Teacher, 43, 'gave her 8th grade student oral sex in her classroom' - Is the kid lucky? You decide - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rapist;44350327]This is a bit stupid though, it's just one year. This'd be pretty bad if he was 13 but what if this was a 16 year old? Would you react differently?[/QUOTE] It still wouldn't be consensual if he was 16. If the older participant is more than three years older than, or in a position of power over, the younger one then the younger one must be 18. The laws are a bit complicated, but they make sense.

I wouldn't say no to a blowie at 15

[QUOTE=wulfe8857;44350285]43 years old is a bit much older for a 15 year old. So, yeah, I'd say it's pretty easy to judge this morally given the context. You could also compare it to other places in America, but that would be fruitless because 16 is the lowest age of consent, and that very often requires that the offender be no more than 19 or 20.[/QUOTE] I said moraly, not legaly. There is a law in some English city that states that you can legaly kill a scotsman if he brings a bow within the city walls - however I'm pretty sure that it would be somewhat questionable ethically. What I'm trying to say that what the law says and what the moraly correct thing is are two compleatly diffrent things - especially when we talk about a law that waries so much between countries.

Id imagine banging some of my teachers all day long when I was 15.

[QUOTE=Rapist;44350327]This is a bit stupid though, it's just one year. This'd be pretty bad if he was 13 but what if this was a 16 year old? Would you react differently?[/QUOTE] I would not react differently because the woman is still exploiting a position of authority over an impressionable kid. Relationships with your teachers are pretty universally disallowed regardless of whether the kid is 18 even [editline]25th March 2014[/editline] also the fact that I don't think 15 should be old enough to consent to sex with someone of any age

I think teachers and people in positions of power probably shouldn't have relationship with their students but to describe him as a victim is just ridiculous. Are we really to believe that at a 15 year old couldn't possibly want a blowjob? Describing things like this as rape and using terms like “victim” devalues the terms and normalizes the idea of "rape" as being a minor offence rather than an extremely serious offence. Nothing is achieved by pretending to be outraged that a 15 year old might want sex.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;44350693]I think teachers and people in positions of power probably shouldn't have relationship with their students but to describe him as a victim is just ridiculous. Are we really to believe that at a 15 year old couldn't possibly want a blowjob? Describing things like this as rape and using terms like “victim” devalues the terms and normalizes the idea of "rape" as being a minor offence rather than an extremely serious offence. Nothing is achieved by pretending to be outraged that a 15 year old might want sex.[/QUOTE] the point of age of consent law is not that "anyone under x years old can't possibly want sex"

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44350734]the point of age of consent law is not that "anyone under x years old can't possibly want sex"[/QUOTE] I didn't claim that it was. The point I was making was that describing consensual (in the literal sense of the term) sex as rape is absurd. By all indications the boy willingly had sex and despite this being known it is still said that he was raped. Is that not ridiculous?

[quote]Is the kid lucky? You decide[/quote] Are you absolutely fucking shitting me, OP? That, and all the people who came in saying that he [I]is[/I]? Fucking hell, some of you people.

Put it this way in 10 years time when this kid is 25 will he really regret fucking the life out of her? Edit: (Doesn't count if he finds Jesus)

[QUOTE=Killzone(Dylan);44350804]Put it this way in 10 years time when this kid is 25 will he really regret fucking the life out of her? Edit: (Doesn't count if he finds Jesus)[/QUOTE] He might, if he had sex with someone his own age he could also possibly regret it eventually.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;44350764]I didn't claim that it was. The point I was making was that describing consensual (in the literal sense of the term) sex as rape is absurd. By all indications the boy willingly had sex and despite this being known it is still said that he was raped. Is that not ridiculous?[/QUOTE] I don't see why it's ridiculous. Rape is non-consensual sex by definition and this was non-consensual sex. There's a reason it's called "statutory rape." The word is there so you know it wasn't violent, coerced with chemicals, etc. [editline]25th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Aidan_088;44350817]He might, if he had sex with someone his own age he could also possibly regret it eventually.[/QUOTE] Sure, but it doesn't make sense to punish two people of the same age making a mistake together. Whereas a 43-year-old woman [I]is[/I] capable (at the very least in the eyes of the law) of making an informed decision to have sex. So sex between two underage people is not exploitative, whereas the situation described in the article is. [QUOTE=Killzone(Dylan);44350804]Put it this way in 10 years time when this kid is 25 will he really regret fucking the life out of her? Edit: (Doesn't count if he finds Jesus)[/QUOTE] Is it so ridiculous to think that he could regret it? If the genders were reversed the question wouldn't even need to be asked.

