Teacher Gets 15 Years for Sex with Student

[Mountain Man Hawk]

Originally posted by strummingram:
See, I'm not sure how a woman "raped" the boy. If the boy got an erection and went to completion... where's the rape part? Being ass-f*cked against your will is rape. Getting it up and achieving orgasm is not rape, man. If it is, I could handle being raped every few hours!

I feel the same way. I'm now 35 but I remember myself at 15. I spent a lot of time fantasizing about things like this. Actually getting to follow through on those fantasies for once wouldn't have been that bad. I'm a parent now and like I said above, if this happened to my daughter it would turn me into a raging lunatic. But I also remember myself at age 15 and it's hard for me to get outraged about this story.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[dandh]

Originally posted by strummingram:
See, I'm not sure how a woman "raped" the boy. If the boy got an erection and went to completion... where's the rape part? Being ass-f*cked against your will is rape. Getting it up and achieving orgasm is not rape, man. If it is, I could handle being raped every few hours!

Would you feel the same way if a woman self-lubricated during a rape?. What about a 15 year old girl who enjoyed sex and even had an orgasm with a 35 year-old man - would that be rape, in your book?

The answers here are pretty obvious. Physical reactions are not the sole determinant of rape ("But she like it, your honor!").

We keep kids off limits for a reason, and that is that, even if they might go along with it, they're not mature enough to make that decision yet, especially when being seduced by a much older person.

Fifteen years may be too much, but the current law of the land requires equal treatment, so we should follow that law now and change it if we think it's too harsh.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by dandh:

Originally posted by strummingram:
See, I'm not sure how a woman "raped" the boy. If the boy got an erection and went to completion... where's the rape part? Being ass-f*cked against your will is rape. Getting it up and achieving orgasm is not rape, man. If it is, I could handle being raped every few hours!

Would you feel the same way if a woman self-lubricated during a rape?. What about a 15 year old girl who enjoyed sex and even had an orgasm with a 35 year-old man - would that be rape, in your book?

The answers here are pretty obvious. Physical reactions are not the sole determinant of rape ("But she like it, your honor!").

We keep kids off limits for a reason, and that is that, even if they might go along with it, they're not mature enough to make that decision yet, especially when being seduced by a much older person.

Fifteen years may be too much, but the current law of the land requires equal treatment, so we should follow that law now and change it if we think it's too harsh.

I understand the element of betrayal, or exploitation of the adult over the child. But, to me, at 15, you're sexually mature. Are you emotionally mature at 15? Probably not. But, I know people who are in their 50's who aren't emotionally mature. It's quite possible that this teacher wasn't "mature" in her own mind. I realize we need a standard, but it's still a very subjective area as to when someone is "mature enough."

When it comes down to consensual actions and the logistics that must be in play to perform, that's where I get a bit less appalled in cases where a sexually-mature-bodied male was able to get erect, proceed with copulation and achieve orgasm. I don't consider that "rape" just because of the age difference. I consider it a possible exploitation of the adult-to-child dynamic, but they weren't raped. To me, rape is a violent act and total lack of consent of their body being involved from the alleged victim.

I agree that keeping kids off-limits is the correct formula. I'm just not sure the age of consent is in correct proportion. Women and men were celebrating wedding anniversaries at 15 not too long ago. Different cultural circumstances contribute to what society recognizes as a consensual age or not.

 

[dandh]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by dandh:

Originally posted by strummingram:
See, I'm not sure how a woman "raped" the boy. If the boy got an erection and went to completion... where's the rape part? Being ass-f*cked against your will is rape. Getting it up and achieving orgasm is not rape, man. If it is, I could handle being raped every few hours!

Would you feel the same way if a woman self-lubricated during a rape?. What about a 15 year old girl who enjoyed sex and even had an orgasm with a 35 year-old man - would that be rape, in your book?

The answers here are pretty obvious. Physical reactions are not the sole determinant of rape ("But she like it, your honor!").

We keep kids off limits for a reason, and that is that, even if they might go along with it, they're not mature enough to make that decision yet, especially when being seduced by a much older person.

Fifteen years may be too much, but the current law of the land requires equal treatment, so we should follow that law now and change it if we think it's too harsh.

I understand the element of betrayal, or exploitation of the adult over the child. But, to me, at 15, you're sexually mature. Are you emotionally mature at 15? Probably not. But, I know people who are in their 50's who aren't emotionally mature. It's quite possible that this teacher wasn't "mature" in her own mind. I realize we need a standard, but it's still a very subjective area as to when someone is "mature enough."

When it comes down to consensual actions and the logistics that must be in play to perform, that's where I get a bit less appalled in cases where a sexually-mature-bodied male was able to get erect, proceed with copulation and achieve orgasm. I don't consider that "rape" just because of the age difference. I consider it a possible exploitation of the adult-to-child dynamic, but they weren't raped. To me, rape is a violent act and total lack of consent of their body being involved from the alleged victim.

I agree that keeping kids off-limits is the correct formula. I'm just not sure the age of consent is in correct proportion. Women and men were celebrating wedding anniversaries at 15 not too long ago. Different cultural circumstances contribute to what society recognizes as a consensual age or not.

The age of consent is a societal construct, so I agree with you. However, try calling for a reversal of the consent laws and see how far that gets you. So, until that changes, I think this will be considered rape under the law.

