As I read once: a 16 year old can commit a crime amd be tried as an adult...but if he chooses to have sex with an older woman (or..women) then he is considered a "child" who needs protection.
Apparently...there is an age where you can be considered whatever "fits" the situation.
No, there isn't a special age "where you pick whatever you want", so much as there are different laws with different ages attached; so it's specific to the crime. For example, in Louisiana, the age of consent is 17, so the teachers would be charged with statutory rape, probably multiple counts.
(Does that count as an asinine comment? Asking for bingo players...)
I'll have her bring her friend along just so I can tell Dakka I tagged 'em both.
(This helping any? In all seriousness, I'm fairly certain I actually am acquainted with one as she's related to a teacher I had in high school that I stay in contact with.)
Ok...so...if the age of consent for sex is 17 in Louisiana.....but you can commit and be charged with murder at 16 ( or younger perhaps?) what is that saying about our society?
That a 16 year old can completely and fully know wjat tjey are doing when they pull a trigger or stick someone with a knife and end their life ( or perhaps drive drunk/impaired and kill someone).....but....someone who is 16 automatically cannot make the conscious decision to engage in sex?
TheMeanDM wrote: Ok...so...if the age of consent for sex is 17 in Louisiana.....but you can commit and be charged with murder at 16 ( or younger perhaps?) what is that saying about our society?
That a 16 year old can completely and fully know wjat tjey are doing when they pull a trigger or stick someone with a knife and end their life ( or perhaps drive drunk/impaired and kill someone).....but....someone who is 16 automatically cannot make the conscious decision to engage in sex?
(Not debating the teacher/student relationship)
A) Those are two very different crimes. B) the reason for statutory rape is usually do to the fact that children (even 16 or 17 year olds) can be manipulated into these types of sexual relationships through authority/age differences. Yes, the kid may have known full well what he was doing, but pretty sure the teachers should have known full well too that what they were doing was wrong
TheMeanDM wrote: Ok...so...if the age of consent for sex is 17 in Louisiana.....but you can commit and be charged with murder at 16 ( or younger perhaps?) what is that saying about our society?
That a 16 year old can completely and fully know wjat tjey are doing when they pull a trigger or stick someone with a knife and end their life ( or perhaps drive drunk/impaired and kill someone).....but....someone who is 16 automatically cannot make the conscious decision to engage in sex?
(Not debating the teacher/student relationship)
America loves violence and despises sex. Don't expect it to make sense.
TheMeanDM wrote: That a 16 year old can completely and fully know wjat tjey are doing when they pull a trigger or stick someone with a knife and end their life ( or perhaps drive drunk/impaired and kill someone).....but....someone who is 16 automatically cannot make the conscious decision to engage in sex?
It means that they can't make the legal decision to engage in sex. Basically, they're saying that 16 year olds can't make a competent decision about sex, which is true.
It is always a bit strange when you hear of a teacher engaging in a sexual relationship with a student, but I can't imagine the thinking that would have to be present to for two teachers to think that it was ok.
That society has deemed a 16 year old incompetent enough to make a legal decision to have sex....but can make a legally competent decision to murder someone strikes me as *very* moronic....and indeed...it definitely shows the hangup America has regarding sex.
Ahtman wrote: It is always a bit strange when you hear of a teacher engaging in a sexual relationship with a student, but I can't imagine the thinking that would have to be present to for two teachers to think that it was ok.
Well, both teachers were there to make sure that the other one kept things wholesome and that the student didn't take anything happening out of context.
That society has deemed a 16 year old incompetent enough to make a legal decision to have sex....but can make a legally competent decision to murder someone strikes me as *very* moronic....and indeed...it definitely shows the hangup America has regarding sex.
Yeah, with such large issues like pedophiles and child abuse rings, I don't get how America could be so hung on sex seriously, child abuse, especially of a sexual nature, is a very real problem and as such, laws like this exist to protect children
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: So this kid is trusted with a car, but not his own penis?
Way to miss the point by a mile. Bravo
Automatically Appended Next Post: Side note: to everyone saying the kid is totally in his right mind to make this decision, had the genders been reversed, would you still make the same claim? I.E. a 24 year old male teacher and a 32 year old male teacher engaging in this act with a 16 year old female student.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So this kid is trusted with a car, but not his own penis?
Sex is probably more emotionally and mentally complex than a car and is why it isn't as problematic when it is between peers of that age and is between those in authority and those whom they have authority over. Part of the problem is that when you make laws you have to draw a line somewhere and people are never going to agree where that line should be one way or the other. You can enlist in the military years before you can legally get a beer at a restaurant/pub. These things are also hard to get changed, but they do change so you can always get involved locally to try and get the age changed if you feel strongly about it.
I agree child abuse is a thing. My point is how things change. 16 you can drive a car, own a gun, be tried as an adult. Join the marines under certain circumstances. But not have sex?
That society has deemed a 16 year old incompetent enough to make a legal decision to have sex....but can make a legally competent decision to murder someone strikes me as *very* moronic....and indeed...it definitely shows the hangup America has regarding sex.
