Rape?

[otheadp]

Every teen age boy's dream is to have sex with a teacher. Why do they arrest the teacher and call her a rapist when she fulfils that dream? Why do they send her to 7 years in jail when the "victim" is clearly unvictimized and doesn't want that to happen? Is it "gender equality politics gone nuts"?

she may be guilty of breaking workplace rules about student-teacher relationship, but RAPE??? give me a fucking break! it's an insult to real rape victims out there to call these wonderful dream-fulfillers rapists.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2004/08/05/569443.html

any thoughts?

 

[Tiassa]

Consistency and equal application of the laws. That's all it is. You'll notice LeTourneau is more a laughingstock than scary villain. At least, that's how the culture is treating her.

 

[Neildo]

Yeah, it's ridiculous.

A male being "raped"... lol. What next, is an old Liza Minelli going to be accused of beating up her husband and limo driver as well? Whoops, nevermind. Crazy world.

- N

 

[Lemming3k]

Every teen age boy's dream is to have sex with a teacher.

I seriously must have skipped that stage.

Yeah, it's ridiculous.
A male being "raped"...

Im not sure thats so ridiculous, but clearly this isnt a case of rape, its just a load of bullshit about being politically correct, but still you do have to have gender equality and the teacher knew that and that it wasnt right in a lot of ways.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Presumably it was statutory rape, in which the "victim" is under the age of consent. The principle is that we're all responsible for the upbringing of children and that we should not teach children that it's okay for an adult teacher and a pupil to have a sexual relationship.

Most jurisdictions go quite a bit easier on the "perpetrator" if they are only slightly older than the "victim," e.g. a 17-year old with a 15-year old. But they really hate it when people of clearly adult age take advantage of a child's sexual drive.

If the student was of the age of consent, it could only be rape if consent was not given. I agree that it's ludicrous to think that the average female teacher would have to bother to seek out a male student who didn't want to have sex with her when probably every other boy in the room would be happy to oblige. It's almost comical to imagine punishing the teacher for rape because she failed to hit the boy over the head with a brick to make him stop.

But even in the event of statutory rape, speaking as a man I really don't think that an adult female copulating with a teenage boy is in the same class as an adult male with a teenage girl. I'd be interested to hear how the adult women here feel about it. But I'll bet they'd expect to be quite a bit more screwed up emotionally when they grow up after an experience like that than a boy of the same age would.

I'd just as soon let the school board deal with the female teacher and not bother prosecuting her -- an ecclesiastical matter, as it were, unprofessional conduct. If it were a male teacher I'd be more likely to involve the authorities.

 

[Bells]

Every teen age boy's dream is to have sex with a teacher. Why do they arrest the teacher and call her a rapist when she fulfils that dream? Why do they send her to 7 years in jail when the "victim" is clearly unvictimized and doesn't want that to happen? Is it "gender equality politics gone nuts"?

she may be guilty of breaking workplace rules about student-teacher relationship, but RAPE??? give me a fucking break! it's an insult to real rape victims out there to call these wonderful dream-fulfillers rapists.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2004/08/05/569443.html

any thoughts?

It's classified as statutory rape. Anyone having sex with a minor can be charged with it. She didn't merely break the 'work place rules' Oth, she had sex with a child, whether that child was a willing participant is irrelevant. As an adult, she had the power in that relationship. She had a duty of care to ensure the safety and wellbeing of her students. And she failed miserably.

She is in reality a paedophile. Paedophile's are also charged with statutory rape. Regardless of the fact that the boy initiated it, she should have known better. Boys that age dream of sex all the time. Their bodies are filled with raging hormones. What would happen if all teachers decided to fulfil their student's fantasies? What would you do to a teacher who decided 'what the heck', and had sex with your child after that child indicated that he was interested? Would you say 'good on you boy'? Or would you be baying for her blood? Remember, he was 12 years old when this fiasco began.

It's not gender equality gone nuts. The same should and does apply to male teachers who have sex with their pre-pubescent or teenage female students. What amazes me here is that even after she was caught, charged and out on probation, she still saught the boy out and were caught having sex in her car. She was obsessed with him. At the time he was probably smiling at the thought that he had boned the teacher, but for her it was love. This was a woman in her mid thirties feeling 'love' for a 12 year old boy and readily set out to display that love sexually. Not once, but many times, until she got pregnant. Even though he was willing to participate (what hormone raging child wouldn't?), her actions have only ensured that his future went down the toilet.

But even in the event of statutory rape, speaking as a man I really don't think that an adult female copulating with a teenage boy is in the same class as an adult male with a teenage girl. I'd be interested to hear how the adult women here feel about it. But I'll bet they'd expect to be quite a bit more screwed up emotionally when they grow up after an experience like that than a boy of the same age would.

