36 year old female teacher had sex with 14 year old student

Post Reply New Topic

It appears that various jurisdictions are fine with coitus between adults and teenagers.

[img][800:546]http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18iz6k8w3pp83jpg/ku-bigpic.jpg[/img]



As usual, we're rather more on the Puritanical side of things.

You should take in mind, that there are several countries, that have additional laws about age difference. In my country sex is ok until 14. But until 18 there are age differencies relevant. So having sex with an 14 one, if you are a grown up, gets you in jail. These age difference laws, have the meaning, that there is nothing bad about kids experiencing their sexuality on equal terms, if they already feel the need to do so. But when it comes to grown ups dealing with kids, there hardly can be an equality in that relationship, and for an experienced grown up it is simply far to easy to gain dominance in that relationship to favor himself.

Noone here gives a f**k about hymens, but pregnancy is something you experiences both as becoming parents. In the case in my country, where a female teacher had an relationship with an 12 year boy, exactly how do you think he is not affected by becoming father with 13? O_o

"Oh great, I am not even done with basic school, and government is paying my support fee until I work, but the moment I start working I will already be forced to pay as a kid AND additional to pay back the fee to the government." is not affecting you? "Because the woman is lovely." the boy will be given magically the ability to s**t gold? "Because the woman is lovely." this will help him being a matured father figure for his child? "Because the woman is lovely?" will help him to stand up if the mother of his child, will be trying to trick him somehow?

I dont want to accuse you, that you wouldnt see nothing else but the best possible variation of it. A responsible grown up, truly being in love with an already matured young one, and the older one really trying to care for not manipulating the other one into being the way the older is comforted.

But these rare cases that may exist, are not the cause, why youth protection laws exist. Its the majority of old lame suckers, taking advantage on purpose of the kids abilities to be easy manipulated, that make these laws exist. I am sorry for the 1% of couples with that age difference, that might be truly in love without any manipulation or dominance problems. But for the sake of the rest of the 99% left, this laws were made.

You think of somethink nice. But people are not all nice. Now think how nice would it be for a little boy to be introduced into sexuality, by a woman, being convinced that men are dogs, need to be taught to obey and learn rules, being punished if disobeying and only be treated as a normal human being if accepting their will. Is still something, that couldnt harm a boy in no way, according to your opinion? Either we would bring every relationship of an kid with an adult before a lawyer, judging if the relationship is acceptable or not, or we simply say, that if they are truly that much in love, then goddamn they shall write themselves letters for next two years, and then get into physical stuff.

No. Male and female anatomy are very different. A boy isn't going to get pregnant, and doesn't have a hymen to tear. For us, squirting our rocks off is generally a pleasant sensation, particularly when a lovely woman is involved. For a girl, it is a much bigger deal.[/quote

That is a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry. You are stating that the raping of a women is immoral solely based on the fact that she might get pregnant and apart from those circumstantial by-products, the act in itself is completely harmless. Regardless of the pain it is the fact that the teacher has has sex with that child at an age when most children cannot make a logical decision about whether they wish to have sex and this in itself can be highly psychologically traumatizing. Regardless of whether they watch porn or not, watching porn on the internet and then doing are two completely different acts that have varying degrees of responsibility associated with them. A boy cannot get pregnant and doesn't have a hymen to tear when they are seven years old? Does that mean that at such an age, it is moral for someone to have sex with that child. Many girls are also watching porn at the age fourteen. It is not an act that is solely done by men, yet the fact they are able to do that does not mean that a forty year old man can then have sex with them, reality and fantasy are two very different things. I was watching porn when I was thirteen out of curiosity, yet I was also watching movies with guns in them about which I was curious. That does not mean I am therefore old enough to shoot one myself. I would have probably blown my f*****g arm off.

The vatican has their age of consent at twelve. In no way does such a culturally relativist stance justify that in my opinion.

I certainly don't think that a 14 year old boy should be held financially liable for the child he fathered with an adult woman. That should be entirely the adult woman's responsibility.

Putting her in prison is ridiculous. At least in the USA, our prisons are overcrowded already. Imprisoning a woman for getting pregnant is outrageous.

Homosexuality is less of a problem, given that no third parties are going to come to life as a result. Disease spread is the main issue in these relationships.