The kid can make any decision he wants regarding sex. It's not illegal for him to have sex with the two teachers. He is not on trial here and he is not facing any charges.
It's illegal for an adult to have sex with a child. Because minors cannot give consent because their parents are legally still in charge of him. An adult can be charged as an adult with murder and an adult can be charged with statutory rape. Arguing potential legal proceedings against a child who murdered someone is non-sensical since it has nothing to do with an adult breaking the law.
You can argue about a lower age of consent if you want, and that's a discussion worth having, but "he can murder someone so he should be able to feth who he wants" doesn't really make sense.
It is also worth noting that many places with lower ages of consent have separate laws stating that a person cannot consent to sex with a person that has authority over them.
They can have sex, just not with someone in authority and need not with people much older than they are. If he had a three way with two girls in his class this wouldn't be an issue, outside of avoiding their parents of course.
Edit: As d-usa pointed out, and I should have been clearer on, he isn't in legal trouble for it, but there wouldn't be a news story about it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree child abuse is a thing. My point is how things change. 16 you can drive a car, own a gun, be tried as an adult. Join the marines under certain circumstances. But not have sex?
Precisely what I am saying too. Join the Jr. ROTC, get hunting licenses to kill animals...drive a 2 ton death machine without parental supervision....among other things.
There should also be consideration for the memtal and emotional maturity of the so-called "child".
There arw some 16 year olds who arw amazingly esponsible and wise beyond their years. Others...not so much.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So this kid is trusted with a car, but not his own penis?
Sex is probably more emotionally and mentally complex than a car
This.
I also remember when I was 16(incidentally, when I started having sex IN the state we're talking about) and asking 16 year old me to make a rational decision about sex would have been like asking for a non-corrupt politician in Louisiana. It may happen, but the likely hood is closer to 0.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So this kid is trusted with a car, but not his own penis?
Sex is probably more emotionally and mentally complex than a car
This.
I also remember when I was 16(incidentally, when I started having sex IN the state we're talking about) and asking 16 year old me to make a rational decision about sex is like asking for a non-corrupt politician in Louisiana. It may happen, but the likely hood is closer to 0.
d-usa wrote: The kid can make any decision he wants regarding sex. It's not illegal for him to have sex with the two teachers. He is not on trial here and he is not facing any charges.
This is actually sort of the end to this whole tangent in my book, good point. The OP's argument is predicated on sort of a bad premise.
Platuan4th wrote: Does it hurt my cred if I mention I didn't even have a learner's permit until 18?
Not really. I was wondering how many actually get there license at that age versus how many have to wait a year or two. It doesn't change that under certain circumstances (I think you have to take drivers education courses and have a permit a certain amount of time) you can theoretically get a license at that age, I just wonder how often it happens. Most of the people I know it wasn't until 17~18, and according to statistics more and more are not getting one at all or until much later.
Platuan4th wrote: Does it hurt my cred if I mention I didn't even have a learner's permit until 18?
Not really. I was wondering how many actually get there license at that age versus how many have to wait a year or two. It doesn't change that under certain circumstances (I think you have to take drivers education courses and have a permit a certain amount of time) you can theoretically get a license at that age, I just wonder how often it happens. Most of the people I know it wasn't until 17~18, and according to statistics more and more are not getting one at all or until much later.
There's no requirement for Driver's Ed in Louisiana, at least not when I got my license. THAT SAID, I took it because my father didn't have the time to teach me when I was old enough. IIRC, LA only requires you to have your learner's until a certain age, I got a learners purely because they had used up all their driving test slots the day I took the written test. I had it for all of a month and it only took that long because I was still in school and needed to wait until I had a day off(I was in school in a different state than where I lived, long story).
All I am saying is that in this particular instance...I don't believe that the teachers should be facing statutory rape charges. I believe that he was fully cognizant and commpetent to make the choice to have sex or not...on multiple occasions apparently.
As I said before..."abuse of power" or position of authority isn't what I am discussing.
TheMeanDM wrote: All I am saying is that in this particular instance...I don't believe that the teachers should be facing statutory rape charges. I believe that he was fully cognizant and commpetent to make the choice to have sex or not...on multiple occasions apparently.
.
TheMeanDM wrote: Ahem...what part of "I believe" do I need to explain...?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And to ask: do *you* know him personally? Hmm?
No, but I didn't make any assertions of about his judgement, specifically that he was capable of a sexual relationship beyond what the voting populace of Louisiana have effected via their duly elected representatives, based on essentially nothing, either.
TheMeanDM wrote: Ok...so...if the age of consent for sex is 17 in Louisiana.....but you can commit and be charged with murder at 16 ( or younger perhaps?) what is that saying about our society?
Yes, it does. I am really sorry about having to say it aloud, but clearly it says your society is (gasp) very very much against murder and people who commit murder.
trexmeyer wrote: America loves violence and despises sex. Don't expect it to make sense.
If it loves violence and despise sex, why does it punish 16 years old that commit violence but not 16 years old that have sex?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree child abuse is a thing. My point is how things change. 16 you can drive a car, own a gun, be tried as an adult. Join the marines under certain circumstances. But not have sex?
