And then there's the lesbian version of teacher having sex with 14 year old student
 

After all the comment on the 14-y-o Florida boy and how he could possibly need counseling, etc., and how could men want possibly say that they wish they'd had such a great opportunity to have sex with their female teacher, this story pops up.

This is why women never say they would have liked the opportunity to have had sex with their older female teacher. That girl is definitely gonna need counseling.... and glasses!

Warning. Scary picture included in story.


http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/04...etro-23804.htm

Nice. Turn the story about sexual abuse and statutory rape into a complaint that the perp isn't hot enough. Yessir, that's class.

Imagine the outcry that would be occurring if the teacher had been male. You'd be hearing people screaming to lynch him.

Still, any adult taking advantage of young people is just begging to get the ass whuppin of their lives. sad state of the world for some people.

That's just sick, then again alot of the allegations are based on what people thought were the teachers intentions etc. But the very idea of any person abusing that sort of trust is just sickening.

What goes through people's heads, honestly... And now that poor girl is going to be fucked up for life...

Just have to say thanks, that was my thoughts, but I didn't know how to write them...so I just didn't reply!

As for the story, that is my home State...and it's really really sad :( I hope they have some kind of support for that girl, and the 'perps' kid and girlfriend!

Not to mention the woman's adopted son.

Now I'm not saying all lesbians are raving lunatics wanting to seduce 14 year old girls but some problems arise when it comes to adoptions with the same sex parents. Bullying being the main one. Homophobia is out there and potentially very dangerous. That child is likely to get a very hard time.

After reading this article I feel so annoyed that slamming my head against a wall would be less annoying and probably less stressful.

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but every god damn time I hear of someone being "pagan" and doing "witchcraft" or "wicca", whatever you want to call that confused bullshit, extreme ignorance always seems to permeate. I don't want to say who, but some people I know personally, who also happen to be directly related to me, consider themself "pagan" and *think* that they can do "wicca" or whatever, and said person(s) are ignorant beyond human comprehension. If I could, I'd line up everyone who considers themself "wiccan" and slap them all, then come back down the line and slap them all again. I know that's a broad, unfair overgeneralization, but that's just how I feel.

Then I'd come back down the line and slap them again, just for safe measure.

God, where does someone start with this?

Firstly, I agree with Ratbastrd in regards to the woman involved. If she was a model, or say even worse in the other direction and "handicapped," should our reaction be different. Bad choice to characterize her as ugly, further deomization is unneeded, that's for sure.

As for the witchcraft angle, it always bothers me when this kind of thing hits the mainstream media because they are quoting the "pagans" involved in the rituals, even though they are likely not knowledgeable about that it is they are talking about. I can make up my own religion where I dismember cats, drink the blood of virgins and fuck squirrel holes in dead Elm trees, and then tell the media I was simply practicing "witchcraft," and that is what would appear in the papers and on television. The media in North America (and expecially in the U.S.) has real issues with misrepresentation and the leg work that reporters sued to do ahs been replaced by cursory Internet searches and re-wording of press releases. Just plain sad.

As for the homosexual aspects, both of the act and of the teachers home life, I would hope that none of that would be cause to cast a negative light on all gay couples looking to adopt. That's like saying that since I know a heterosexual couple who are alcoholics and are bad parents that all heterosexuals are likewise aflicted. Sheesh, so much for tolerance.

Peace,

Pierre

I didn't even think of it that way. I assumed she had poked out her eyes during sex or something. I think I need a vacation.

I don't understand where the idea that these kids are going to be "fucked up for life" comes from. Or the idea that this is a horrible thing because these kids are going to be "fucked up for life". Everyday people suffer dramatic emotional trauma from experiences a lot more severe than fucking a teacher. Besides, it seems a little far fetched to me that having consensual, albeit taboo, sexual relations will fuck someone up for life. I would think that the most difficult aspect of this, from either of the participant's perspectives, is the fact that people who know nothing about you or your situation are playing monday morning quarterback with your life. The fact that any number of people who lack any sort of credentials, other than the ability to read or watch the evening news, can profess their pity and proclaim that you are any number of things ranging from an ignorant pagan to "fucked up for life". Save your pity folks, being judged by ignorant strangers is only going to make someone more "fucked up for life". If you really care about the plight of these people, you won't participate in the spectacle of dragging their sex lives through the public square.

