teacher boffing student again
 

i wonder why this stuff always makes such a big story when it is a female teacher porking a 14 yr old boy. i imagine that there are male teachers getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar, too, but you don't hear much about it.

is it because she looks like this?:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphic...8042teach1.jpg

i don't think the kid will be too emotionally scarred from the incident, do you? source

It's ridiculous that she's up for a jail sentence. Leave prison for the real criminals.

Even if she does manage to get out of jail time somehow (I don't know how Florida works in this situation), she'll still have to deal with the Court of Public Opinion, as long as there's enough coverage.

In other words, every teenage boy in the neighborhood will be walking nonchalantly by her house every 15 minutes.

As LJ mentions, if it were a 23 year old guy going after a 14 year old girl, they would be stringing him up by his balls.

14 years old is really pretty young. What she allegedly did is against the law, and she deserves jail time if she's guilty.

We can't know based on the article, but that boy may be messed up emotionally as a result of this. He could have a future of failed relationship after failed relationship to look forward to as a result of this warped relationship. Then again, he could be happy as hell to get some action. Either scenario is very possible. Boys of that age are very curious about sex, but almost all are still virgins, even in this day and age.

Are you saying that women should be exempt from statutory rape laws or are you saying that male teachers should be allowed to have s3x with 14 year old female students?

Hang on one second. This is not a rape allegation. As far as we are aware the boy was perfectly willing, no doubt delighted. Think back to when you were 14. Imagine a nubile young teacher spreading her legs for you in the back of a car. Don't think we'd be screaming rape now, would we?

I know some places will call it rape if the juvenile is below a certain age, regardless of the juvenile's consent. Does Florida do that?

all states have an age of consent. it varies between 14 and 18 depending on state. if you taste of the unripened fruit, you will pay.

I saw this on the news this morning. Is it because she looks like that, well not entirely, she also had a great rack. I think the victim will be OK.

are you familiar with the term 'statutory'? he can be willing, even initiate it, and she's still guilty. in the US it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor. 14 years old is not even close to 18.

that said, if i was the kid, i'd have kept my mouth shut. i didnt read beyond that one page, so i dont know who blew the whistle. anyone?

also, i agree that there should not be jail time served, as she does not pose a physical danger to citizens, but that's just me.

s3x with a minor is statutory rape. Legally speaking, minors are not able to grant consent so legally, there is no such thing as consensual sex with a minor. I don't know the legal system in England other than ours is based upon it so it may even be the same in your neck of the woods.

And you didn't answer my question: is it ok for a 23 year old male teacher to bang your 14-year old daughter (hypothetically speaking, of course)?

Oh, and using your logic, if the teacher gave the boy some good weed, it would be ok if he really enjoyed it.

morally or legally, beestie. yay, weed!

The cousin who was in the car with them blew the whistle.

OK - legalities aside, can we agree on a definition of rape? I think it is if the rapee is unwilling, i.e. does-not-want-to. A 14 year old hormone pumped boy is more than likely very-much-want-to-yes-please. Is this still rape?

I posted the last one before I read this.

I am going to sound awfully hypocritical now but I do think it's different for girls. They get emotionally attached and fall in love and that kind of thing. My experience of young boys is that they just want sex. And she gave it to him. Isn't this every school boy's fantasy? A schoolgirls fantasy is for the 23 year old male hunky teacher to sweep her off her feet and marry her. If he had sex with her then went back to his wife he would have destroyed her fantasy and this may well impact her future relationships. With this scenario, the female teacher fulfilled the boy's fantasy.

And yes to the weed thing, obviously.

Sorry, but there are plenty of 14 year old girls who would love to give it up to the married guy next door, or their teacher, etc just as there are plenty of 14 year old guys willing to do the same. It doesn't matter if they were willing, both are considered rape because they are too young to give consent.

But in the case of a woman who sleeps with a 14 year old boy, she'll get a slap on the wrist...if that, while a guy will spend the next 30 years getting beaten and gang raped on a daily basis.

It's just another example of how the justice system in America is geared in favor of women.

oh bullshit - chicks "sportfuck" just as much as guys do. i was pretty surprised to learn that one, but it is absolutely true.

i'm sure the boy did want it. the cousin probably blew the whistle because he didn't get any even though he had to sit in the back seat while they went at it.

if i had that teacher i would have wanted her, and would have kept my silly little mouth closed about it afterwards. but it still doesn't change the fact that it was statutory rape. he was underage. end of story.

as kind of a side note it sounds like you are prepared to throw the equality that women have fought so hard to gain right out the window? you can't have it both ways. if it is a crime for a man then it is a crime for a woman.

in adult life the same thing holds true. sexual harassment is the scourge of the workplace. i've hooked up with a couple of my female bosses over the years, but i am a guy, i enjoyed it for what it was. even when i got let go from one of the jobs i wouldn't have turned around and sued, but legally i could have. just like lots of women do after screwing the boss.

i'm listening to the radio in my office. here is a prime example of why statutory rape laws exist.

a 9 year old girl is pregnant. the sperm donor is the ice cream man. her friends have stated that "she wanted to do it, he didn't force her"

he should have is dick cut off before he is thrown into a hole in the desert and left to die.