16 year olds can't own firearms.
Please show me where a 16 year old can sign up for the military.
TheMeanDM wrote: All I am saying is that in this particular instance...I don't believe that the teachers should be facing statutory rape charges. I believe that he was fully cognizant and commpetent to make the choice to have sex or not...on multiple occasions apparently.
.
Oh, you know him personally?
Further, a scre up means more mouths to feed at government expense.
TheMeanDM wrote: All I am saying is that in this particular instance...I don't believe that the teachers should be facing statutory rape charges. I believe that he was fully cognizant and commpetent to make the choice to have sex or not...on multiple occasions apparently.
As I said before..."abuse of power" or position of authority isn't what I am discussing.
Yes, "Abuse of power" is exactly what you're discussing because you just said 2 teachers (positions of authority) had sex with a student. Even if they weren't teachers the age differential is enough for them to be abusing the innate influence that an older person has on a minor, especially in sexual situations. The minor's consent is completely irrelevant.
One occasion or multiple occasions is irrelevant. Victims of many different crimes are known to be violated repeatedly. That doesn't change the facts of the crime.
The real issue is that despite the backslapping and congratulations that will accompany this act, this kid is very likely to end up messed sexually after this. I think any sexual therapist will confirm that young teens having sexual experiences with adults is not good for their sexual development. Which is the whole reason we have laws like this making what these women did Statutory Rape.
Still haven't heard you respond to what your reaction would be if it was a 16 year old female and two male 20 something teachers?
Innate influence simply becauee of age? Please...don't make me laugh. As I have said...and will say again...there are precedents of extremely wise, responsible and mature "children" at 16 years of age...just as there are instances of extremely immature, irresponsible and foolish "adults" of 18+.
While we only know a cursory sketch of the situation...I BELIEVE that this guy was a willing participant....that he made a conscious choice to hqve sex with these teachers.
*If* you assume that both teachers made the initial advancememts toward the student, then the student is faced with 2 choics: 1) engage in the behavior or 2) report the advancememt (s). Its really that simple of a choice. You do it, or you don't....the choice, is yours.
From what we know so far....this was *multiple* meetings. Again, at any point, he could have *chosen* to report the situation.
From the sounds of it.....again...this is extrapolated given the sketchy details so far...the authorities learned about this not through the choices of the guy, but by friends/acquaintances of the guy who heard the stories (or even perhaps saw the reported video).
Again...these are my "gut feelings" about what went down. Your beliefs and gut feelings are obviously different. As the facts come out and it goes to trial...someone will be right and someone will be wrong.
* * * * * *
If it were the exact same story just with genders flipped? I would admittedly choose to believe that there would have been pressure and coercion on the part of the male teachers.
Biggest issue-they taped it. So now it's "child porn" since he's 16 in it. Even if he was of age to consent, the tapes would have been illegal if he was under 18, regardless of consent laws.
Also, that girl on the left is gorgeous. She could have anyone she wanted-why a 16 year old kid? They should have at least waited til he graduated-they coulda screwed him til they passed out from exhaustion. Still, every man dreams of a threesome at some point in life. Hot as she is, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that the only thing the guy is truly upset about is that there are no more threesomes. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But I'm gonna play the numbers game and say he wasn't "harmed" by the experience. 16 is the legal age in MOST states in the US. To say a 16 yr old is unable to make the decision to have sex in this state but can make that decision in a state like PA is full blown stupid. Because in PA the AoC IS 16. Each state rationalizes it, but it varies on a case by case basis. Not a state by state.
Tl;dr-teachers are dumb for filming it, teacher on left is hot, 16 is legal in some states, not others-maturity should be on a case by case, not state by state, argument.
TheMeanDM wrote: I BELIEVE that this guy was a willing participant....that he made a conscious choice to hqve sex with these teachers.
He cannot legally make that choice. He is incapable of consent.
Again...these are my "gut feelings" about what went down. Your beliefs and gut feelings are obviously different. As the facts come out and it goes to trial...someone will be right and someone will be wrong.
I think it's wholly irrelevant to the facts re: ability to consent, but the heads-up that you've announced to anyone who might debate this with you that logic, facts, and reason will not counter the situation you invented in your head out of whole cloth is nice.
If it were the exact same story just with genders flipped? I would admittedly choose to believe that there would have been pressure and coercion on the part of the male teachers.
Congratulations on being part of the problem, I guess?
TheMeanDM wrote: If it were the exact same story just with genders flipped? I would admittedly choose to believe that there would have been pressure and coercion on the part of the male teachers.
Oh, the sweet smell of gender roles/stereotypes!
I think it is time to repost this video I found on Dakka originally, in case anyone missed it (do NOT stop at the title):
You do realize that at 16 in Louisiana you *can* be emancipated and therefore be allowed to make your own choices and *gasp* choose to have -legal- sex?
But apparently you do not believe that any 16 year old is capable of making any rational decision that is exclusively reserved for "adults" of 17 or older because it is entirely unthinkable that a 16 year old is capable of thought beyond choosing what they are going to wear or if they should text that person that they are crushing on.
