterrent, which of course is ineffective else why all the crime?). Painting every person and every crime with the same colour is equally if not more dangerous than exonerating individuals because of irrelevant differences (the what they had for breakfast bit, radar). No one seems willing to take the time to understand the root of crime (and I don't mean the part-time pot-smoking criminology students) in order to eliminate it once and for all. So, sorry if that's idealistic. Sorry if it means you might have to think.

said with no hostility, just want to make a point

[Joe Faux]

Catwoman's original argument that raised my ire was based upon whether the “victim” enjoyed it or not. We 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? Based upon this argument, the defense would only need to prove the level of enjoyment provided to the victim.

“I'm sorry I raped and beat her into a coma your honor. It was an S&M deal that went bad. For the record, she begged me to do it.”

All the jokes aside about boys being lead about by their dicks, does this provide an open season license on boys? Who should pay for the children that will get fostered from these unions? Should we take the crime more seriously if she didn't model bikinis? Who would be responsible if a disease was transmitted? Who should pay for future therapy? If the child is financially incapable, should the child's parents foot the bill? As a parent it would be cheaper to hire a prostitute periodically than worry about 18 years of possible payments for each infraction.

Much discussion was directed at man-on-girl or woman-on-boy situations. So OK... what if the child was uncertain as to their sexual orientation at the time of the incident? Can they come back with charges at a later date if they determine their unknown orientation identity was used against them?

Parents would be negligent if they allowed their children to enter into activities that might prove harmful. While sex in itself is not physically harmful, many other problems could occur. Pregnancy at first does not appear to be a significant risk for boys. However, it does exact a toll on their future both emotionally and financially. Without fully knowing the consequences, he could risk his opportunity to enter college, find a good job, buy a home, or even meet a future spouse. Children live in the moment and it's our job as their parents to look at the broader scope.

Girls do have the additional risk of pregnancy. What if the teacher took it upon himself to get a documented vasectomy? Would that be OK for him to prey on girls in the classroom? What if it was for love?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9001405.htm?1c

It's important to note that the accused willingly admitted she committed the action in defiance of the law. It should not matter the crime, this behavior cannot be tolerated. For the most part, laws were designed to offer protection to the people. We must respect the laws in place or work to change the laws that fail.

Finally, Catwoman...

Originally 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.[/size]

... 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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Thanks to her he has been given a true picture of sexuality that is not all about love, respect or reciprocity,...

Any chance we could talk you into staying away from guys for awhile? Sexuality while biologically driven is what you make of it. You can choose relationships based on whatever values you want, but a 14 year old boy is not prepared for that choice.

[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

[Catwoman]

But the problem is that crime is not regardless of motive or circumstance. It is dictated by the very two things you refute. A crime does not stand alone nor can you put it in a box and extricate all variables. Human crime is just that - human. Irrational, chaotic and subject to change without notice. How then can you apply a 'one size fits all' mentality to law?

[lookout123]

if we look at the variables as you want - both of us are driving 25 over the speed limit. do the reasons why really matter? should one of us get a lighter penalty? or should we both be treated as adults who knowingly chose to break the law

[wolf]

High fives radar.

Brian, I'll be sharing that room with you ...

Age of sexual consent in Florida is 18.

It is lowered to 16 if the other adult is less than 24 years of age. If the parties are married, the age of sexual consent is 16 regardless of the age of the elder partner.

Since the kid was 14, she lost all around.

Statutory rape.

Oh ... and one other thing.

Why is it when a catholic priest does this it's child molestation, but when this teacher does the same, it's treated as rape?

(most of the cases of "child molestation" of which priests are accused are with adolescent boys, not children.)

[99 44/100% pure]

Originally posted by Catwoman

I do not think a 14 year old boy is a child, and I think he would have been willing (and my argument is based on this assumption). In that case, the woman is guilty of nothing.

I guess you don't have a 14 year old boy. I have one, and I can assure you, while he may fantasize about having sex with an adult woman, but he is not emotionally ready, and I expect the incident would be a net negative for him in the long run. If this deranged woman had touched so much as a hair on my son's head, not only would we be pushing to prosecute to the fullest extent allowable by law, but we would also probably seek some more personal forms of 'justice.'

In the US, different states have different legislation regarding statutory rape, but in addition to defining age of consent for both genders, most states stipulate a minimum age difference between the parties, eg; if the age of consent is 17, but the difference in ages is less than two years, an 18 year old might face second or third degree charges for consorting with a 16 year old. In addition, while not explicitly spelled out in statute, the community has less tolerance for those who hold positions of authority in childrens' lives, and abuse that authority or proximity.

These statutes are set at the state level so that different states can express their community standards, which is fine by me. Just remind me not to live in YOUR community, if your beliefs and behavior are reflected in your local laws.