Lebell

Whether or not it 'worked' we cannot know. It certainly was their paradigm, but it is not ours.

My concern starts with the fact that she was the girl's teacher two years previous (when she was only 11-12), but doesn't end there. No, it rests with the age of the girl combined with the age difference. I grant that there are no easy formulas to apply, but I don't think that anyone would argue that 14 year olds make reasoned, choices. Combined with an adult who doesn't have the age to excuse her, this is a bad situation.

Consider this, if it was really true love, why couldn't they have waited until she was 17 or 18 and they could at least do what they wanted to legally?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Lebell

Smooth,

I would agree that making a 14 year old eligible for the death penalty is foolish if one is to say that they cannot choose any sexual partner they want, hence you will never catch me making that argument.

flst,

Part of the problem stems from evolution, when it was imperative to reproduce as quickly as possible (mentally prepared or not), part from modern diets (especially with growth hormones) and part from modern culture.

As a result, we have 10 year old girls having their first menstration (and women in their 30's going into menopause), who think that oral sex isn't *really* sex, but something you do for someone to show them you *like* them. (No, I am not making any of this up.)

So is the response to throw up our arms and repeal statutory rape/consent laws?

In my opinion, no.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

lebell,

while I see where you're coming from, I would appreciate it if you would offer your thoughts in light of the following:

In my first post to mephisto, I allowed that an abuse of trust or power may be going on--so I don't disagree that the power differential ought to be examined.

But if it was true love, they could have also moved to Ohio or Missouri. There, sex with 14 year olds is legal.

(In at least one state, marriage to 13 year olds is legal with parental consent--I don't know what that translates into real world practice in the bedroom or courts, however).

This fact that their behavior is legal in other parts of our own country is part of the reasoning that was underpinning my reluctance to classify this as a closed-case of exploitation due to the age factor.


EDIT:
I agree that we shouldn't remove protections of minors wholesale since exploitation does occur, but perhaps we can modify them to allow for a more fair allowance of the wishes of the minors who can demonstrate that they are not being exploited.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Lebell

Not knowing the marriage laws of those states, I can't say conclusively, but if indeed a 13 year old can marry anyone of any age with parental consent, I would agree that there is a disparity across state lines...but when has this never been the case? Whether we like it or not, the people of that state have decided thus, as have the other states decided as they have. Is this the ideal situation? Obviously not, but I see no easy remedy.

Personally, I would add to any 'reluctance' the historical precident cited above, but in defense of my position, I will reiterate that modern child psychology strongly indicates that children are not ready to make such a life changing decision at that age (such a decision being beyond the simple, "let's lose my virginity") and that parents should still be responsible for such decisions. (That being said, parental permission is still apparently required by said state, giving at least one measure of safety, albiet small and possibly unreliable.)

I believe there are emancipation laws on the books in several states and IMO, this is enough. Even in cases where there is historical precedence, the (young) woman was expected to run a household as the adult wife, age not withstanding.

And perhaps it is my own bias, but I don't think I can ever see a 14 year old as being ready for this. Sixteen would be the youngest I can see as giving this responsibility to, but I admit that I am pulling that number out of the air as an internal compromise.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

I think all your points are fair enough and well taken.

I'd like to clarify, however, that in Missouri and Ohio, those aren't marriage statutes. 14 years of age is a legal and acceptable age for unmarried persons to have sex. So had the two people in question in this scenario, regardless of their marital status, simply lived in either of those two states or moved there, their behavior would not have made news, it wouldn't even had been wrong (according to the law).

That said, I can certainly respect someone who says, "hey the law is too low for my standards. 14 or even 16 is just too young, regardless of the law, it's wrong behavior for me and mine to engage in."

Also, you might be interested to know that emancipation won't necessarily absolve someone from AOC restrictions. Just like they don't absolve someone from drinking statutes. Even marriage doesn't protect against sexual constraint legislation.

For example, in Oregon, I interviewed a person who was awaiting trial for violating a statutory rape law. He was charged with raping a minor--his wife of 3 years! They had moved from a state that allowed minors to marry, but she was still underage when they moved to Oregon and, during the report of a burglary on their home, it came to the prosecutors attention that he was married to and sleeping with a minor, according to Oregon law. Tragically, in my opinion, his conviction resulted in a lifetime registration as a sex-offender, which you may or may not know right now, is publicly available in Oregon and sometimes posted on the internet by various police precincts.

Did you hear about the recent case in Idaho where the prosecutor is charging the minor with a crime, too?

All these factors point out to me that our society is currently very conflicted about rights and protections of minors. We don't quite know what to do about sexuality in general, our media's portrayal of it in particular, and the messages our capitalist society bombards children with to stimulate consumption.