I don't agree with you about the physical reaction being enough to eliminate the rape charge. That used to be a defense that people tried (but she seemed to be liking it, your honor), but it hasn't flown for some time now. Those reactions are not a conscious choice, but a subconscious one based on conditioning and other factors.

BTW, I see you avoided my question about the 15 year old girl who "came to completion" with a 35 year old man - does that eliminate the rape charge in that case?

 

[cruhawk]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

If you have to go younger, at least find a college freshmen or sophomore.

They likely wouldn't be any better than the 15 y/o.....just would just think they were.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by dandh:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by dandh:

Originally posted by strummingram:
See, I'm not sure how a woman "raped" the boy. If the boy got an erection and went to completion... where's the rape part? Being ass-f*cked against your will is rape. Getting it up and achieving orgasm is not rape, man. If it is, I could handle being raped every few hours!

Would you feel the same way if a woman self-lubricated during a rape?. What about a 15 year old girl who enjoyed sex and even had an orgasm with a 35 year-old man - would that be rape, in your book?

The answers here are pretty obvious. Physical reactions are not the sole determinant of rape ("But she like it, your honor!").

We keep kids off limits for a reason, and that is that, even if they might go along with it, they're not mature enough to make that decision yet, especially when being seduced by a much older person.

Fifteen years may be too much, but the current law of the land requires equal treatment, so we should follow that law now and change it if we think it's too harsh.

I understand the element of betrayal, or exploitation of the adult over the child. But, to me, at 15, you're sexually mature. Are you emotionally mature at 15? Probably not. But, I know people who are in their 50's who aren't emotionally mature. It's quite possible that this teacher wasn't "mature" in her own mind. I realize we need a standard, but it's still a very subjective area as to when someone is "mature enough."

When it comes down to consensual actions and the logistics that must be in play to perform, that's where I get a bit less appalled in cases where a sexually-mature-bodied male was able to get erect, proceed with copulation and achieve orgasm. I don't consider that "rape" just because of the age difference. I consider it a possible exploitation of the adult-to-child dynamic, but they weren't raped. To me, rape is a violent act and total lack of consent of their body being involved from the alleged victim.

I agree that keeping kids off-limits is the correct formula. I'm just not sure the age of consent is in correct proportion. Women and men were celebrating wedding anniversaries at 15 not too long ago. Different cultural circumstances contribute to what society recognizes as a consensual age or not.

The age of consent is a societal construct, so I agree with you. However, try calling for a reversal of the consent laws and see how far that gets you. So, until that changes, I think this will be considered rape under the law.

I don't agree with you about the physical reaction being enough to eliminate the rape charge. That used to be a defense that people tried (but she seemed to be liking it, your honor), but it hasn't flown for some time now. Those reactions are not a conscious choice, but a subconscious one based on conditioning and other factors.

BTW, I see you avoided my question about the 15 year old girl who "came to completion" with a 35 year old man - does that eliminate the rape charge in that case?

Sorry, I didn't mean to avoid it intentionally.

Is it rape to ME? No. Is it rape to our present society? Obviously, it is. So, it will be ruled-upon as rape, I'm sure. But, to me, the female was not raped. There can be other factors in play that might constitute as manipulation or some other kind of situation where the "with age comes wisdom" and the ability to manipulate the younger, less-experienced mind to coerce the body to go along for the ride. And, there could be a psychological casualty as a result. But, I just feel like if the mind and body are willing, regardless of how that was arranged, then the severity or likelihood of damage is much less.

To me, "Rape" is a forceful, aggressive, violent act by the perpetrator. There is no consensual element involved with the victim. Going limp to make it end faster is not even consensual. It's more of a fight-or-flight instinct to lessen the pain. Molestation or some other clarification might be necessary to set what took place in the OP apart from "rape."

 

[cruhawk]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by IMCC965:
EVERY single one of you is missing the point of the 15 year sentence: she is in a postion of public TRUST. Parents expect the person teaching, preaching, protecting, etc. to be an adult of upstanding moral character. The law takes this into account when this happens.

Just because she's a female does not give her a pass because she's good looking and the 15 year old BOY is expected to have sex with whatever age female he can get his hands on.

In Iowa, adults in positions of trust (see above) not only get a long prison sentence and put on the sex offender list, they also receive a special life sentence. They will be monitored by a parole officer for LIFE.

Just the fact that some of you see a difference between what an adult male does to a young girl and what an adult female does to a young boy, is pretty disturbing.

Trust is a critical factor for deciding something wrong is happened. But harm is the critical factor for deciding what the punishment should be. We may agree that the violation of trust is equivalent in the 2 cases but the harm is not equivalent.

When we give speeding tickets it doesn't matter what the gender of the driver is (or it shouldn't, in any case) because the potential for harm is based on the speed, not the gender. But in the case of sex in an unequal power relationship, we do (usually) recognize that gender makes a difference in the actual or potential harm.

So....let me get this straight. If an adult male teacher (or any other male in a position of trust/power) has "consensual" sex with a 15 y/o girl, do you really think a judge would take into account the level of "harm" (whatever that means) in determining his sentence? The book would be thrown at him, regardless of the perceived "harm". Your assumption that a teenage girl would be inherently more harmed than would a teenage boy is absolutely incorrect. The damage may look different, and manifest itself in different ways in their lives, but it would be of about the same magnitude. Premarital/extramarital sex in general--regardless of gender--makes it more difficult to give to your (eventual) spouse down the road. That effect is undoubtedly magnified when it happens as a teen, and even more so when it's an adult-teen hookup. Again, regardless of gender.