You do realize that at 16 in Louisiana you *can* be emancipated and therefore be allowed to make your own choices and *gasp* choose to have -legal- sex?
But apparently you do not believe that any 16 year old is capable of making any rational decision that is exclusively reserved for "adults" of 17 or older because it is entirely unthinkable that a 16 year old is capable of thought beyond choosing what they are going to wear or if they should text that person that they are crushing on.
TheMeanDM wrote: But apparently you do not believe that any 16 year old is capable of making any rational decision that is exclusively reserved for "adults" of 17 or older because it is entirely unthinkable that a 16 year old is capable of thought beyond choosing what they are going to wear or if they should text that person that they are crushing on.
Well, they can… unless they are girls, apparently, according to you .
I've known guys that targeted younger women because they believed they were easier game. The older they got the wrist they were to men's game. There are lots of opportunities for adults, no reason to go after illegal targets.
You did not say it verbatim, hence the “apparently”:
TheMeanDM wrote: If it were the exact same story just with genders flipped? I would admittedly choose to believe that there would have been pressure and coercion on the part of the male teachers.
This looks like it has the potential to be the most fun thread in a while. Respect will be lost. Hatred will be gained. In the end, we'll all lose, and only Yakface will be the true winner, as we all tear each other apart.
Or we just sacrifice Ouze or something, and it all blows over. Whichever.
Crazy people can be hot too! Just because they committed a crime, it doesn't mean they can't be hot. Well, one on left is hot. The other looks like she forgot her makeup. Criminals are people too. I'm gonna go dress up like a HS football player and offer the one on the left a couple conjugal visits while she serves her sentence.
TheMeanDM wrote: If it were the exact same story just with genders flipped? I would admittedly choose to believe that there would have been pressure and coercion on the part of the male teachers.
No cookie, sorry. I didn't say our hyppthetical femald *didn't* choose her actions
I merely stated that I felt it more probable that were it male teachers...I would be far more apt to believe that pressure and influence would play a significant role in the situation which made our make believe female student feel as if she only *had* one choice.
Unless of course you are a huge believer in the movie Wild Things....
Da Boss wrote: To all those rating the weirdos in question out of ten based on appearance, thanks for not letting me down, and not letting yourselves down.
TheMeanDM wrote: No cookie, sorry. I didn't say our hyppthetical femald *didn't* choose her actions
I merely stated that I felt it more probable that were it male teachers...I would be far more apt to believe that pressure and influence would play a significant role in the situation which made our make believe female student feel as if she only *had* one choice.
Is it because you believe women to be incapable of being forceful manipulative jerks like you believe men can be, or is it because you think of boys as much more capable to resist pressure than girls? If the latter, you clearly owe me a cookie. In both case… that is not something to be proud about.
Is it because you believe women to be incapable of being forceful manipulative jerks like you believe men can be, or is it because you think of boys as much more capable to resist pressure than girls?
And the bingo players can cross off "the victim asked for it". Um...thanks?..for going there?
Is it because you believe women to be incapable of being forceful manipulative jerks like you believe men can be, or is it because you think of boys as much more capable to resist pressure than girls?
And the bingo players can cross off "the victim asked for it". Um...thanks?..for going there?
He probably rufied them. They invited him over for a congratulatory dinner after a good game, he doctored their drinks, and got them both! I've solved the case, gentlemen. Dakka is saved!!
Because I didn't say the victim initiated this....yet if you read the above quote...he clearly is floating that idea out there...and attempting to pass it off as mine...which it is not..nor was it implied.
TheMeanDM wrote: Because I didn't say the victim initiated this....yet if you read the above quote...he clearly is floating that idea out there...and attempting to pass it off as mine...which it is not..nor was it implied.
That society has deemed a 16 year old incompetent enough to make a legal decision to have sex....but can make a legally competent decision to murder someone strikes me as *very* moronic....and indeed...it definitely shows the hangup America has regarding sex.
No, its about the fact that adults are forbidden by law to have sexual relations with children. There are VERY good reasons for this being the case. Its also about the fact that educators have a professional relationship with their students, and need to abide by certain rules of behavior. I had a buddy that did 5 years in Alabama state prison for "statutory rape" because he was 18 when he had sex with his 16 year old GF. Are you suggesting that professional educators be held less responsible? Bear in mind that while a 16 year old boy might LOVE the idea of banging 2 teachers, those teachers know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the behavior does not fit with the ethics of their job description.
If this were 2 male teachers that had run a train on a young girl society would be up in arms (rightfully), no reason at all that these teachers should be charged with the crime they committed...IE statutory rape. And yes that is predicated (legally) on the societal recognition that persons under the age of 18 are incapable of giving affirmative consent in the context of disproportional power dynamics within relationships. Adults know better (not really though), at least according to the rules of our society.
The guy might not be a "victim" in the sense that he was physically harmed/abused, but the teachers absolutely took advantage of their position of power. THAT is at the heart of this whole thing.