We don't really know and I think we are, as a social entity, very confused about it all. So my hope was that I wasn't coming across as: this is fine behavior, end of discussion; and at first I'm taken aback by a reply along the lines of: this is not fine behavior, end of discussion.

I think there's a discussion to be had. I think it's necessary and the time is very ripe or we may actually produce more harm for the minors in our society by not helping them make what our society believes are appropriate decisions in safe environments, without shutting their voices out of the process.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Mephisto2

Well, that's interesing.

Nonesense. Of course there is immorality in the act. Some states (lower case S) legislate for certain things that others do not. Most of Europe (for example) has abolished the death penalty. Why? Because we deem it "immoral" (for want of a better term). Conversely, in the US and China the number of prisoners being executed is rapidly increasing.

The simple fact that there is inconsistency in the laws relating to the offence does not mean the action itself is moral, but that the laws are inconsistent.

Well, I guess it is. What I meant is the the core political theory of Marxism has been discredited; the inevitabality of class war, the rebellion of the masses against the bourgeoisie.

Steve Padgitt (a renowned sociologist at Iowa State University) opines that "Marx argued that through a dialectic process, social evolution was directed by the result of class conflict. Marxism argues that human history is all about this conflict, a result of the strong-rich exploiting the poor-weak. From such a perspective, money is made through the exploitation of the worker. It is argued thus, that in order for a factory owner to make money, he must pay his workers less than they deserve."

This is no longer the case and, indeed, proved to be false in reality. Apart from the USSR and Cuba (where Marxist doctrine was further developed via Das Kapital,the Communist Manifesto and the political theories of Lenin, Trotsky, Castro and to a lesser degree Bakunin and Kropotkin) no such revolution occurred.

The "class war" is a myth. The exploitation of the proletariat as envisaged by Marx and Engels is a myth (current globalization and international macro-economic exploitation notwithstanding).

That's why I say Marx has been discredited. He was wrong in his core, fundamental hypothesis.

Now, that's not to say that a great deal of Marxist political thought is erroneous. Indeed, we see a lot of Marxist politics in the world today; mostly unbeknownst to its proponents!). But an inevitable class war? Nope...

You're sounding like Bakunin and Kropotkin (dare I say Libertarian?) here!

Surely you mean "the citizens they protect"? Or do you really believe laws are formulated in some quasi-conspiratorial manner to 'keep the people down'?

This again is ignoring the concept of "natural justice". And also the fact that Western society has certain cultural and societal norms that have developed overtime and then been regulated into law. Or do you honestly believe that at some stage someone said "Hmmm... let's make sex with kids illegal! Why not? You know if we make that law we can change societies attitude"?

That's incorrect. Of course society evolves and standards develop. That's one part of Marx I agree with; the concept of "social evolution". But that doesn't mean that laws are the primary driver for social morality.

The point here smooth is that society considers the child (or "youth") too young to make rational decisions on sexual matters. THAT'S the issue here. Not some vast Orwellian conspiracy to shape the masses opinion on moral and socio-political issues.

The law is clear (regardless in what state or State the event takes place). If the child is a minor, then it is rape. By definition, raping a child is sexual abuse. Especially if it is undertaken on a regular basis and by an authority figure. This woman is a child abuser; in law and in fact.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

All these factors point out to me that this is an issue that should not be left to the States. A Federal law is required, not from any suggestion that more centralized control be exerted (though I personally don't have any problem with that, being a democratic socialist myself anyway!), but that a Federal law would at least introduce some consistency.

Mr Mephisto

filtherton

The word rape, in this context, doesn't mean anything aside from indicating that a criminal act took place. At least acknowledge the difference between statutory rape and forced rape in terms of effects on the "victim". You can cling to the legal definition all you want but you can't make it significant. Calling something like this rape really dilutes the meaning of the word rape, and assumes that all teenagers are incapable of any kind of independent thought. If that's what you think, that's great, i just think that its more complex than that.

smooth

Mephisto,

I should have said that the inconsistencies in the laws point to the fact that there is no morality enshrined in the law itself.

Humans can certainly decide whether a behavior is immoral or not. That's the point I was trying to convey: that this one state's laws does not make the action immoral--the conduct might.

So I read some responses as: the law says it's wrong, therefor it's wrong. I think this is further complicated by the fact that people develop within their social context. Meaning, their definition of right versus wrong hinges upon and is shaped by the laws.

This places some of us in an untenable scenario of arguing against something that seems so self evident--purely because the law and morality says something should be viewed in a particular way. Without acknowledging that one can be directed by the other.

