This is Ridiculous.

[Brian Ellis]

Firstly. I doubt very much whether I've been tainted by any experience: it is something that happened but it has in no way prevented me from having a normal sexual life.

So, if Michael Jackson's victims were consensual, this makes it all right, does it?

And you never responded to the Christian ethic, either.

Nor to her abuse of her position: teachers are supposed to give an example, not to be morally corrupt.

Frankly, I am so astonished by your position that I feel there must be something abnormal about your own psyche. You must know that a 14 y-o kid may be raging with hormones, but he doesn't even think about mature women. I experienced puberty at an early age (10) but I know damn well that at 14 I was curious about girls of around my age and even tried (unsuccessfully) to "get off" with a couple of them, but my approaches were far too callow to get within a mile of the target. At that age, my practical experience was purely masturbatory. I think if a mature woman had approached me sexually, I would have run a mile. Perhaps, your experience was different, which is why you champion pederasty. Maybe you would care to elucidate???

I'm not high and mighty about anything: it is yourself, at the beginning of this thread, that were high and mighty about the law not condoning pederasty.

[schmosef]

Well, what if it was a man and the student was a young, sexually confused boy, who thought he "wanted it" at the time.

Should we respect his feelings then?

Sexual maturity doesn't always develop at the same rate as emotional maturity. Yes I would have loved to bone my grade 9 gym teacher. But she would have been wrong for letting me.

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
Firstly. I doubt very much whether I've been tainted by any experience: it is something that happened but it has in no way prevented me from having a normal sexual life.

Really? Something seems to have made you particularly hateful toward this woman.

So, if Michael Jackson's victims were consensual, this makes it all right, does it?

I never said that what she did was all right, I just don't think it deserves to be criminalized, and certainly not to the extent that she should deserve jail time or some sort of cruel and unusual punishment such as you have discussed. I did say that I personally do not approve of homosexuality and the M.J. case involves younger boys and a much older, much weirder man of another race who is practically a God to many people and thus difficult to say no to, so real desire for M.J. by any 12yo white boy (or anyone else, for that matter) is pretty much inconceivable to me. Any real consent should therefore be pretty doubtful to any reasonable person. The kid would pretty much have to passionately declare in court that he actively sought out MJ for sex before I could let Jackson off the hook. The cases are not identical by any means, and should not be treated in a similar way.

And you never responded to the Christian ethic, either.

What Christian ethic? Jesus referred to harming others. Did she really harm her 14yo lover? I think more harm was done by the mother by coercing her son to think that this was so evil that he needed to help bring her down in this way. Certainly more harm is being done to the teacher now than she ever did herself.

Even you claim no lasting harm from your experience, which was apparently much more one-sided and deviant on the part of your abuser, and not consensual on your part.

Nor to her abuse of her position: teachers are supposed to give an example, not to be morally corrupt.

Was she morally corrupt? If there was real affection there I say not unforgivably. I did say that I considered her adultery and abusing her position of authority as a much more serious transgression than the age of the person she had the affair with, but these are not addressed by law at all. It is the assumption that she raped the boy that has her facing the possibility of 60 years in prison.

Frankly, I am so astonished by your position that I feel there must be something abnormal about your own psyche. You must know that a 14 y-o kid may be raging with hormones, but he doesn't even think about mature women. I experienced puberty at an early age (10) but I know damn well that at 14 I was curious about girls of around my age and even tried (unsuccessfully) to "get off" with a couple of them, but my approaches were far too callow to get within a mile of the target. At that age, my practical experience was purely masturbatory. I think if a mature woman had approached me sexually, I would have run a mile. Perhaps, your experience was different, which is why you champion pederasty. Maybe you would care to elucidate???

I thought about mature women when I was 14, and most others here have, too. I seriously doubt that is abnormal. If the relationship started normally like any other and there was friendship and trust and it escalated from there, then I would not have been frightened in the least. If someone out of the blue approaches you and grabs your crotch, though, age is not important.. that is abusive.

