It happened again, only this time the teacher is actually attractive... - by AxTng1
Thief13x on 12/11/2006 at 01:50
At that point it's like "you want to get off my porch or do you want your cock fondled? Bugger off you annoying swines
Malygris on 12/11/2006 at 06:45
15 = legal in Canada = HA HA FUCK YOU ALL
Strangeblue on 12/11/2006 at 07:35
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I rather thought it was about the idea that teachers shouldn't have sex
with children.
Let's assume for a moment that the gender roles are reversed, and it's a 35-year-old man and a 15-year-old girl. Would your reaction be the same?
Yes.
And this kid is "under 17" but not significantly. I don't give a rat's ass what people do when it's consensual. This plainly is, since the woman in question has NO AUTHORITY OR CONTACT with the "child" in question as a consequence of her job. That's what the furor is about--an adult in a position of authority OVER THE CHILD having sexual relations with the child. But that's not what's happening here. There is no position of authority, here, no abuse of trust. She is not a teacher and this is not her student. This is a matter of a young person, who is old enough to drive and to make other socially-responsible decisions for themselves, having sexual relations voluntarily with an older person. There is no abuse of trust, here. Gender does not matter.
Swallow that, 'dog.
Shug on 12/11/2006 at 10:17
I agree that the headline and such is a bit of a beat up for some attention, but the article claims she 'forced' him, and alcohol was involved, etc... although many highschool gents would enjoy a woman plying them with a few cool beverages and then getting SEXUALLY DEVIANT, that's not exactly above board as it were
SubJeff on 12/11/2006 at 11:02
Quote Posted by Strangeblue
Yes.
And this kid is "under 17" but not significantly. I don't give a rat's ass what people do when it's consensual. This plainly is, since the woman in question has NO AUTHORITY OR CONTACT with the "child" in question as a consequence of her job.
What? That doesn't mean it's consensual. Her professional relationship with him has nothing to do with it. Isn't he under aged? And the whole point of having an age of consent is that society deems/recognises that up until a certain age children may not be able to weigh up all the the consequences and therefore cannot consent. What you are suggesting is that if a male 30 year old teacher has sex with a 14 year old girl, that is not his pupil, as long as it's "consensual" it's ok. WTF? Don't be giving advice to any male friends of yours over in the UK regarding sex with children, you won't be doing them any favours.
Ulukai on 12/11/2006 at 11:53
The girls in this thread just keep getting younger
SD on 12/11/2006 at 15:56
Quote Posted by Strangeblue
I don't give a rat's ass what people do when it's consensual. This plainly is
No, it isn't consensual, because a person below the age of consent
cannot give their consent. The same principle says that people below a certain age cannot sign a legally-binding contract.
Quote:
That's what the furor is about--an adult in a position of authority OVER THE CHILD having sexual relations with the child. But that's not what's happening here. There is no position of authority, here, no abuse of trust. She is not a teacher and this is not her student.
I couldn't give a rat's ass if she is in a position of authority over the child or not (although let's face it, when you're a kid, all teachers are authority figures whether you have any contact with them or not). The point is she, an adult, has had relations with he, a child below the age of consent. The media might be over-reacting (surely not!) but what she did was quite clearly illegal and wrong.
Rug Burn Junky on 12/11/2006 at 16:25
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
No, it isn't consensual, because a person below the age of consent
cannot give their consent.
You're missing her fucking point. Spectacularly.
Real world = where it
is (in the abstract at least, if not in this case) consensual.
Court of law = where it
is deemed not to be consensual.
The disparity between the two is where 'blue has her problem. And yes, I'm pretty fucking sure she knows the difference since THAT WAS HER POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I'm not saying I fully agree with her, but fuck stop being wilfully dense.
Shug on 12/11/2006 at 16:58
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
You're missing her fucking point. Spectacularly.
'her fucking point' is quite an apt description, as it happens
:o
SD on 12/11/2006 at 16:59
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
You're missing her fucking point. Spectacularly.
No, I'm demolishing it. Spectacularly.
I understand the difference between consenting to do something, and
legally consenting to do something; who the fuck doesn't?
Her point is that so long as a child willingly has sex with an adult, then it's anything goes! My point is that the child's wishes are essentially irrelevant, because he's a child - the law makes his choice for him, and it says he can't go there.
