Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Reasoned? Really Ouze?!?

All I could say is why wasn't SHE there when I was in school.

She was probably a baby when you were in school, you sick bastard.

LOL... touche.... you knew what I meant!

 Ouze wrote:
What makes you think she molested a boy "to get back at her spouse"?

Re-read my post. It clearly says "might" be a domestic issue.

dogma wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

In terms of it being disgusting it would be relevant. Unless you consider cheating to be okay and perfectly ethical behavior. I'm operating under the assumption it was not an open relationship. If it was, well different strokes.

I assume it was either open, or unsatisfying. Open means "cheating" is fully acceptable, the lack of satisfaction creates a grey area.

No, it doesn't. If you are not satisfied attempt to reconcile, get a divorce or at the very least separate. At no time is cheating acceptable or even in a "gray area."

 trexmeyer wrote:

dogma wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

In terms of it being disgusting it would be relevant. Unless you consider cheating to be okay and perfectly ethical behavior. I'm operating under the assumption it was not an open relationship. If it was, well different strokes.

I assume it was either open, or unsatisfying. Open means "cheating" is fully acceptable, the lack of satisfaction creates a grey area.

No, it doesn't. If you are not satisfied attempt to reconcile, get a divorce or at the very least separate. At no time is cheating acceptable or even in a "gray area."

And at no point should cheating affect a case like this, it is really irrelevant to her punishment by law. She can get divorced and if she had a prenup or something then it would have an effect, but as it is, it shouldn't change anything.

Nice.

And yeah, if the boy didn't mind, I don't see the problem. Hell, I know I wanted to tap one or 2 of my teachers back at that age.

 whembly wrote:
All I could say is why wasn't SHE there when I was in school.

I know, right? My teachers were all either old or fugly in a road-kill kinda way.

 motyak wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

dogma wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

In terms of it being disgusting it would be relevant. Unless you consider cheating to be okay and perfectly ethical behavior. I'm operating under the assumption it was not an open relationship. If it was, well different strokes.

I assume it was either open, or unsatisfying. Open means "cheating" is fully acceptable, the lack of satisfaction creates a grey area.

No, it doesn't. If you are not satisfied attempt to reconcile, get a divorce or at the very least separate. At no time is cheating acceptable or even in a "gray area."

And at no point should cheating affect a case like this, it is really irrelevant to her punishment by law. She can get divorced and if she had a prenup or something then it would have an effect, but as it is, it shouldn't change anything.

It's not affecting the case. The discussion involving her cheating involves moral, not legal ramifications.

 Soladrin wrote:
Nice.

And yeah, if the boy didn't mind, I don't see the problem. Hell, I know I wanted to tap one or 2 of my teachers back at that age.

Man, such double standards.

Nobody would care if it was a young female initiating, if she initiated and the male teacher wanted it too, we'd slap him with 25 to life and that'd be the end of it.

Disgusting double standards and the people who perpetuate it.

So, a teacher broke the law on two counts- one having sex with a student and two having sex with a minor.

In a fair and equal society that is the extent of the information you need to sentence the perpetrator. If you adjust your sentencing based on the gender -whichever way you do so- you are showing your bias.

And yeah, if the boy didn't mind, I don't see the problem. Hell, I know I wanted to tap one or 2 of my teachers back at that age.

Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.

 Kojiro wrote:
So, a teacher broke the law on two counts- one having sex with a student and two having sex with a minor.

In a fair and equal society that is the extent of the information you need to sentence the perpetrator. If you adjust your sentencing based on the gender -whichever way you do so- you are showing your bias.

And yeah, if the boy didn't mind, I don't see the problem. Hell, I know I wanted to tap one or 2 of my teachers back at that age.

Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.

I have a sister in law that had a much older gym teacher in her high scool cultivate a relationship with her. Such people, male or female are nothing more than pond scum in their actions.

 Kojiro wrote:
Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.

I got raped a lot as a teenager, in that case. Don't regret it.

 Kojiro wrote:
Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that sex with a minor is defined as rape rather than it's own distinct crime? It often overlaps with rape but that's no reason to just lump the two together.

 Kojiro wrote:
Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Sure, but it wasn't, you know, rape-rape.