And don't you bloody well put in my mouth that I "condone pederasty." Look it up. It has homosexual connotations of anal penetration of boys, which is another matter completely. That is just a cheap insult, much like my calling you an inquisitionist, so let's wipe the mud off and be more civil now, shall we?

I'm not high and mighty about anything: it is yourself, at the beginning of this thread, that were high and mighty about the law not condoning pederasty.

Again, you are twisting things quite a bit. I simply think this woman is being far too severely punished for her sins. She is not a pederast.. she is a heterosexual, and so is he. Each was sexually mature and attracted to the other. The level of deviance here is extremely low.

[Lambo-Fan]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn


Unless.. I think we should privatize prisons, and I volunteer my house as a prison and myself as warden.

Hm, how would you "punish" her?

[Marshmallowman]

Yeah we have all have our fantasies about teachers, but in reality it was wrong no matter how you wish it happened to you.

Teachers are there to teach and set a reponsible example, saying this case is different sets a nasty precedent. If she really had wanted a relationship with this "boy" she have kept it platonic until he reached a legal age at the least, let alone deal with her current marriage.

She is not a person who can deal with the reponsibly of her position, and in fact abused it.
I think a prisons sentence probably is justified, but I would hope its of short duration becasue I don't think she did *to* much harm...but she certainly abused here position badly

Lets not "our" fantasies cloud the issue here.

[Brian Ellis]

Although, in English, pederasty connotes man and boy as the first example in mind, I'm living in a Greek-speaking country and I know the etymology:
paidi = child
erastis = lover
The word can and does mean any combination of sexual partnership where one partner (willing or not) is a child, as is this case.

Incidentally, the Greeks have three words for 'love', agapi, storgi and erotas, meaning resp. non-sexual love between man and woman, tender solicitude and sexual or physical love. It's a pity English is so poor tto have one word for all three meanings, likely to cause confusion.

[DukeP]

Consensual.

Here lies the problem.

When is something consensual?

Some people are capable of making completely adult decisions at the age of 12.
Some people act irresponsibel at the age of 30.

The problem is:
Teacher.
Doctour.
Priest.
Lawyer.
Employer.

These are positions in which one is given power over others, and to which the law have required a certain aloofness (sp?) and an objective distance to ones subjects.


If the two of them met on a beach?

I dont know. Consensual.

I have teached young people (aged 12 - 24) for the last 10 years.

Yes, there have been offers, admiration and (at times feeble) tries of seduction.

But as a teacher, Im not a "man".
Im a nonsexual person, without the ability to "fall in love", to whom my students can confide in, in safety.
I am their god, thier father, their mother, their brother and sister. Im not their "best friend", boy/girlfriend or lover.

So although I favor KV's feelings about "burn witch, burn" - I must side with Brian in this.

Theres lines that your not supposed to cross, whatever.

~~DukeP~~

[KvHagedorn]

I really don't see much disagreement there, Duke. I think what she did was wrong for the exact reasons you do. She should lose her job and her teaching credentials for this. She should lose her husband and he should be the injured party in the divorce. This would be messing her life up pretty severely. I do think the charges of sexual battery are utterly ridiculous, however. In the transcripts she seems extremely sympathetic to the guy's feelings, and the relationship was (to her at least) something meaningful and more than physical. The kid is pretty low for ratting her out. Really low.

[KvHagedorn]

..But I do see your point. Her position of authority might have compromised his free will somewhat, even if she did not play it that way. In his mind he might have been less likely to refuse for this reason, same as if she had been his boss in the workplace and he was 4 years older. I guess it's really a matter of how he felt about it. He's still a jerk for ratting her out though, considering the consequences for her.

[DukeP]

It does feel like he really sat her up.

But if he felt like being a victim, then i guess it was pure payback.

Hard to know.

Off course knowing what I know today, I would prob. have kept it a secret and enjoyed it to its fullest extend - allowing me to concentrate my life on school, sports etc, and think less about chasing those stupid and fickle teen girls.



~~DukeP~~