I don't think a big deal should be made out of things like this, regardless of the genders of those involved. I don't think teachers who sleep with students should be allowed to teach. Beyond that, i think stories like this only make the rounds because they help the average citizen feel better about their own lives. It gives joe schmo something to feel morally superior about.

A-fucking-men.

Beyond even that.. the reason stories like this get so much attention is because there are alot of parents with young children who watch the news. Stories like this tend to peak their interest. Good for ratings. Especially with a couple of these stories surfacing at the same time, the hysteria on the evening news is going to be extra hilarious. Even more so because of the whole "pagan witchcraft" angle.

"This small community was devastated with a new crisis emerging! Pagan lesbian schoolteachers having sex with students! How at risk is your child?!? We'll tell you.. after sports with chuck and these commercials!"

Erm... it's rape.

That's why people say the victim will be "fucked up".

Not only is it rape, but the perpetrator is someone who is meant to be trustworthy and is in a position of power. They should "know better" even more than your normal sicko rapist.

Mr Mephisto

There is a big difference between forced, kicking and screaming rape, and statutory rape. A big difference. Despite the fact that it doesn't matter to the law if the minor consented, i guarantee that it does matter to the minor. Anyways, none of us are in a position to know whether it was consensual or not, so making assumptions either way is a little premature. Maybe i spoke too soon. Even if it were straight up forced sexual assault, it is still a little presumptuous to claim that the victim will be "fucked up forever".

In fact, i would like to ask you if you personally know anyone involved. Do you know this girl, or her teacher? Do you know the extent of either party's emotional intelligence? Do you know anything about this situation besides what it written in this article? No? I don't either. It is a little too early to pull the "oh that poor girl is going to be fucked up for life" card. If she's like most people i know, she's probably embarrased as fuck that she broke into international fame under these circumstances, and she no doubt doesn't need or want any of our pity.

There are public sex scandals involving children where the child is indeed emotionally wounded and those wounds go unhealed. Sometimes the child is wounded to the extent that they turn around and commit the same crime that they themselves fell victim to. The ironic thing is that the people bending over backwards to express their dismay at how emotionally fucked the victim is going to be are often the very same people who want to lynch the victim when he/she becomes a grown up sex offender. How funny is that?

Well first of all, we all have opinions. You just stated yours. Whether people feel pity or not for whatever reason is their business. For you to insult some them because your opinion is different is infantile.

Do you have a 14 year old daughter? If you did and something like this happened to her, would you have such a cavalier attitude? You probably don't which, in itself is more ignorant than those you like to belittle. But then moral superiority is the key isn't it?

Do you see the hypocracy in your statement above?

I do.

On one hand you ask provocative, semi-rhetorical questions about whether I know her. You then go on and state what you think she "no doubt" needs or wants.

A personal friend of mine was sexually abused by a teacher. It's not fun, it's not nice and it's certainly not "just sex".


Mr Mephisto

I have a friend whose mother (a school teacher in the same district that he and I graduated from) who is openly a lesbian. He seems to be a pretty normal, social guy. However, this happened later in life I think, and nobody really held it against him. The funny thing is that his mom makes him go to a Catholic church.

I'm in with filtherton.

1) Mephisto, that this is rape at all depends on the laws of the particular state. In some US states, and many places around the world, this is not rape. Now, if you want to consider this abuse of a trust position, that's a different story in my opinion than classifying all underaged relationships as inherently exploitative behavior. However, before arguing that position, keep in mind that the relationship occurred after the teacher/student relationship ended.

2) I am still left wondering when people in my society are going to finally begin to understand that teenagers have autonomous thoughts, too--maybe when these stories hit the press every day. That adolescents are children to be protected by the state is a very recent phenomenon. Throughout the rest of written history they have been treated as mini-adults. The course we are charting in the adult criminal courts is reminiscent of the tradtional way of treating adolescents--we can't have our cake and eat it too.

I'm assuming people can discern what I'm saying in regards to a 14 year old versus someone in diapers!