The boy was probably older than his chronological age.



And the age of consent is just a number, anyway. Most teenagers know what they are doing. That's not really criminal.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that sex with a minor is defined as rape rather than it's own distinct crime? It often overlaps with rape but that's no reason to just lump the two together.

It's not different than having sex with a woman who has passed out; in that the other party is incapable of giving consent.

 Seaward wrote:
I got raped a lot as a teenager, in that case. Don't regret it.

Are you proposing that when adults abuse their positions of trust and power shouldn't be charged? Because not everyone has no regrets.
I suppose you're lucky your partner (assuming she was female) didn't get pregnant and force you to deal with the consequences of that affair, or give you a disease or otherwise impact your life negatively.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Get the sand out of your crack.

A 25 year old woman OR man who will go to a highschool party and have sex with a student to get back at his or her spouse is probably suffering from some kind of mental illness, diagnosed or undiagnosed. How is it that you always manage to get offended for the most idiotic reasons?

I'm not offended.

I'm asking a pointed question, which you did not answer, regarding how you arrived at the conclusion that the woman in question has a mental illness.

I find this ridiculous... honestly even if he did come on to her it's her responsibility to tell him where to go. I'm sick of the whole women getting away scott free when it comes to things like this. The point of statutory rape laws isn't really for post-pubescence it's for post adolescence because it's not whether you know what sex is and how to do it. it's more of the consequences and all that jazz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm sick of anyone who gets off of rape charges for bullcrap reasons. Justice is just a word apparently .

Well she was drunk, so her sense of inhibition and responsibility was reduced.

She got probation, a $5,000 fine and lost her job, which isn't exactly getting away scot free. She will probably never work as a teacher again.

Looking at the Texas history of sentencing of such cases we see that "the whole women getting away scott free" is not a fact but something you've imagined. There are plenty of women in gaol for it.

http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-prisons/crimes/improper-relationship-between-educatorstudent/830/#term_chart

well scott free was obviously an exaggeration my friend. Still Im am sick of the world and how it works, I am not complaining about my life because I know I have no room to complain , my life isn't as bad as others and IK that(though a lot of people in my country tend to think their lives are so bad(which they are far from anything bad). My point is all these jerks, these scumbags get less punishment then they deserve...like celebs n ATTRACTIVE women what not.. jail btw...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well she was drunk, so her sense of inhibition and responsibility was reduced.

I must confess, that is a compelling defense that should work in a variety of criminal cases.

However, since this had been going on for months (from that second article I linked... somewhere in here) I wonder if she was bombed all the time. A noble endeavor, to be sure.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
She got probation, a $5,000 fine and lost her job, which isn't exactly getting away scot free. She will probably never work as a teacher again.

Looking at the Texas history of sentencing of such cases we see that "the whole women getting away scott free" is not a fact but something you've imagined. There are plenty of women in gaol for it.

http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-prisons/crimes/improper-relationship-between-educatorstudent/830/#term_chart

I don't dispute that some women have been jailed, my concern is that this one was not. Although, now that we're looking at that chart, it appears that men go to jail for that specific offense a little about 80% more than women, despite the fact that elementary school teachers in the US are 76% female. So, I think there's a possibility of some judicial bias after all.

Yes, she probably will never work as a teacher again. Is that actually a sufficient punishment? To my thinking, it is not. While the 20 years she could have gotten would have been too extreme, I think a sex offender registry should have been the minimum.

Relapse wrote:

She is betraying the trust of her husband, leaving room fo the consequences the betrayal and scandal that come to him emotionaly, physically, and sociologically.

Well, she might be. Marriage does not imply the existence of a monogamous relationship, though I suppose placing oneself in legal jeopardy could also constitute a betrayal of trust.

Relapse wrote:

When the kid she had her fling with has time to reflect on what part he has possibly played in the wreck of a marriage, if it falls apart, and he has a shred of concience, it's going to burn him badly.

If it would have bothered him at all, it would have bothered him at the beginning of the relationship.

Relapse wrote:

Remember this relationship?

http://abcnews.go.com/news/t/blogEntry?id=15823439&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Yes, and it clearly demonstrates that married, white men in their 40's cannot be trusted around girls of high school age.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well she was drunk, so her sense of inhibition and responsibility was reduced.