As I said earlier, here's a person accused of sexual contact with a minor, or in the case of Polish law, under 15 years of age can get from 2 to 12 years in prison. It may be that this woman did not go to jail, especially since having a baby whose father is her student
What the court can be seen as a mitigating factor.

"Should" will not help the kid, that simply is related by DNA with that kid. Sure its the adult person, that is responsible, still that doesnt give the adult person the ability to split the day into 2x24 hours units, to support the child as two adult parents can do. A 13 year old girl should not be responsible for the care of an baby either, just as an 13 year old should not be forced to pay aliments for one, but "should" does not help real existing babies, does not feed them, does not change them pampers, does not carry them to the doctor or pay that doctor.

So if you agree that its totally idiotic for underage kids to become fathers, and if its not the kid, that are to be made responsible for it, then maybe its the grown up, that should be taught about the idioticy of it, and normally we do such stuff by making it illegal by law. Just as we tell grown up people about the idioticy of fast driving, by making it illegal.

Not going into jail for that, is actually pretty easy in my oppinion: Not f*****g with little boys. Thats not that hard for adult people, and for those that have tendencies that causes that to be a problem: Unlike the US-realm pedophiles are not automatically damned as satans-bred from hell as long as they are not ACTIVE pedophile. Means there are offers for therapeutic treatments of pedophiles. So noone wants to see those people in jail, because then its actually too late, and the s**t already happened. But if an healthy adult whyever chooses out of his own, to do so, or a pedophile chooses out of his own, that she doesnt want therapy...its not other peoples fault.

Women already have a very strong, natural reason to be very selective about breeding partners. She and a random stranger may enjoy an act of coitus. The man might go off and never see her again. The woman is stuck gestating the fetus and nursing the baby.

Laws in place do raise the stakes for men, to the point where they really do have to be very careful about potential breeding partners. Probably more careful than women. Particularly if they have any assets.

It is silly to make the laws to protect boys from women the same as those to protect girls from men. Without the laws, women would still have a powerful incentive not to have coitus with boys. If anything, a teenaged boy who impregnates his teacher gets bragging rights. A girl who gets pregnant generally sees her life changed dramatically, often for the worse.

What if she's not mature enough to also make an informed decision? Would it then still matter?

Either way, I don't any fair reason for her to be punished. No one got hurt. Period.

So boys deserve less to be protected from abusive grown ups? I repeat, you are always talking about the ideal situation of an responsible grown up and an matured kid, truly being in love, and the grown up not using her experience to manipulate the boy to get an unhealthy dominance in that relationship.

If that were made legal, how much of that relationships would be according to your ideal, that you are talking of, and how much would be about the worst case situation I am talking about?

And how should be judged, according to you, which of those scenarios would be actually fitting, and if the boy actually still needed protection because of him mentally not being already matured enough and so in in actual risc of being abused, or if everything is fine?

Hang on, she is a 34 year old woman who had sex with 14 year old boy. I can understand the argument if they both teenagers who were of similar age. However, in this case it was an adult sexually exploiting minor and since she was his teacher, there is a power differential there as well. That is what age of consent laws are for, or are you perhaps saying that boys do not need to be protected from peadophiles because they're male?

I don't regard coitus as necessarily abusive.



No, I'm only talking about coitus. I wouldn't want to get involved with a dominatrix.



The ideal is that the girl retains her hymen until her wedding night. I don't think that the Western World, as a whole, subscribes to any particular ideal with respect to coitus.



If he is hurt somehow, then the woman should be punished. Most males, however, enjoy placing their penises into a vagina and ejaculating.

At most, it's bizarre. But no abuse occurred. The 14 year old seems happy and is bragging about it and no one is complaining (not even his parents apparently). So why make things miserable just to satisfy one's moralistic self-righteous ego?

Technically, she is an ephebophile and not a paedophile. I don't see much need to protect teenaged boys from female ephebophiles.

Are people blind to the fact that a lot of teenage boys crave sex with older hot women?

In my home country, they'll do anything to sleep with prostitutes.

Also, Jono, I don't know exactly what happened. For all I know, she was the naive type who got easily seduced and charmed by a kid who already had the makings of a charming womanizer who was able to have to get it from her.

It's not impossible for teenagers to be shrewd and clever.