So, if we view law as a ground up process, we would be less concerned because legal reasoning would hinge upon the actual values in effect. But law doesn't operate like that in the states. On the contrary, law is handed down.

I'm not going to use your terms, they seem to not get us very far if I engaged in conspiracy language, but law is created and decided upon by people in a particular class--lawyers for the most part, politicians less often. It reflects their interests and is not often representative of the people it constrains (or protects, in some cases, if you prefer).

And you already ceded that I might have more insight into the background issues in the creation of our laws Are you taking that back now? I never said anything about Orwellian conspiracies, but there are structural factors we could discuss and analyze--it isn't as clear cut as you are suggesting.


EDIT: and you should be aware that, although you snipped what you considered to be anomalies in my post, the overarching trends go far beyond a few isolated cases.

What I'm talking about is a current raging debate about how to treat minors under the law. In some instances they are increasingly treated like adults, in others as irrational actors without the ability to deduce right from wrong. Those factors point to our confusion, not the two examples I listed.

2nd EDIT: also, I will take you up on a discussion of Marxian critique of the law. It will have to wait for at least a week, but I will kick it off by quoting your portions in a new thread over in politics. I'll PM you when I am ready. If I forget, please remind me, because it will be an interesting discussion for at least both of us.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Mephisto2

I don't disagree that there is a difference between statutory rape and "forced rape". Indeed, I've already gone on record as stating that there is (see above).

This is exactly why there are different sentencing guidelines. One is, of course, worse than the other.


Mr Mephisto

smooth

mephisto,

I've uploaded a marxian critique of the criminal justice system here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...91#post1572091

we can talk later about it.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Mephisto2

Looking forward to it smooth.


Mr Mephisto

hulk

Different sentencing guidelines? Only in theory, it seems. The lady in this thread is looking at a possible life sentence. What could be worse than that?

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

Glava

Laws are nothing more than a guide to keep out of prison. No one should elevate them to a higher position than that - as a moral guide.

If the 14-year old girl consented to the sexual acts, I see nothing wrong with the actions of either party in the case. It is unfortunate, however, that the teacher is facing jail time over this.

Mephisto2

and

and

REF: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=77447


So let's get this straight.

She is legally guilty of first degree sexual assault.
She had sexual relations with a minor.
This minor was emotionally troubled.
The minor's parents are indignant and claim she was "brainwashed".
Legally, a serious crime has occured.

But many of you think it's fine because the girl claims it was consensual?

You don't think this teacher has anything to answer for?

What if you had a daughter. She's a little bit mixed up. She's going through regular adolescent issues. She's emotionally a bit vulnerable. A male teacher at a local school offers to help out. He takes her away camping. He has sex with her. But your daughter says "No, it's ok dad/mom... I wanted to. In fact, we're got married!"

You'd be OK with that?!


All I can say is "Fucking hell... I'm glad you're not my parents".



Mr Mephisto

smooth

Mephisto,

there's a long stretch between "ok" and life in prison.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Mephisto2

I doubt she'll get live in prison. Maybe five years like the other teacher who raped/abused (use whatever term you are happy with) the 15 year old recently.


Mr Mephisto

themisfit

I'm amazed at the attempt to justify a 36 yr old having sex with a 14 yr old child. She won't be fucked up for life so it's ok? I volunteer in Sexual Assault center and I can tell you. This CHILD is very likely to have serious problems from this. Will she be fucked up for life? Not if she has a good support system. But to believe it won't affect her adversely is just naive.

Coerced? A grown authority figure manipulating a CHILD isn't some form of coercion? I agree with Mr. Mephisto. ANY adult having sex with a 14 yr of either sex is wrong.

__________________
At length my cry was known:
Therein lay my release.
I met the wolf alone
And was devoured in peace.

ESVM

Strange Famous

I agree. There is an issue of abuse of position, there is an issue of the morality of the partnership, and the contrasting desire argumenst of freedom and protection.

What the woman looks like is not an issue.

And not like anything like this happened to me, but if I was that age, in a situation like that, and I had been a willing (and underage) participant.. no way would I be talking about it, and no way would I testify... I'd go up in court and say anything they heard I said, I made it up, it was a fantasy, it was all lies, and create a confusion so the truth couldnt come out.

But the teachers in these situations do have a responsibity not to take advantage of kids who are impressionable . People grow up at different rates, and the line between when someone should be free and someone should be protected could vary by situation and person, but you have to draw an absolute line somewhere.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Lebell

Mr Mephisto,

I suspect that most of those defending this are younger members who are more capable of identifying with the 14 year old deciding with whom to have sex than her parents trying to protect her from sexual predators.