TheMeanDM wrote: Because I didn't say the victim initiated this....yet if you read the above quote...he clearly is floating that idea out there...and attempting to pass it off as mine...which it is not..nor was it implied.
That society has deemed a 16 year old incompetent enough to make a legal decision to have sex....but can make a legally competent decision to murder someone strikes me as *very* moronic....and indeed...it definitely shows the hangup America has regarding sex.
not all society does,
most of the civilized world has age of consent at 16-14 IIRC... (it was 14 here till fairly recently)
most also think you can drink at 16-18 and so on.
it is a bit odd that you can be singled out as "an adult totally in control and aware of your actions" at 16 in regards to murder, but not in regards to sex, booze, R rated movies, and so on.
however, in THIS specific case, its deplorable regardless of the age/gender of the teachers/student as its a teacher/authority figure and student relationship which is never ok.
That society has deemed a 16 year old incompetent enough to make a legal decision to have sex....but can make a legally competent decision to murder someone strikes me as *very* moronic....and indeed...it definitely shows the hangup America has regarding sex.
not all society does,
most of the civilized world has age of consent at 16-14 IIRC... (it was 14 here till fairly recently)
most also think you can drink at 16-18 and so on.
it is a bit odd that you can be singled out as "an adult totally in control and aware of your actions" at 16 in regards to murder, but not in regards to sex, booze, R rated movies, and so on.
however, in THIS specific case, its deplorable regardless of the age/gender of the teachers/student as its a teacher/authority figure and student relationship which is never ok.
Exactly what I have tried to say (perhaps poorly?).
Not once have I said that this wasn't wrong...that the teachers weren't wrong..that this isn't an immoral or bad or in anyway legal act.
What I had been initially trying to discuss is that at 16 this guy could be perfectly capable of making the decision to participate in this situation....even though legally in LA he is absolved of any responsibility simply by virtue of a number, and not upon evaluation of his actual mental/emotional maturity.
You do realize that at 16 in Louisiana you *can* be emancipated and therefore be allowed to make your own choices and *gasp* choose to have -legal- sex?
But apparently you do not believe that any 16 year old is capable of making any rational decision that is exclusively reserved for "adults" of 17 or older because it is entirely unthinkable that a 16 year old is capable of thought beyond choosing what they are going to wear or if they should text that person that they are crushing on.
I do think we're at an impasse, but I don't think we need to be. I think you're making kind of a bad argument in the original premise - specifically the idea that a 16 year old can lawfully drive, and so is fully an adult with every right and privilege and responsibility. That, obviously, neither I nor really any state legislature agrees with, so there is no common ground. However, you've been skirting the edges of a much more reasonable argument - one that we're finally homing in on here, that the age of consent at 17 is too high. I'm going to choose to ignore the latter part of your post where you raise a strawman and pretend I argued that no 16 year old can make an adult decision; because that's obviously being silly, we both know I didn't say or imply that.
First, lets start with idea of a cutoff at all. Everyone matures at a different age, yes, just as everyone handles their liquor differently, to use an analogy. However, it's not practical to invent some kind of test for every single citizen in the country at some age to determine what their BAC is to make them legal to drive - and at least that's something that's scientifically possible! We just pick a good average BAC and use that. The same goes for the age of consent - we can't really test every person's emotional ability to handle adult sexual relationships. I'm sure we can agree that 10 year olds can't consent to sex, yes? And I'm sure we similarly agree that a 25 year old age of consent is similarly foolish? At this point we're just squabbling about the number. How do we pick a specific cutoff? The answer is, all of us agree upon it via our social mores, and we have it legislated into law via our elected representatives. In this case, that is exactly what the State of Louisiana did, and they picked 17 years old. While I personally think it's a little high, the people of Louisiana disagree with me, and it's their call to make.
So, they decided it was 17. I am not a fan of hard-and-fast statutory rape laws; they are too inflexible. I think it's a travesty when you have a 16 year old boy charged with statutory rape for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Hard lines lead to hard law. On the other hand, we cannot err too much in the other direction, either. There are a plethora of cases that show well that if the judge has too much leeway in sentencing, that sometimes rapists get off with sentences either too light or too heavy to serve justice.
I think the so-called Romeo and Juliet laws are a terrific middle ground, which have a hard number, and then also have a modifier for a juvenile or young sexual partner. Louisiana has just such a law - a 16 year old child who has sex with an 18 year old adult would technically have committed statutory rape, but it's also merely a misdemeanor and unlikely to actually be prosecuted without there being another accompanying charge - in other words it's going to be the peas for some kind of actually-in-serious-trouble steak dinner. Again, we might argue over the specific ages but I think that these codicils to statutory rape laws serve the purpose of justice well.
In this case, when we have a 16 year old who had sex with a 24 year old, I think unmodified statutory rape is a reasonable charge. A 32 year old woman having sex with a 16 year old boy is, in my opinion, not even debatable anymore.