A bit sexist of you there Fraggle. Teenage girls are also just as capable of initiating a sexual relationship with a male teacher, and some male teachers fall for it. The male teacher should be treated the same as female teachers who fall into the same hole. As an adult woman, I can't understand how a grown woman in her thirties could actively participate in a sexual relationship with a young teenage boy. I find it repulsive. Just as I find the thought of a grown man actively setting out to have sex with a teenage student repulsive. I'd expect the girl to be just as screwed up as the boy who has sex with their teacher. Some more than others. And when her relationship started with this boy, he was only 12 years old, not even a teenager.

In most cases where the relationship is discovered, the relationship breaks up and the teacher is fired and deregistered and the student placed in counselling. The teacher may be charged, or may not. In most cases they are charged, placed on probation and placed on the sexual predator list. This particular case is different, in that when it was discovered, it did not end, it continued. She called him daily, even when she was ordered by the court to have no contact with him. They were finally caught having sex in her car, and that's when her probation was revoked and she was sent back to jail.

I'd just as soon let the school board deal with the female teacher and not bother prosecuting her -- an ecclesiastical matter, as it were, unprofessional conduct. If it were a male teacher I'd be more likely to involve the authorities.

The authorities should be involved either way, regardless of the sex of the teacher. This is not an ecclesiastical matter Fraggle. These are cases where teachers entrusted with the care of their students, breach that trust and partake in having sex with said students. Would it have been an 'ecclesiastical matter' if it were a pre-school or grade 1-5 teacher and his/her student? You'd expect them to be charged right? But a teacher has sex with a grade 6 student and it should be treated as an 'ecclesiastical matter'? This was not just unprofessional conduct. This was paedophilia. If it were not a teacher and student, it'd have been treated as an act of paedophilia. She was caught, dismissed for unprofessional conduct, and her conduct reported to the authorities as it should have been. She was then charged, placed on probation and ordered not to go anywhere near the boy. She then kept in constant contact with him and continued to have sex with him, until she was again caught in her car with her pants down while engaged in sex with the boy. She was then jailed for the rest of the term of her probation and released on parole, where she again saught him out and they continued the relationship, resulting in her pregnancy and she was again thrown back into jail. And you're calling it an 'ecclesiastical matter'? Imagine if it were your son. Would you still feel the same?

She ruined his future. He wanted to have sex with her, but she could have just said no. She didn't have to hit him over the head with a brick. She should have just said no and reported it to the school. He'd have been suspended and that would have been it. She was the adult and a teacher and he was the child and a student. She breached all duties of care to that student when she accepted his advances. He was a pubescent boy with sex on the brain and she had sex with him repeatedly. She, an adult woman in her thirties, married with children, became the girlfriend of a 12 year old boy. If she were a man, it would still be just as sick.

And it doesn't matter what the sex of the teacher is. Teachers are in positions of power over their students. More importantly they are placed in their position by the trust of the parents of those students. Parents send their kids to school not expecting that sex education would involve actual sex acts between their children and their teachers. One should not get an A for making the teacher orgasm.

 

[Xerxes]

'Rape' should be judged on a case by case basis, even if one party is in a clear position of authority. I think fraggle nailed it:

But they really hate it when people of clearly adult age take advantage of a child's sexual drive.

Another thing-- once people find out that a student is sleeping with the teacher, how are they supposed to react? It puts everyone in a weird position.

I had a social studies teacher back in high school who was supposedly 'hot'. We used to joke about the class politician -he was exactly like nico/undecided- having a passionate relationship with her(I saw them flirt a few times!). Everybody knew about this joke, including the teacher. This is one of the cases where it *could* have happened and nobody would have cared because it was so ridiculous and funny to begin with. No harm could have come from such a relationship..unless of course they produced a mutant child resembling a jewish chretien.

 

[gendanken]

Am I the only one here who finds something wrong with victimizing a willing 'victim'?

A cheesy slut in some bar filled with drunks gets slapped or raped.
Or
Man goes swimming with piranhas and gets mauled.
Who's the “victim"?

Bells:

I find it repulsive. Just as I find the thought of a grown man actively setting out to have sex with a teenage student repulsive. I'd expect the girl to be just as screwed up as the boy who has sex with their teacher. Some more than others. And when her relationship started with this boy, he was only 12 years old, not even a teenager

Yeah, and he looked 20.

You find it repulsive on principle, which has nothing to do with attraction.
I'm twenty four and been aroused by men that only later I found to be 14 or 15.
Having sex with them is ugly in the eyes of the law, but still does not take away from my being aroused.

Same with incest- you find it ugly on principle.
If you'd never met your father and met him as an adult without knowing he was your father, you'd find him sexually attractive were he your type.