But when one's parents overrule the choices of their daughter to have intimate relations with someone she evidently cared about enough to wed and label her as "brainwashed" and confused, I consider that tragic. I strongly suspect they feel they are supporting and protecting her by those statements, but labeling one's child as a deviant (even if it is to try and shed a more negative subaltern identity--lesbianism and paganism) is not doing her any favors.

At least a few other countries have established special court proceedings where either the minor, the adult, or a person close to either party can bring their perspective to bear on whether the relationship is consensual or exploitative. I support that method of dealing with minors who wish to engage in sexual intimacy with older partners--not stigmatization and/or criminalizing their or their partner's behavior.

Smooth...

OK, if you believe adolescents can engage in "mature" or "adult" sexual relationships, at what age do you believe they cannot?

If not 16, how about 14? Maybe 12?

What the hell, let's say 10?

The point is, any and all legal cut-off points are, by definition, arbitrary and artificial. But a legal cut-off point there must be.

In most Western societies this age is 16.

Any sexual relationship with someone under that age is legally rape. You can argue how "this particular tennager" or "that very mature boy" or "that coquettish 14 girl" are different as much as you like. But the law cannot, and indeed should not, take that into account. To do so would erode the whole basis upon which modern society and laws are based; common acceptance of social mores and standards defined and regulated through the existence of laws.

Now you know me and that I'm no lawyer. I have not studied the law like you, so you may have a legal retort to my position.

But the fact remains that this girl was raped. The law stipulates that it cannot have been consensual, no matter how much anyone claims it to be, due to what is considered their immature understanding of what is right and wrong. They are deemed incapable of making a mature consenual decision.

Add to this the fact that a teacher abused this child and the case gets worse. I won't even go there, as I get rather hot under the collar when child sexual abuse (and this is what it is, both morally and legally) are defended.


Mr Mephisto

PS - When you coming Down Under? I owe you and your missus a few beers!

Mephisto, I don't know how you derived that 16 years is the mode for sexual consent, but I'm suspicious of its accuracy.

I think a reasonable cut-off point should be determined case by case rather than thinking all adolescents are incapable of autonomous decisions regarding their own sexuality:

This woman wasn't her teacher anymore. The relationship took place after that relationship ended (EDIT: in fact, this teacher was a 7th grade teacher. Since the girl was 14 when the relationship occurred, I interpret this to mean that they have not had a teacher/student relationship for 2 or maybe even 3 years).

While I understand how people can become emotional over concerns like yours, you being hot under the collar may be preventing you from understanding my position. Please don't conflate statutory rape with forceable rape simply because a group of legislaturers decided an appropriate age one can or can't make decisions about sex--they are not the same thing in my view.

I don't subscribe to the notion that laws are derived from (or reflective of) the social beliefs of a community. If you do get interested in that perspective (because a respectful group of scholars do believe it, just not my group), it's called functionalism and is embodied in the works of people like Emile Durkheim.

So, you knowing by now that I'm a conflict theorist (more in line with Karl Marx or, more accurately, Max Weber), understand that I'm more inclined to see law as a construct of those in power to retain their control over scarce resources. In this case, the sexuality of young women as well as lesbians in a patriarchal society.

P.S. I have no idea when I'll be able to leave the states. But believe me, I'm working on it as fast as I can! I'm actually hoping to start on a fullbright to get us over there before my Ph.D. is completed. Just have to figure out what I might have to offer Oz.

I don't much care to the extent of the sexual relationship between the two. It probably wasn't a good idea just because of the severe social stigma against adults and perceived children. A maximum sentence of life in prison seems a bit harsh when weighed against other crimes. I am willing to bet though that this woman gets nailed to the wall for this one. The components of statutory rape, paganism, and being a teacher involved with a student almost guarantee a harsh sentence.

Oh, wait! They're married, it's okay now.

16 is the age of consent in the UK, Ireland, Australia and (I thought) the US.

That's where.

Case by case?! Come on. You know that's impossible. Each and every single case should have no fundamental baseline upon which to proceed? That's a recipe for procedural chaos. And it's also contrary to hundreds of years of legislative theory, case law and precedent.

So what? The woman was her teacher. If the girl had been 18 before the sexual relationship, then I would have simply labeled this as inappropriate. As it occured when she was 14, it is (plain and simple) child sexual abuse. I can't believe you're defending it.