I must confess, that is a compelling defense that should work in a variety of criminal cases.

However, since this had been going on for months (from that second article I linked... somewhere in here) I wonder if she was bombed all the time. A noble endeavor, to be sure.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
She got probation, a $5,000 fine and lost her job, which isn't exactly getting away scot free. She will probably never work as a teacher again.

Looking at the Texas history of sentencing of such cases we see that "the whole women getting away scott free" is not a fact but something you've imagined. There are plenty of women in gaol for it.

http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-prisons/crimes/improper-relationship-between-educatorstudent/830/#term_chart

I don't dispute that some women have been jailed, my concern is that this one was not. Although, now that we're looking at that chart, it appears that men go to jail for that specific offense a little about 80% more than women, despite the fact that elementary school teachers in the US are 76% female. So, I think there's a possibility of some judicial bias after all.

Yeah that's what I found interesting about the chart...


Also I find that being drunk is no excuse if anything it should play into increasing sentences...not lessening them. I could just go kill someone and be like" oh I was dwunk, im sowwy" .
And possibly get manslaughter instead

 Ouze wrote:

It's not different than having sex with a woman who has passed out; in that the other party is incapable of giving consent.

I think it's a disservice to sixteen year olds around the world to say that they have the decision making abilities of someone that's unconscious.

 trexmeyer wrote:

No, it doesn't. If you are not satisfied attempt to reconcile, get a divorce or at the very least separate. At no time is cheating acceptable or even in a "gray area."

You basically described the grey area.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

It's not different than having sex with a woman who has passed out; in that the other party is incapable of giving consent.

I think it's a disservice to sixteen year olds around the world to say that they have the decision making abilities of someone that's unconscious.

I am a guy so can't really call me sexist on this one but come on , a majority of teenage boys don't think with the head they should be thinking with if you know what I mean...

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

It's not different than having sex with a woman who has passed out; in that the other party is incapable of giving consent.

I think it's a disservice to sixteen year olds around the world to say that they have the decision making abilities of someone that's unconscious.

It's not a distinction that I have drawn, it's the one the citizens of Texas have decided upon for themselves via their duly elected state representatives. Those same citizens, I hasten to add, also saw fit to criminalize an educator having sex with their students regardless of the age of the student.

 Kojiro wrote:
Are you proposing that when adults abuse their positions of trust and power shouldn't be charged?

No. Merely taking issue with the notion that a 16 year-old can't give consent as a hard and fast rule. As 16 is the age of consent in most states, it rings false. As someone who had sex while 16, it rings false.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
I think it's a disservice to sixteen year olds around the world to say that they have the decision making abilities of someone that's unconscious.

Except he's claiming it's universally true- clearly there are decisions a sixteen year old can make- but in terms of sex and the possible repercussions then no, they are not able to conset. They lack the maturity, foresight and appreciation of what they might truly be getting into.

By saying they can consent you're saying they're ready to decide to become a parent, ready to risk their lives with possible diseases and ready to potentially shoulder the financial burdens of child rearing. There may be exceptions who are ready at sixteen but they'd be few and far between. It's the same reason sex ed (in particular contraceptive use) is so terribly important. You can't stop teenages from having sex but you can damn well make it as safe as possible for them.

 Kojiro wrote:
Except he's claiming it's universally true- clearly there are decisions a sixteen year old can make- but in terms of sex and the possible repercussions then no, they are not able to conset. They lack the maturity, foresight and appreciation of what they might truly be getting into.

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia disagree with you. As does a hell of a lot of Europe, come to think of it.

Aren't there a few states that have an age range instead of a set age of consent? Like someone within 3 years of your age or so is fine?

 Seaward wrote:
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia disagree with you. As does a hell of a lot of Europe, come to think of it.

Funny I don't see Texas on that list.

Even so we're now arguing for the arbitrary legal age. I'm more than happy to say sixteen year old boys don't think straight when it comes to (the possibility of getting) sex. Feel free to disagree with that- like Texas does.

More over I would ask at what point do you draw the line?