Can no one here think for themselves?? Just because it is LAW doesn't mean it is RIGHT. I am only 21 and remember being 14. I remember boys at 14. Don't try and tell me sex with someone of this age (UNLESS they are emotionally maladjusted for some reason) is wrong. Most of my friends lost their virginity younger than 14. I waited till I was 17 not because I couldn't COPE with it at 14 but because I didn't want to with any of the boys that offered it to me. I had a crush on a teacher and it wasn't about sex - more admiration/idolising. Boys crushes on female teachers were about sex, discovery, the female body. There IS a difference and it has nothing to do with equality but the fundamental differences between the sexes. We should be treated equally but not the same.

lumberjim, that's an interesting way to look at it.

Jail is generally regarded as 1) a way to punish someone and 2) also a way to protect society by keeping dangerous people locked up.

So you think that people should only be locked up when they are a danger to others? If the answer is yes, how do you feel about oh, let's say: someone who breaks into an empty house and steals personal belongings from said house? Should they go to jail? Just curious here, not judging you.

Equally IS the same.

And just because for YOU it was about love and not sex doesn't mean it's that way for anyone. I don't care what age you were or your friends were when they lost their virginity.

A grown man having sex with a 14 year old girl is absolutely no different than a grown woman having sex with a 14 year old boy. Both are equally wrong and the punishment should be the same.

we could argue about whether sex is right or wrong and never agree, but that is not the point.

two 14 yr olds on mom's bed. a 14 yr old and a 25 yr old is completely different. some 25 yr old men (and women) are pretty skilled at getting the opposite sex in their own age group to do what they want. unleash those skills upon someone at age 14? that is brutal.

equal but not the same, equal but not the same... why does that phrase ring a bell?

edit: oh yeah - that was separate but equal.

in that specific example, he does pose a threat to people's possessions, but i don't think jail is necessary unless he is a repeat offender. house arrest would be better.

actually, here's what i would do with that kind of criminal if i was king:

the convict of a nonviolent crime, or a victimless crime would be placed under house arrest, and made to work for the state with whatever skills they posessed or hard labor if they had none. their wages would be garnished until their financial sentence was satisfied, and the house arrest would continue until their punative sentence was satisfied. the two being seperate sentences. at the same time, the jails would be much more unpleasant than they are now, and rehabilitation would not be as big a priority. granted, you'd have to do some really bad shit to get put in there. rape ( viloent rape) murder, arson, voting for bush, etc...

just sketching here, but i like it so far

OK.

Would you have any concerns that the financial aspect of it might lead to abuse by the state? These criminals are basically indentured servants. It's in the state's best interest to have as many of them as possible. $$

how about if the money is only used for the prison system. paying for them while on death row, legal expenses for appeals, etc. the money cannot be used outside the judicial or prison system?

yes, good point. ...... but that would be balanced by the fact that i'd be using criminals to catch criminals. rewarding them with bonus credits or time off for good arrest ratios, etc. there would have to be a watchdog process in place, of course. i think the current basic legal system could handle that. another advers impact would be the loss of jobs that private citizens currently hold with the state. have to re-employ those people in the private sector, with tax breaks to companies that hire our cast offs......

You though going to the DMV was bad before. Now you have to deal with the dregs of society sitting behind the desk. :)

I would have sold my grandmother into slavery to have had a shot at that lady when I was 14.

crap. I spelled 'again' wrong. UT?

I'm not savin' yer ass on this one!

HB was right! You gotta take more time when composing your subject lines!!!

There is one BIG difference. A mature woman having sex with a 14 year old boy is implicitly taking the birth control issue onto herself. The 14 year old girl that ends up getting or risking pregnancy from a mature guy might have no clue what she is risking.

PLICK!

i only got 3 1/2 hrs of sleep last night. gimme a break

Just to throw a few disturbing anecdotes into the mix...

1.) A good friend of mine's brother had a relationship with his English teacher in high school. They were never caught; and what's more, after he graduated she quit teaching and they moved in together. Still "soulmates" after... hell, must be 4 or 5 years now.

2.) We had a student teacher in my high school (for those whose states don't have student teacher programs, it means he was in college training to be a teacher, temporarily assigned to our school for hands-on experience, and about 21 or 22 years old) who wanted to date a girl at the school. They petitioned the school board for permission, and it was granted, as long as they were discreet and he was never directly in charge of grading any of her work.