The other issue here, wholly separate, are the charges of an educator having sex with a student. I am not a fan of these when the student is of the age of consent. I understand they good they are trying to do and I also agree that an educator has a ethical responsibility to abstain with sex from their students, when we have an issue as we do with Louisiana educator sexual conduct law: a hypothetical 23 year old teacher having sex with a hypothetical 18 year old high school student off school grounds after hours is a criminal act.... I think this goes too far. I think a teacher in that position should be fired, but not prosecuted.
What I had been initially trying to discuss is that at 16 this guy could be perfectly capable of making the decision to participate in this situation
And he is. There is not a single law preventing him from banging on teacher, both teachers, getting his other 16 year old buddy to do the Eiffel Tower with the teachers. He can do whatever he wants as long as both teachers give their consent. He is not breaking a single law by banging his way through the teachers lounge.
....even though legally in LA he is absolved of any responsibility simply by virtue of a number,
He is not absolved, he never faced any responsibility to begin with. To be absolved implies that he broke a law to begin with but they decided not to charge him because he was 16. But since it is not illegal for 16 year old kids to have sex he didn't break the law. It's also not illegal for teachers to have sex.
and not upon evaluation of his actual mental/emotional maturity.
His mental emotional maturity has nothing to do with it. The case would be the same if he was a 16 year old kid with Down's Syndrome or a 16 year old Rhodes Scholar completing his Bachelors Degree at Yale.
It doesn't matter what they kid can and cannot do since it doesn't impact the laws that target someone else. We could take your argument and say that it shouldn't be illegal for the teacher to assault a student because that student is able to drive a car and enlist with his parents consent. The law doesn't affect the kid, it affects the teacher.
That society has deemed a 16 year old incompetent enough to make a legal decision to have sex....but can make a legally competent decision to murder someone strikes me as *very* moronic....and indeed...it definitely shows the hangup America has regarding sex.
not all society does,
most of the civilized world has age of consent at 16-14 IIRC... (it was 14 here till fairly recently)
most also think you can drink at 16-18 and so on.
it is a bit odd that you can be singled out as "an adult totally in control and aware of your actions" at 16 in regards to murder, but not in regards to sex, booze, R rated movies, and so on.
however, in THIS specific case, its deplorable regardless of the age/gender of the teachers/student as its a teacher/authority figure and student relationship which is never ok.
Exactly what I have tried to say (perhaps poorly?).
Not once have I said that this wasn't wrong...that the teachers weren't wrong..that this isn't an immoral or bad or in anyway legal act.
What I had been initially trying to discuss is that at 16 this guy could be perfectly capable of making the decision to participate in this situation....even though legally in LA he is absolved of any responsibility simply by virtue of a number, and not upon evaluation of his actual mental/emotional maturity.
I may have poorly worded my response, i meant more to elaborate on the point you were making.
I think we both agree the teachers are in the wrong here, regardless of age.
I think we also both agree that setting random ages for "when you can do stuff:" is a bit silly when you can smoke and drive before you can have sex or drink.
esp when so much of the world does allow that 16 year old to consent to sex.
Yes indeed the biggest issue I had was the age of consent and how it feels disproportionately high given many of the things a "normal" 16 y^o can legally do.
We actually agree, based on your far more detailed response!
And I offer my apologies for adding that unnecessarily sarcastic (what did you call it...:straw man"?) last couple sentences.
cincydooley wrote: Except they're not punishing the 16 year old for having sex......
I mean, that's pretty clear....
Are you suggesting the victim of statutory rape be prosecuted?
Obviously not. My first post makes that pretty clear.
Yes, it does - my apologies, I did not see the post that preceded the one I quoted, and I did not intentionally pick that one out of context.
TheMeanDM wrote: And I offer my apologies for adding that unnecessarily sarcastic (what did you call it...:straw man"?) last couple sentences.
No need, re-reading some of my earlier posts I was definitely being kind of a jerk so had it coming. My at-work internet access is greatly reduced from what it was and so some my postings were not as nuanced as I would have liked them to be, which again leads to mistakes wholly-my-own in both tone and issues like the first part of this post, I need to either read more carefully, or only post when i can do so more thoughtfully.
cincydooley wrote: Thought to be fair I'm so used to his "eeemereeeka Izz zeee worst" nonsense
What the hell are you talking about? The U.S. have a weird gun fetish, but apart from that, they are not very different from western European countries, really. We do not like people doing murder either, if I am to be completely honest with you .
As I was thinking about your argument I came across another thought as well.
Now I want to clarify that I don't think that this is the argument that you are making at all, so please don't feel like I am trying to argue that this is what you are thinking.
With that said, I do worry that some of your argument shifts the blame of the rape to the 16 year old and takes away some of the responsibility from the teachers.
Having a hard arbitrary age limit is inflexible, I won't argue that. And like I said before, I think it's perfectly viable to argue that it could be changed. But the limit makes it clear that the responsibility is on the adult that decides to have sex with a child. If we remove that limit and start to rely on the emotional ability of the child, then we just enter a lot of muddy waters. How do we test to see if a child was emotionally mature enough to consent to sex? How do we protect the adults in that situation? Will it be the fault of the child that the adult got charged with rape because they were too dumb to consent? Would we end up with a "it's your fault that you were raped because you were not emotionally mature enough to say yes" scenario?