To be honest the most regret I can possibly imagine coming from either genders would be "Wow I can't believe I slept with him/her" I doubt they would really be mentally scarred about it.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44350834]I don't see why it's ridiculous. Rape is non-consensual sex by definition and this was non-consensual sex. There's a reason it's called "statutory rape." The word is there so you know it wasn't violent, coerced with chemicals, etc.[/QUOTE] If speaking legally yes but these laws change with time and place. 15 year olds can legally consent to sex in France and many other nations. Are French teenagers more mature than English teenagers? I just think that the law is arbitrary and there is no international agreement on which age is the right age and yet within a nation it is treated so severely even if the individual is only very slightly beneath the local age of consent. So I think it's ridiculous because it is possible to have sex with a 15 year old in Paris but if you do the exact same thing in London it is rape. I think it is absurd that rape can be legally defined. Presumably if you think rape should be legally defined you are fine with the legally consummated marriages of children with adults in Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps you have you just, by coincidence, decided that the laws of consent in the country you were born in are right and all others are wrong without really thinking about why. [editline]25th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44350834] Sure, but it doesn't make sense to punish two people of the same age making a mistake together. Whereas a 43-year-old woman [I]is[/I] capable (at the very least in the eyes of the law) of making an informed decision to have sex. So sex between two underage people is not exploitative, whereas the situation described in the article is. [/QUOTE] Are you really suggesting that it is impossible for a 15 year old to rape or coerce another 15 year old. That definitely is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;44350889]If speaking legally yes but these laws change with time and place. 15 year olds can legally consent to sex in France and many other nations. Are French teenagers more mature than English teenagers? I just think that the law is arbitrary and there is no international agreement on which age is the right age and yet within a nation it is treated so severely even if the individual is only very slightly beneath the local age of consent. So I think it's ridiculous because it is possible to have sex with a 15 year old in Paris but if you do the exact same thing in London it is rape. I think it is absurd that rape can be legally defined. Presumably if you think rape should be legally defined you are fine with the legally consummated marriages of children with adults in Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps you have you just, by coincidence, decided that the laws of consent in the country you were born in are right and all others are wrong without really thinking about why.[/QUOTE] What? You're putting words in my mouth. I have my own standard for what I think is appropriate age of consent. I don't just conform to the laws of whatever country I happen to be in. [editline]25th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Aidan_088;44350889]Are you really suggesting that it is impossible for a 15 year old to rape or coerce another 15 year old. That definitely is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] No, and nowhere did I remotely say that. I was referring to two 15-year-olds having consensual sex because what was relevant. Why do you insist on purposely making strawman argument from my posts?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44350902]What? You're putting words in my mouth. I have my own standard for what I think is appropriate age of consent. I don't just conform to the laws of whatever country I happen to be in.[/QUOTE] If I understand you correctly, you claimed that rape and consent should be legally defined. If that were the case it would follow that the legal definition in Saudi Arabia are just as valid as the legal definition in England. I doubt you actually think that. I was just demonstrating the problems with a legal definition of rape, namely that it can be changed.

[QUOTE=katbug;44349881]I'd actually say the student sounds pretty lucky, at least as far as his own desires go. He's 15, by far old enough to make his own decisions "he saw Long and the 15-year-old alleged victim engaged in bizarre horseplay - namely, the witness said he saw the 15-year-old student spanking Long." definitely sounds like it was entirely consensual.[/QUOTE] I meant to rate agree. Stupid phone.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44350902] No, and nowhere did I remotely say that. I was referring to two 15-year-olds having consensual sex because what was relevant. Why do you insist on purposely making strawman argument from my posts?[/QUOTE] Just as a 15 year old will not necessarily rape or coerce a fellow 15 year old the same is true of a 15 year old and an adult. Rape and coercion are possible but not guaranteed in both cases.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;44350937]If I understand you correctly, you claimed that rape and consent should be legally defined.[/QUOTE] They [I]are[/I] defined legally. That doesn't mean I have to agree with any legal definition. [QUOTE=Aidan_088;44350937]If that were the case it would follow that the legal definition in Saudi Arabia are just as valid as the legal definition in England.[/QUOTE] Sure I guess they're both "valid" in a vacuous sense. Murder is defined legally too, but if Saudi Arabia defined squashing a fly as murder that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. [QUOTE=Aidan_088;44350937]I doubt you actually think that. I was just demonstrating the problems with a legal definition of rape, namely that it can be changed.[/QUOTE] I don't see the problem you're attempting to raise except for you seem to think that I am incapable of disagreeing with laws. [editline]25th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Aidan_088;44350959]Just as a 15 year old will not necessarily rape or coerce a fellow 15 year old the same is true of a 15 year old and an adult. Rape and coercion are possible but not guaranteed in both cases.[/QUOTE] But it still is rape because it's being done without the ability of the child to consent. You could possibly get a 9-year-old to agree to have sex with you but does that make it not rape, or not exploitative?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44350974]They [I]are[/I] defined legally. That doesn't mean I have to agree with any legal definition. Sure I guess they're both "valid" in a vacuous sense. Murder is defined legally too, but if Saudi Arabia defined squashing a fly as murder that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't see the problem you're attempting to raise except for you seem to think that I am incapable of disagreeing with laws.[/QUOTE] I said is was absurd that consensual sex should be defined as rape. You brought up legal definitions of the terms in response. I stated that these terms can change with time and jurisdiction. My overall point is that knee jerk moral panic based on local law is silly. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but you and others seemed to be arguing that the current laws of England were perfect as is and anyone who disagrees is sick or evil. [editline]25th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44350974] But it still is rape because it's being done without the ability of the child to consent. You could possibly get a 9-year-old to agree to have sex with you but does that make it not rape, or not exploitative?[/QUOTE] I don't think the age of consent should be abolished. I just think that 16 is too high. I agree a 9 year old probably couldn't fully understand sex but I think most 15 year olds probably could.