If anything, you're the one being the extremist here not Fraggle.
Why is the woman responsible for 'ruining his life"?
Because she could have refused or because she's the adult is a weak argument.
When two people are sexually attracted to each other and willing to satisfy it, they're both adults.

 

[Roman]

When two people are sexually attracted to each other and willing to satisfy it, they're both adults.

Whoa, whoa whoa. Just because they have sex they're adults? A 12 year old is hardly a person, much less an adult.

The definition of adult is not the ability to reproduce, but the point at which physical growth stops, and in humans, the point where we've recieved enough mental growth to support ourselves without mum.

 

[gendanken]

Roman:

Whoa, whoa whoa. Just because they have sex they're adults? A 12 year old is hardly a person, much less an adult.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa"- we're using Bells standard for consent here.
But consider your logic here on two fronts:

One- how is a 12 year old any less than a person, considering all the adult things he's exposed to?
You sound like a Dickens character in industrialized England.

Two:

The definition of adult is not the ability to reproduce, but the point at which physical growth stops, and in humans, the point where we've recieved enough mental growth to support ourselves without mum.

Then this makes a 3 year old midget an adult.

Further, consider the 'mental growth' of the average adult.
Pick 'em off the street and ask them a question.
They’re still at the mental stage of a child, the difference being a bigger vocabulary and wallet.
O' Riley is the most childish prick on television, for example.

 

[Bells]

Yeah, and he looked 20.

Ah, but he was not. And she knew he was not since he was in her 6th grade class. He may have looked 20, but the fact that she knew he was merely 12 or 13 does not diminish what she had done. She had sex with him with the full knowledge that he was a child. Sure she was attracted to him, but we don't all act out on our attractions do we?

You find it repulsive on principle, which has nothing to do with attraction.
I'm twenty four and been aroused by men that only later I found to be 14 or 15.
Having sex with them is ugly in the eyes of the law, but still does not take away from my being aroused.

Would you have been aroused by them had you known they were 14 or 15? You stated yourself that you felt aroused and only later did you find that they were 14 or 15.

Another interesting point, sexual arousal has no age limit. But if after you've found out that they were 14 or 15, did you still have sex with them? Or was it merely a case of look but don't touch? As aroused as you may have been by them, did you follow through with your arousal and have sex with them? Here in lies the distinction. The teacher knew from the get go that he was 12 or 13. He may have looked 20, but she knew he was not. When he flirted with her, she responded in kind, with the full knowledge that he was a child. But it went further than flirting. She was aroused and he, like all boys during puberty, was also aroused and probably spent every waking moment with a hardon. She, knowing this, acted on it.

This is not a case where they were in some tribe in the middle of nowhere where once a child reaches puberty he is ready to breed and a breeder must be found. This is a case where a grown woman, placed in a position of authority and power over that child, abused her position and acted out on the arousal. He was a child, no matter how old he looked, who was out for sex. As far as he was probably concerned, he got to bone the teacher and probably afforded him a lifetime of bragging rights. But for the teacher.. well.. As aroused as she may have been, as turned on as this 12 year old may have turned her on... she shouldn't have acted on it. At law, she is a paedophile and frankly got off lightly. Had he been my child I'd have ripped out her womb and stuffed it down her throat.

Same with incest- you find it ugly on principle.
If you'd never met your father and met him as an adult without knowing he was your father, you'd find him sexually attractive were he your type.

Again here lies the distinction of knowledge. Had I known that he was my father, or had he known that I was his daughter, then it would be incest in the classical terms. Had neither of us known and we had sex, we'd be none the wiser. It would still be incest, but incest where neither party knew of the fact that he was my father. LeTournay knew that he was 12. She can't claim ignorance because he looked 20.

If anything, you're the one being the extremist here not Fraggle.
Why is the woman responsible for 'ruining his life"?
Because she could have refused or because she's the adult is a weak argument.
When two people are sexually attracted to each other and willing to satisfy it, they're both adults.

Am I? Fraggle was quite happy to say that it would be worse if the teacher was a male and the student a female. I'm just saying the standard applies to both sexes. It's not that she could have refused or that she's an adult. It's that she should have refused because she is the adult.

As aroused as she may have been by him, she should not have acted on it because of the knowledge and power that she had over him. He is not a victim in this. He was a willing participant. He initiated it. But then I guess that with all pubescent boy, sex is on the brain. He'd have bonked anything in a skirt. That doesn't make him an adult. On the contrary, the fact that he felt sexual attraction for his teacher makes him a boy... a child like any other who has fantasies about the teacher.

 

[420Joey]

If I was the husband whom she cheated on, I would have killed my self. Imagine him finding out that the person his wife had an affair with was only 12 years old.

 

[Tiassa]

Yeah, it's not quite the same as finding out your husband had an affair with a 12 year-old girl, is it?