Again, I'm not saying that you are arguing that the responsibility for the rape should be on the child. I just want to make that clear.
I'm just worried that going from a "don't have sex with kids under X years of age" system to a "don't have sex with kids that are not emotionally mature enough for it" system could end up shifting the blame for the rape to the wrong person.
I can't imagine what goes through the minds of such teachers. In the UK at least the age of consent is 16, but there is a straightforward abuse and manipulation of power problem over a child supposedly in your care. It's just so staggeringly unprofessional and in the face of the most basic rules laid down in teaching.
There was a guy in the UK who ran away abroad with a girl from his school. It's just crazy, he clearly exploited an infatuation, or bought into it making him either a groomer or complete idiot. After all the promises she would wait for him to serve his five years or whatever, within months shed met a boy her own age to go out with. Thank god.
timetowaste85 wrote: Pete, we've covered that they've done a bad thing. Now it's time to have some fun with the thread!!
Mah bad, didn't read past the first page.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Very few male 16 years old can top that........if it was my kid I have a celebration bee...eerrrrrrr kool aid with him in the backyard
I mean....I feel you man I really do. I remember being a 16 year old dude and having some hot teachers. Still, consider if it had been 2 adult male teachers running a train on a 16 year old girl. In terms of the way our institutions react, there has to be equal negative consequence.
I had one of these types of teachers while I was in school. She got caught and fired the year before I could have made an attempt at it. 5'1", 38DD, fiery redhead. An ass you could have bounced a quarter off of. And she was sleeping with the soccer team. Well, two of them, anyway. Lucky pricks.
And yes-they bragged. They weren't exactly harmed in the matter-they both had LOTS of fun.
I apparently had this type of teacher in college too-I didn't realize I had a shot when she was constantly flirting with me until after I left the school and found out she was banging students for grades. Ironically, she was a biology teacher. I wish I had known she didn't have moral qualms-I banged anything I could in college-I'd have no qualms about nailing my hot 30 year old teacher!
That is something I have always wondered about when it comes to these stories....
Why is it some teachers get busted and some just continue to go through the rumor mill. You know...everybody knows but everybody ignores it....? Teacher union? Weak school board? Inept police?
I don't think they are really breaking any actual laws by the time you are talking about college teachers. Probably lots of school policies, but it might be hard to prove rumors about having sex with students.
TheMeanDM wrote: That is something I have always wondered about when it comes to these stories....
Why is it some teachers get busted and some just continue to go through the rumor mill. You know...everybody knows but everybody ignores it....? Teacher union? Weak school board? Inept police?
Probably because they molest teenage boys instead of girls and apparently it's ok because those said boys are emotionally mature.
That society has deemed a 16 year old incompetent enough to make a legal decision to have sex....but can make a legally competent decision to murder someone strikes me as *very* moronic....and indeed...it definitely shows the hangup America has regarding sex.
not all society does,
most of the civilized world has age of consent at 16-14 IIRC... (it was 14 here till fairly recently)
most also think you can drink at 16-18 and so on.
it is a bit odd that you can be singled out as "an adult totally in control and aware of your actions" at 16 in regards to murder, but not in regards to sex, booze, R rated movies, and so on.
however, in THIS specific case, its deplorable regardless of the age/gender of the teachers/student as its a teacher/authority figure and student relationship which is never ok.
Exactly what I have tried to say (perhaps poorly?).
Not once have I said that this wasn't wrong...that the teachers weren't wrong..that this isn't an immoral or bad or in anyway legal act.
What I had been initially trying to discuss is that at 16 this guy could be perfectly capable of making the decision to participate in this situation....even though legally in LA he is absolved of any responsibility simply by virtue of a number, and not upon evaluation of his actual mental/emotional maturity.
Again, you're 16 aren't you. Let me squeeze your cheeks you're so cute when you stomp your feet and say you're a big boy. SO CUUUUUTTE.
also how did these threads get intertwined, I thought I had responded to the wrong thread but no?
Someone above my post mentioned getting their bingo cards ready for this thread so having just commented on the Ebola thread it was fresh on my mind, that's all.
TheMeanDM wrote: What I had been initially trying to discuss is that at 16 this guy could be perfectly capable of making the decision to participate in this situation....even though legally in LA he is absolved of any responsibility simply by virtue of a number, and not upon evaluation of his actual mental/emotional maturity.
Yeah, but that isn't how laws work. Take for instance DUIs (this is just an example, I'm not condoning anything): I might be able to drive perfectly fine under the influence of marijuana, but maybe my friend can't. To solve that problem we make it illegal for everyone.
Ouze wrote: I see. Definitely a confusing moment but it worked out well I think.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree child abuse is a thing. My point is how things change. 16 you can drive a car, own a gun, be tried as an adult. Join the marines under certain circumstances. But not have sex?
How can you own a gun at 16? and you're usually only tried as an adult for the most heinous crimes/repeated offenses
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree child abuse is a thing. My point is how things change. 16 you can drive a car, own a gun, be tried as an adult. Join the marines under certain circumstances. But not have sex?