That's why statutory rape and "forceable rape" (if such a legal term really exists) have different sentencing.

So what? The woman exploited her position to sexually abuse a child; indeed, to rape a child.

If laws are not derived from the social beliefs of a community, then what are they derived from?

Actually, I'm confused by this position. What on Earth do you think laws are? By simple definition, laws enact the social mores of the society in which they are defined. How else can you see them?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. That "functionalism" is indicative of a denial that laws reflect the social and moral context in which they are defined? Or that Emile Durkheim postulates that laws do reflect such notions?

That's most certainly a Marxist political theory; I'm not familiar with Weber. I'm surprised you subscribe to Marxism which has proven to be completely and utterly wrong in almost all its precepts.

Now, dont' get me wrong. I consider myself a socialist. Perhaps more accurately, a democratic socialist. I'm certainly far to the left of most people on this board. And I was raised in a household full of Marxist (and even Leninist) political theory, practice and paraphenalia. So I'm not ignorant of its tenets. But everyone knows (or should know) that Marxist politics is simply bankrupt and irrelevant in today's society.

I simply don't understant this statement. In my mind, this has nothing to do with the sexual preference of the perpertrator, but everything to do with sexually abusing (and raping) a minor.


Looking forward to it mate! Nothing like a good political sparring match... :)


Mr Mephisto

Age of consent here is left up to the States I believe, it's not a Federated law. It's either 18, 16 w/consent of parent (that's what it is in Virginia), or 16 I believe. It all depends on how conservative or liberal a state is. I could be wrong though.

"Mom, can I please have sex with my teacher?"

In the US, we have a hodgepodge of age of consent laws. They span from 13 to 18--and it isn't hinged on liberal vs. conservative. In fact, the rural states have the lowest ages while the urban ones have the highest.

The fact that one's actions in Missouri (14) could be legal, but a felony in California (18) is about as apparant as it gets that there is no inherent immorality in the act--unless someone here is going to argue that certain states just condone "child abuse." No, I think it's more accurate to say that even in our states sexual abuse is a term employed in a certain context that may or may not reflect the views of the community in question.

Marxism hasn't been discredited. I don't know why you believe it is, but that's probably for another thread. Anyway, I didn't say I was a marxist, but a conflict theorist, which most certaintly hasn't been discredited. In any case, marx has a lot more to offer than just his political observations. Durkheim, and functionalists after him, argued that laws were the embodiment of a community's morality. If you study the law, you study their most important values. If you're interested, that's who would make that argument. Many problems exist with this claim, beginning with the fact that it's teleological. But in the context of this thread, I'll again point out that even within the states, sexual consent laws are so diverse and contradictory that one would be hard pressed to continue believing they reflect the value system of the citizens they constrain. It's far more accurate to understand values as a reflection of the law in place--not the other way around. For example, the laws you have in your mind were in place long before you even knew they existed. Yet, you base your analysis of the "rightness" of this situation on those laws as if they reflect concrete truth (Marx would call this "reification"--discredited or not ;)).

The fact that the woman and the girl are lesbians is taboo enough to have been made a subtext of the story. Seemingly irrelevant points are included in the story, such as that the woman is married to another woman, that she adopted a son, & etc. and these points are carrying weight with people opposed to what happened, including people in this thread. Only recently have states even allowed same-sex relations, and not long before that they had separate clauses for minor-same sex relations. For example, even in Michigan the law used to have separate penalties for having sex with minors under 16 if the relationship was hetero yet the age of consent changed to 18 in a homosexual relationship. So while you don't see the relevance of what type of relationship this is, the law used to care and the jury members, depending on how taboo they see homosexual behavior will certainly see it as relevant. But hopefully you can understand now why I would argue that these laws are reflecting interests of particular politically legitimate groups and not the objective morality of an act. If that were the case, the legal age wouldn't shift simply because the youth changed his or her sexual preference.

(edit)

From the larger perspective, it would appear that Smooth's posts are defending what is undeniably statutory rape.

I state it more fully below, but I don't believe that this is a borderline case that is open to further investigation.