Of course, that has more to do with abstract standards than anything else.

 

[Gambit Star]

It is just the system as it is anyway.

I bet you that there are people in the US that have sued because someone was perving on them down the street or they saw that a man/ or woman was attractive and had some sort of pleasure painted on their faces.

Rape in my terms is holding someone against their will for reasons of sexual exploitation.
A mutal student / teacher relationship is most definitly NOT rape, especially if the so called victim does not feel like a victim at all !

This world is slowly heading in the wrong direction and we are placing ourselves, as a species, under " disfunctional arrest ".

 

[Arditezza]

An adult in an authoritatve position does not have a right to place a child in that position. She took advantage of her position as a respected teacher to have sex with a child. And when she was convicted and placed on probation, she had sex with him again when she was ordered not to go near him. For a second time, she broke the law.

He was 12. That's sixth and seventh grade. He just wanted his teacher to like him.

If it was a man who did this to a little girl, you'd all be ready to castrate him.

Not to mention that she got pregnant by him twice, and the kids mother is supporting and raising their children. She had her son forever changed and denied the best part of his childhood, and now she's saddled with two more little ones who have no responsible parents to look up to.

Mary Kay Latourneau is a sick pedophile, who used her position to repeatedly sleep with a child who didn't know any better other than he really wanted his teacher to like him.

 

[talk2farley]

Every teen age boy's dream is to have sex with a teacher. Why do they arrest the teacher and call her a rapist when she fulfils that dream? Why do they send her to 7 years in jail when the "victim" is clearly unvictimized and doesn't want that to happen? Is it "gender equality politics gone nuts"?

she may be guilty of breaking workplace rules about student-teacher relationship, but RAPE??? give me a fucking break! it's an insult to real rape victims out there to call these wonderful dream-fulfillers rapists.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2004/08/05/569443.html

any thoughts?

This is rather elementary. The age of consent is 18. Children are incapable of making fully rational and informed decisions on subjects to which they lack adequate education, including voteing, military service, medical treatment, and sexual conduct. One may make the argument that 18 is too high. Others claim it's too low. But the law must draw the line somewhere, and it's application thereon must be blind and equal.

 

[Perfect]

If it was a man who did this to a little girl, you'd all be ready to castrate him.

No shit, foolio.

Are you saying men and women are recognized as equals, or should be?

Of course that may be the case in many facets of society, but the truth is the two are dissimilar.

Face it, the two differ drastically, and it’s neither good nor bad. But to convict the premise of the thread because of facts that you perceive straight to hell is plain stupid.

I agree with you that by giving birth to two children she is a sick fuck. But the act itself is nothing more than sex.

If a man penetrates a 16 year old student that he teaches it is feeble.
But to reverse the scenario it makes the fuckee an alpha male. He becomes the coolest fucker in school (if the teacher is hot, of course).

 

[Repo Man]

I still laugh at Norm MacDonald's take on the situation.

"In Washington State, elementary school teacher Mary Kay LeTourneau pleaded guilty to having sex with a sixth-grade student. LeTourneau has been branded a sex offender, or as the kids refer to her, 'the greatest teacher of all time.'"

Boys and girls, men and women are fundamentally different, mentally as well as physically.

From David Buss' The Evolution Of Desire:

Imagine that an attractive person of the opposite sex walks up to you on a college campus and says: "Hi, I've been noticing you around town lately, and I find you very attractive. Would you like to go to bed with me?" How would you respond? If you are like 100% of the women in one study, you would give an emphatic no.You would be offended, insulted, or plain puzzled by the request out of the blue. But if you are a man, the odds are 75% that you would say yes. You would most likely feel flattered by the request. Men and women react differently when it comes to casual sex.

 

[Arditezza]

No shit, foolio.

Are you saying men and women are recognized as equals, or should be?

Of course that may be the case in many facets of society, but the truth is the two are dissimilar.

Men and women should be held to the exact same laws. They are different, yes. But a criminal, male or female is still a criminal and should be viewed as such. We don't have different sentences for crimes just because of gender, except in Alabama where women are given different (and much longer) sentences for drug offenses.

Further than that, she's a sociopath. She only cares about herself, and does not consider the effect her actions had on her own family, the boys family and the rest of society.

Mary Kay Latourneau is a sexual predator who preyed on an impressionable boy who was barely entering puberty. She will be on the sexual offenders list in her state, and will be on probation for a long time. She should get no more mercy or kindness than we give anyone else for the same crimes.

The people who think that it is somehow okay and certainly wasn't rape are the same people who really believe that it's not possible for a woman to rape a man, a husband to rape a wife, or that if someone is kissing you then they can't say no after that.

 

[Perfect]

Cool. Now bend over