3.) Our theatre teacher in my high school (male) was extremely well-known for having relationships with girls in his classes. All of these girls thought at the time that it was something they wanted, as Catwoman was suggesting, but later on every one of them realized they had been used and were angry that no one ever stopped him.

God help me, this is the second time this year that I've agreed with Radar. With no reservations.

Wolf, prepare a room, I'm comin' home! Gimme some o doze good meds too!

I'm sorry Catwoman, but equal is just that. Same pay for same work, same dry cleaning charge for a shirt, same jail time for the same crime. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Unless you're in Alabama, sex with someone under 16 or 18 (I'll look up Florida's consent law and fix this later) is a crime. Period. They cannot legally give consent and this should be prosecuted regardless if the boy enjoyed himself or not. Sexual abuse of a child is morally and criminally reprehensible. :mad:

Brian

First one I found that was recent.

I'm not vouching for it's accuracy, just posting what I found.

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

:D See I told you you didn't have your shit togethor.

indeed

note to self: eat more paste

That's "together."

:angel: sorry, couldn't resist!

steve, you have to read the less is more thread to get that joke

I'm pretty sure togethor is correct, maybe old english. Or might be PA dutch.

Right.

Deep breath.

Just for reference:

Equal

Same

Men and women are not the same. Come one I'm not exactly saying anything new here. You cannot deny there are fundamental differences between the sexes in terms of attitude, emotion, aptitude, skill set, physicality etc etc. So given these differences, why should we be treated the same? I wouldn't expect a man to talk make-up just as a man wouldn't expect a woman to lift a 100kg weight. [Apologies for obvious example - I actually detest women who talk about make up, but for some reason I was struggling to think of something a woman could do that a man can't, other than give birth. Oh dear.].

Anyway, the point is if we are different, we are unequal. Not in a linear, hierarchical sense - 'if a man does not keep pace with his companions perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer' - Thoreau.

True equality of opportunity will never happen because of these differences. And is that wrong? I think a man should be a man and a woman should be a woman. Where have all the curves gone? Where have all the real men gone? Instead we have straight-up straight-down boyish women with power jobs and pussified, effeminate men who couldn't save you from a pussy cat let alone a tiger. We should stop trying to merge with each other in the name of equality. We ARE equal, just not the same. We should relish our differences, not seek to abolish them on some misguided feminist power trip.

In the context of the teacher case, I do think she should be treated differently than if a male had done the same. Yes, she should be reprimanded - she broke the law, oh dear. We've all broken the law in one way or another. And she gave pleasure to a young lad who probably had to pinch himself to check he wasn't dreaming. 14 is not a child. It is not paedophilia. Surely those of you who believe in an 'eye for an eye' would advocate punishment to fit the level of suffering endured? If the boy enjoyed it, according to your rules, she should be rewarded!

And Onyx, just because a law exists does not mean it is right or applicable in all circumstances. I'm not too well informed about American law, but British law is full of flaws. My very good lawyer friend is one of those people who campaigns for law changes all the time, because every case is different and to attempt to categorise all similar crimes (which of course is necessary for a 'fair' and simplified justice system) is inevitably going to cause problems.

Men and women are not the same (and thank god). Any legal system should seek to reflect this.

When's the last time you heard of a (natural) man lactating? :D

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. If a man steals a television and a woman steals a television, they should get the same punishment because they have committed the SAME CRIME. We're not talking about equality of attitude, we're talking about people being treated equally under the law and the law should never change based on a person's race, gender, religion, etc. A crime is a crime is a crime and the punishment should be equal regardless.

A man who has sex with a 14 year old girl is no more or less guilty of a crime than is a woman who has sex with a 14 year old boy.

But since you don't think men and women should be treated the same, I'm sure you won't mind if male police or firefighters are paid more than female ones since thier "fundamental differences between the sexes in terms of attitude, emotion, aptitude, skill set, physicality" mean men can more easily taken down a violent criminal or carry a person from a burning building.

I'm sure in an office building, you think men should be paid more because they do the heavy lifting in an office (loading the sparklets bottle, moving furniture, etc) even though that isn't in their job description. I'm sure you think men should be paid more in all areas since they are subject to the draft and women aren't. You must feel that way or you'd be a hypocrite.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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

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.

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?

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

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.)

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.

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.

ok - i can't get the photos to post, but this teacher was a bikini model for some car magazine before this happened. you can see the shots on foxnews.com (it's good for entertainment, if not exactly fair and balanced)

she isn't really my cup of tea, but what 14 year old wouldn't jump at the chance to hook up with her? it's not even fair.

Did any of you happen to read that she was newly married, too? Can you imagine the trauma this chick's poor husband is going through??

Ah, this did make the national news.

Here she is!

Here, Radar, I'LL make the claim you're disbelieving:

Statutory "rape" is often a victimless crime. (to be fair, it often is not)

In no case does it really deserve the term "rape".