The original poster alluded to this himself.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

lurkette

Unfortunatley or otherwise, nature has a pretty biological perspective on things and not a cultural perspective. Evolutionarily speaking, organisms evolve for reproduction and survival. You only have to live long enough to reproduce, and when humans used to live closer to nature (where disease, predators, etc. took their toll) a teenager was middle-aged. As long as you survived to puberty, had a child, and raised that child to self-sufficiency, you were biologically/evolutionarily successful. With longer life spans and the development of culture, industrialism, and the concept of childhood, all of a sudden judgment and higher mental functions became more important than biology in terms of what makes a "successful" human being. Most anybody can reproduce, but those who are able to position themselves well in society are more likely to have the resources to reproduce successfully by our new standards.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

lurkette

Actually, there are no states in which 14-year-olds are eligible for the death penalty. There are states in which juveniles can be tried as adults (which alone is disturbing, IMHO, given the current science), but below the age of 16 they are not eligible for the death penalty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...id=203#agereqs

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

lurkette

FYI - interesting state-by-state listing of age of sexual consent:

http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm

And country-by-country:

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

smooth

yeah, thanks for catching that lurkette.

I don't know why I said death penalty. I meant to say eligible for committing murder because I was discussing the inconsistency of how the law regards one's mental capacity to do one act (incapable of sex) in contrast to another (capable of murder)--not the punishement.

In the case of murder, or any other time a child is tried as an adult, the courts, and society at large, are very willing believe the individual can make a mature enough choice to warrant adult treatment. Yet, in instances of things like sex, cigarettes, school, alcohol, and curfew those same people and the courts will argue the juvenile is incapable of making mature decisions.

Once we factor in gender bias and homosexual taboos, it becomes apparent to me, and hopefully others, that these laws are less about morality and/or protectionand more about controlling the behavior of particular groups of people--those least able to defend themselves in front of the court system, a patriarchal society, and capitalist economy, usually.

I find it particularly interesting that people become so agitated over this particular case when so many sectors of our economy and culture revolves around sexualizing minors.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

filtherton

Let me just say this. A minor who decides to have sex with an adult is by our culture's definition, emotionally unstable regardless of whether the minor is significantly emotionally unstable or not. In fact, many posters didn't even need to read the article that closely to be able to proclaim that this girl is indeed fucked up. If i were her parent, i would like to think i had the personal knowledge of my daughter required to stop her from doing something i don't think she should do. If she did end up in a situation like this, i certainly wouldn't tell the national press that she has emotional issues. Fuck, do you know how embarassing it can be to even be seen in public with your parents as a teenager? Imagine your parents telling the entire world that you're a basket case. I suspect they labelled her emotionally unstable to cover their own asses, because after all, they were the parents that were somehow completely oblivious to the fact that their fourteen year old daughter married a teacher. If your the type of person who thinks helping your "brainwashed, emotionally disturbed" daughter is by telling the whole world just how brainwashed and emotionally disturbed your she is, than i wouldn't want you as my parent either.

Here's something to think about. All adolescents are a "little bit mixed up". Most adults are a "little bit mixed up". I don't care if its a male teacher or not. If it wasn't forced, if it wasn't molestation, than it isn't that big of a fucking deal. In fact, i wonder how traumatized this girl will be from everyone telling her how traumatized she should be? They way i see it, all of the people jumping over eachother to proclaim how fucked up this situation are more concerned with protecting the sexual integrity of the idealized, prototypical teenager than with what is actually going on with this girl. That's fine. Just realize that you are using a specific case to argue a general philosophy despite the fact that this specific case might not fit in or even support your general philosphy. Ideally you can argue that all teenagers will be emotionally harmed if allowed to have sex with adults. Ideally you can argue that all adults who have sex with teenagers are predators. What you can't do, is assume that circumstances surrounding occurences in the real world will match up perfectly with circumstances surrounding occurences in your preconcieved notions.

It just seems like there is this huge rush to judge everyone involved with this case under the false pretense of actually giving a fuck about the people involved. If she honestly loved her ex-teacher it is only because she was brainwashed, right? All teenagers are prey, right? That's what i seem to be reading. I'll concede that most teenagers aren't very bright when it comes to relationships, what i can't concede is that relationships such as the one in this case are always horrible, always disgusting, or always a destructive force.

Nimetic

"other countries are using a much more appropriate method to determine minors' abilities to consent"

That seems reasonable, but isn't it more appropriate in this case to determine the level of ethical/moral error of the 36yr old teacher?

I mean... I am now 36yrs old myself. In AU I could go out with an 18 year old however I choose, and have previously chosen, to avoid relationships which are not in the interest of the partner.

Even where I had a strong crush/love/lust developing...