(edit)

While I agree with lebell that this might (well, I add the "might" anyway ;)) turn out to be a closed-case example of exploitative behavior, I was intending to open the discussion to a realization of a less exploitative legal procedure--one that allows for an exploration of and addresses the motivations and feelings of the minor.

I really really do think we live in a frightening world when fully functional, supposedly rational thinking human beings can justify statutory rape. And above all, to use the 'you weren't there so you can't have an opinion' argument. For the love of all things holy...!
I am a teacher. I will be honest. I can understand the temptation to enter into a sexual relationship with a student. I have been there. I taught 14 year olds. I'm human just like everyone else. Sexually, I may be a little messed up, or at least I think I am, because I have entertained the idea of having sex with one of my students. But I know I would never go through with it. Why? Because I have morals. Because I believe that having sex with a 14 year old girl is to take advantage of her, someone who no doubt is not fully in control of their emotions, or who cannot think rationally about sex at that age. You can argue that point to death, but it's how I feel. I think that to have sex with a minor is rape. I don't care how 'consentual' it is.

Yup. Half my teaching schedule is 12-15 year old girls and believe me, my professionalism will never be compromised by me becoming self absorbed and enamoured with one of them, ever. And some of them could pass for 18 or 19 but still, the moral compass never deflects from the fact that they are young girls.

I didn't say nobody should feel pity, i just said doing so was presumptuous and pointless. I wasn't trying to insult anyone, but if you feel insulted, my apologies. Though it is a little silly to complain of insult, and then turn around and try to insult me, don't you think?

Anyways, i don't have a fourteen year old daughter, do you? Why is that even relevant? This about a fourteen year old girl and her older "wife", not a pity the parents party. Are you a fourteen year old girl? That's a more relevant question.

I see the hypocrasy, but it doesn't matter to me. I said those things to support the idea that none of us knows what the hell is going on with this young lady. It is unfortunate that your friend was sexually assualted, it is also unfortunate that sexual assault is such a nebulous term. A fifteen year old can have consensual sex with an eighteen year old and it is sexual assault. Is it sexual assault when two fourteen year olds have sex? I would think that it would be, since niether is legally old enough to give consent. If it is, then i guess, as a victim of sexual assault myself, i should be fucked up for life. I'm not, at least not due to that.
I'm not trying to diminish traumatizing sexual assualt. What i am trying to do is point out the the flaw in treating all cases that meet the law's definition of sexual assault equally. What this teacher did was illegal, there is no doubt about that. What there is undoubtedly doubt about is the extent to which, if at all, the young lady will be negatively effected by her relationship to the elder lady.


You miss the point. There are a lot of adults who aren't capable of sensibly choosing who to have sex with and marry. Just a quick perusal of the sexuality forum should prove that to you. You show a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be human. There are plenty of historical instances of societies where it was customary for teenagers to marry and have children. If i remember correctly, mary was in her early teenage years when she married joseph and gave birth to jesus. Does that make god a rapist by today's standards? I guess only an obfuscator would say no.

You can use the word rape all you want, but if you can't see the difference between consensual statutory rape and forcible rape, then i think it is you who needs to stop obfuscating.

I know this sounds bad, but, before you witch hunters get out your torches, just hear me out. Keep in mind that i haven't fucked a teenager since i was a teenager, and don't plan on doing so. Is it never possible to have a functional sexual relationship with a minor? Never? Why not? If it were just a matter of emotional development, than most adults aren't capable of a functional sexual relationship. Why is a relationship between an adult and a comparably emotionally stunted teenager completely unacceptable, while a relationship between two emotionally stunted adults acceptable? Furthermore, what is it about a sexual relationship that is fundamentally destructive when mixed with adolescent maturity?

I don't want to hear about morality either, because morality without thought is superstition. I want to hear solid, logic based arguments.

I can only reply in same, you miss the point.

I fully agree that some adults should not have sex, nor should they marry or procreate. This thread isn't about them.

I also agree that some young people are capable of making wise decisions for their years. This thread isn't about them.

I further agree that 14 year olds can, will, and have engaged in what I will agree is consensual sex. This thread isn't about them either.

What it is about is can a much older woman (did the article say her age?) engage in consentual sex with a 14 year old.