16 is not too high what It should be 18 IMO

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;44351012]I said is was absurd that consensual sex should be defined as rape. You brought up legal definitions of the terms in response. I stated that these terms can and change with time and jurisdiction. My overall point is that knee jerk moral panic based on local law is silly. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but you and others seemed to be arguing that the current laws of England were perfect as is and anyone who disagrees is sick or evil.[/QUOTE] I'm confused. I am not from England. I don't know anything about English age of consent law, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. I am saying that, according to the law, this is rape. Rape is non-consensual sex, and this sex was non-consensual, so it doesn't make sense to say that the kid agreed thus it was consensual. That's not how consent works, unless you believe no age of consent should exist whatsoever. I am not from England, I don't know anything about their age of consent law, and have no particular attachment to their laws.

what the fuck is wrong with some of you, there was a thread like this a few days ago where everyone was cheering the kid on too, but the one a few weeks ago about the girl being raped was filled with pissed off people. you guys are legitimately fucked in the head if you think this is remotely near cool

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;44351045]16 is not too high what It should be 18 IMO[/QUOTE] Personally I think 16 year olds should be able to consent to sex to people within a limit (up to and including age 19? I dunno) and then 18 should make it universal. Plus a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old having sex wouldn't be prosecuted etc., smaller exceptions like that. Basically it's complicated shit.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44351063]Personally I think 16 year olds should be able to consent to sex to people within a limit (up to and including age 19? I dunno) and then 18 should make it universal. Plus a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old having sex wouldn't be prosecuted etc., smaller exceptions like that. Basically it's complicated shit.[/QUOTE] Yeah that whole Romeo-Juiliet laws. The age of consent here is like 16 but there are laws that allow children not to be prosecuted

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44351063]Personally I think 16 year olds should be able to consent to sex to people within a limit (up to and including age 19? I dunno) and then 18 should make it universal. Plus a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old having sex wouldn't be prosecuted etc., smaller exceptions like that. Basically it's complicated shit.[/QUOTE] But why? A hypothetical 16 year old could be just as easily raped or coerced by an 18 year old as they could be by a 25 year old. Other than personal preference what is the reasoning behind this distinction?

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;44351089]But why? A hypothetical 16 year old could be just as easily raped or coerced by an 18 year old as they could be by a 25 year old. Other than personal preference what is the reasoning behind this distinction?[/QUOTE] I really have no idea what you're asking. When on earth have I said an 18-year-old cannot rape or coerce a 16-year-old?

There's a huge difference between an 18 year old and a 25 year old

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;44350693]I think teachers and people in positions of power probably shouldn't have relationship with their students but to describe him as a victim is just ridiculous. Are we really to believe that at a 15 year old couldn't possibly want a blowjob? Describing things like this as rape and using terms like “victim” devalues the terms and normalizes the idea of "rape" as being a minor offence rather than an extremely serious offence. Nothing is achieved by pretending to be outraged that a 15 year old might want sex.[/QUOTE] It doesn't devalue the terms at all. The problem here is you thinking this case is a minor offense.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44351109]I really have no idea what you're asking. When on earth have I said an 18-year-old cannot rape or coerce a 16-year-old?[/QUOTE] If I understand you, you said that a 16 year old should be allowed to have sex with someone up to 18 but not beyond. I assumed your reasoning for this was that rape or coercive sex would be less likely with a smaller age difference. I am asking why you think a 16 year old should be able to have sex with an 18 year old but not with someone over 18 because as far as I can tell the same risks and power imbalances would be present in both cases.