How can you own a gun at 16? and you're usually only tried as an adult for the most heinous crimes/repeated offenses
There is no federal legislation setting a minimum age for long gun ownership, nor should there be in my opinion: in rural areas younger boys and girls hunting is both natural and needed. Some states have set a limit, anywhere from 14 to 18 to not at all, but in almost all the ones that do have a limit there is a parent or guardian while hunting exception.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree child abuse is a thing. My point is how things change. 16 you can drive a car, own a gun, be tried as an adult. Join the marines under certain circumstances. But not have sex?
How can you own a gun at 16? and you're usually only tried as an adult for the most heinous crimes/repeated offenses
There is no federal legislation setting a minimum age for long gun ownership, nor should there be in my opinion: in rural areas younger boys and girls hunting is both natural and needed. Some states have set a limit, anywhere from 14 to 18 to not at all, but in almost all the ones that do have a limit there is a parent or guardian while hunting exception.
There is a minimum age for purchasing a gun, but that doesn't really cover "owning" so there might be some confusion there.
There is a minimum age for purchasing a gun, but that doesn't really cover "owning" so there might be some confusion there.
What are the laws regarding what an un-emancipated minor actually owns? I don't know, but I suspect that there are some laws suggesting that a minor's property is actually owned by his or her parents or guardian.
The could have possession of a firearm, but could they legally be said to "own" the firearm?
I'm sure that some places have laws governing if and when a minor can possess a gun and whether or not adult supervision is required.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree child abuse is a thing. My point is how things change. 16 you can drive a car, own a gun, be tried as an adult. Join the marines under certain circumstances. But not have sex?
How can you own a gun at 16? and you're usually only tried as an adult for the most heinous crimes/repeated offenses
There is no federal legislation setting a minimum age for long gun ownership, nor should there be in my opinion: in rural areas younger boys and girls hunting is both natural and needed. Some states have set a limit, anywhere from 14 to 18 to not at all, but in almost all the ones that do have a limit there is a parent or guardian while hunting exception.
As referenced to someone else, yeah, what I was getting at was I guess how someone could purchase a gun under 18, though I'm not sure; could you technically own a gun your father gave you if you were say 14?
From what I've seen here, AoC is 17. But it doesn't matter-it was taped. And it was teachers and student. So AoC doesn't even matter too much, as ALL the other rules were broken anyway.
I still don't understand how 16&17 yr old kids in some states are allowed to consent to sex, but sending nudies to their SO is illegal. And, it's not that I'm suggesting the nude pics are okay-rather that they should be more harmless than actually having sex...but the sex is okay, the pics aren't. It's weird. Seems backwards.
I still don't understand how 16&17 yr old kids in some states are allowed to consent to sex, but sending nudies to their SO is illegal. And, it's not that I'm suggesting the nude pics are okay-rather that they should be more harmless than actually having sex...but the sex is okay, the pics aren't. It's weird. Seems backwards.
Maybe because the pictures will be around long after the sex has been reduced to a faint odour and a notch on the bedpost?
I still don't understand how 16&17 yr old kids in some states are allowed to consent to sex, but sending nudies to their SO is illegal. And, it's not that I'm suggesting the nude pics are okay-rather that they should be more harmless than actually having sex...but the sex is okay, the pics aren't. It's weird. Seems backwards.
Maybe because the pictures will be around long after the sex has been reduced to a faint odour and a notch on the bedpost?
Definitely. Also, because of Child Porn laws. Once a picture is taken it can fairly easily wind up on the web. It's illegal to create and/or disseminate sexual pictures of underage minors. Even if they are pictures of ones self.
I still don't understand how 16&17 yr old kids in some states are allowed to consent to sex, but sending nudies to their SO is illegal. And, it's not that I'm suggesting the nude pics are okay-rather that they should be more harmless than actually having sex...but the sex is okay, the pics aren't. It's weird. Seems backwards.
Maybe because the pictures will be around long after the sex has been reduced to a faint odour and a notch on the bedpost?
Definitely. Also, because of Child Porn laws. Once a picture is taken it can fairly easily wind up on the web. It's illegal to create and/or disseminate sexual pictures of underage minors. Even if they are pictures of ones self.
I still don't understand how 16&17 yr old kids in some states are allowed to consent to sex, but sending nudies to their SO is illegal. And, it's not that I'm suggesting the nude pics are okay-rather that they should be more harmless than actually having sex...but the sex is okay, the pics aren't. It's weird. Seems backwards.
Maybe because the pictures will be around long after the sex has been reduced to a faint odour and a notch on the bedpost?
Definitely. Also, because of Child Porn laws. Once a picture is taken it can fairly easily wind up on the web. It's illegal to create and/or disseminate sexual pictures of underage minors. Even if they are pictures of ones self.
seriously, child abuse, especially of a sexual nature, is a very real problem and as such, laws like this exist to protect children
.
and you're usually only tried as an adult for the most heinous crimes/repeated offenses