We know without a doubt that children in their adolescent years are undergoing profound emotional and physical changes, including (as recent research shows) actual changes in the brain that directly tie to their ability to make decisions. This is in addition to the issues that teachers and parents know well such as the 'rebellion', ie, the beginnings of self definition separate from the parent's identity.

Any teacher worth the title knows these things and would never allow their own feelings for a student to affect their position of trust, let alone develop into a full-blown relationship. They and we know that the trust position becomes akin to a substitute parent and it is easy to push and pursuade the child into situations that an experienced adult would not accede to.

This isn't about forcing a society's morals on anyone, nor is it blurry, as it might be if the two in question where older.

It is about protecting people who cannot protect themselves. Arguing otherwise opens the way into an area where I really don't think we as a society want to go.

I didn't say that the law wasn't silly, especially in a state like Virginia, where pretty much, unless you live in Alexandria or parts of Fairfax, most parents will say no. It's mainly meant to deal with minors having sex/sexual relations with other minors though.

Calm down everybody. I think there's probably more here that we can agree to than we suspect.

Age of consent (at least in the US) is fairly arbitrary, but it may be the best thing we've got. Would those of you who are arguing that a 14-year-old should be able to choose to marry agree that a 14-year-old accused of murder should be eligible for the death penalty? No matter how mature a young person is, it is scientifically factual that their brains, as well as their cognitive and executive functions, have not matured to adult levels until somewhere between age 17-20. They simply don't understand long-term cause and effect in the same ways as adults, and often don't really understand the full consequences of their actions. I can provide you with the peer-reviewed references if you really want.

Now, does that mean that all teenagers should be considered drooling idiots incapable of exercising self-determination and making their own decisions? Absolutely not. They deserve respect and they deserve responsibility in measure with their capabilities. But any kind of mitigation for maturity should happen after the fact in the legal system, decided by the youth's parents, a judge, guardians ad litem, etc. It doesn't follow that we ought to simply abolish statutory rape laws or age of consent laws just because there are some mature teens and some infantile adults to whom the general assumptions don't apply.

I also think using the word "rape" is just inflammatory. There is a huge difference between a sexual assault in the true sense of the word, and being old enough to know better than to use one's position of authority and respect to befriend and influence a teenager into making a bad choice regarding sex. They're simply not the same. Inability to make good decisions does not and should not equate to unwillingness to have sex. Absolutely it's wrong, but it's not the same KIND of wrong, if that makes sense. b

It worked for the ancient greeks, or was it the romans...

Anyways, i agree that studentfucking presents a conflict of interest. Beyond that are you saying that in this instance their relationship was wrong because the woman used to teach the teenager, or are you saying that such relationships are wrong by nature? Would this relationship be fundamentally wrong if the woman wasn't her teacher?

Lurkette, how do you always sum things up so nicely? :thumbsup:

lurkette,

given that 14 year olds are currently eligable for the death penatly, perhaps your question would be better addressed to the people arguing against 14 year olds choosing their sexual partners. I specifically pointed out that that laws currently hinge on minors' abilities to choose to act as adults when it comes to punishment. Given that, they should be allowed to choose their sexual partners, as well.

But I am aware of child development processes and would prefer that children not be treated wholesale as adults, in crime and punishment specifically.

AOC laws may be the best thing we have now, but the original point I was making to mephisto (which a number of people have accurately understood from my posts-instead accusing me of defending rape) is that other countries are using a much more appropriate method to determine minors' abilities to consent--special court proceedings that analyze the minor's capabilities before rendering judgement. This, to me, seems to take into account one's personal development better than wholesale censorship of one's actions.

Thanks for your leveled input.

Hasn't nature played a cruel trick on us? When we reach our teens our interest and desire for sex will probably never be greater (at least for boys)and yet according to "peer-reviewed" references we are not mentally prepared. One would think that we would have evolved so that these things would happen simultaineously. I have always wondered why we should be wired this way. I wonder if nature just may be smarter than us and perhaps the age of consent should be reconsidered.

lurkette,

I would agree that the type of coercion is different, but that many adults still coerce by virtue of their position and greater life experience, it is still coercion and therefore deserves the rape label IMO as fully as if the coercion was physical.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Looking forward to it smooth.


Mr Mephisto

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?

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.

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

Mephisto,

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

"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...