'12-year-old negligent and responsible for own rape'

Page 3 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 Nov 2012, 9:02 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
We are SO priviledged to have the one guy on the planet who knows better than the entire rest of the civilized World about the issue - right here lecturing us-and lecturing us-and lecturing us about this.

So Angelrho- since your so bent on saving the world from being sexually exploited by young children -why dont you start your crusade by freeing Sandusky. He claimed that all those young kids came on to HIM. So I guess Sandusky was telling the truth!

okay, playah...

:lol:

What do you think? Should we grant the power to young children to ruin peoples' lives simply by making an accusation that doesn't even have to be true? I mean, really, is the school district in question really responsible for the girl getting (scare quote alert) "raped" if she purposefully set them up for it? That's just mean. I don't see how the school district is culpable for anything more than hiring lawyers who've made written statements in poor taste. And, finally: Yes or no. Can young people be negligent? Is it possible that a young person's negligence can encourage evil people to do evil things or increase the likelihood that bad things will happen to them? And where do we get off saying children can't consent to anything? And why should we care what "the entire rest of the civilized World" thinks?

Screw 'em, says I. I can make my own decisions and draw my own conclusions. I don't need any appeal to majority nonsense to make my mind up for me.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,148
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

16 Nov 2012, 9:14 pm

AngelRho wrote:
What do you think? Should we grant the power to young children to ruin peoples' lives simply by making an accusation that doesn't even have to be true? I mean, really, is the school district in question really responsible for the girl getting (scare quote alert) "raped" if she purposefully set them up for it? That's just mean. I don't see how the school district is culpable for anything more than hiring lawyers who've made written statements in poor taste. And, finally: Yes or no. Can young people be negligent? Is it possible that a young person's negligence can encourage evil people to do evil things or increase the likelihood that bad things will happen to them? And where do we get off saying children can't consent to anything? And why should we care what "the entire rest of the civilized World" thinks?

Screw 'em, says I. I can make my own decisions and draw my own conclusions. I don't need any appeal to majority nonsense to make my mind up for me.


I think any guy with a brain in his head who, in LKL's nightmare scenario jumps on him naked while stoned and drunk while they're alone - I'd be more scared than I've ever been in my life. We had a situation happen with a friend of my friend's family. He would get drunk and grope any girl at the party, people thought him harmless and blew him off (not literally - I mean ignored). He was in his early 20's and in the national guard. One night a friend of hours had a 14 year old niece staying across the street. He went over there, drunk, to go to sleep and she came knocking on our door saying she'd been sexually assaulted. Of course things got incredibly dark that night but what made it all even darker, aside from this guy getting his ass beat by two other guys, getting picked up by the cops, and being a registered sex offender - this girl was 12 and dating a 25 yr old Jamaican; she had a pattern. Even as things were getting messed up that night a friend's girlfriend surmised that this girl likely lead things on, he went with it, and it went farther than she wanted it to. Any time I saw that girl after that though I had cold chills, I knew she'd put a guy's life away and a different friend's girlfriend said with some horror "OMG! She could do that to anyone!".

That said I feel absolutely terrible for any male teachers who want to be there to be role models in K-6, to be at least one male face for the boys to relate to; just in the fact that they will always need to be on guard against this thing particularly if they're under 40. Its longshot, its rare, but - I have to side with LKL on this - the guy who'd say "Well....this is right in my lap...." is practicing such aweful judgment (even on that hypothetical stance) that all known penalties apply. If nothing happened and she was able to get the guy caught in a compromising position with all of the above against his will - that would be truly dispicable and disgusting, however that's also a situation where the press needs to be extremely sensitive to the privacy of both sides in such a case and NOT demagogue either way before the case has been looked at thoroughly to ascertain what really happened. Its a messed up world, you're right that kids are as capable of doing really messed up things as adults are (including murder); its just that there would still be a huge difference between a male or female teacher being come onto by a student and refusing it, trying to stay clear of them vs. engaging it as an opportunity.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 Nov 2012, 9:18 pm

Shatbat wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
We are SO priviledged to have the one guy on the planet who knows better than the entire rest of the civilized World about the issue - right here lecturing us-and lecturing us-and lecturing us about this.

So Angelrho- since your so bent on saving the world from being sexually exploited by young children -why dont you start your crusade by freeing Sandusky. He claimed that all those young kids came on to HIM. So I guess Sandusky was telling the truth!


I fail to see the way everything AngelRho has said implies that Sandusky should go free.

Indeed. I chose not to even mention the straw man.

Naturalplastic is right about one thing, though. WP is privileged to have me here. These fine people wouldn't know what to do without people like me!
:lol:



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

17 Nov 2012, 12:01 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
What do you think? Should we grant the power to young children to ruin peoples' lives simply by making an accusation that doesn't even have to be true? I mean, really, is the school district in question really responsible for the girl getting (scare quote alert) "raped" if she purposefully set them up for it? That's just mean. I don't see how the school district is culpable for anything more than hiring lawyers who've made written statements in poor taste. And, finally: Yes or no. Can young people be negligent? Is it possible that a young person's negligence can encourage evil people to do evil things or increase the likelihood that bad things will happen to them? And where do we get off saying children can't consent to anything? And why should we care what "the entire rest of the civilized World" thinks?

Screw 'em, says I. I can make my own decisions and draw my own conclusions. I don't need any appeal to majority nonsense to make my mind up for me.


I think any guy with a brain in his head who, in LKL's nightmare scenario jumps on him naked while stoned and drunk while they're alone - I'd be more scared than I've ever been in my life. We had a situation happen with a friend of my friend's family. He would get drunk and grope any girl at the party, people thought him harmless and blew him off (not literally - I mean ignored). He was in his early 20's and in the national guard. One night a friend of hours had a 14 year old niece staying across the street. He went over there, drunk, to go to sleep and she came knocking on our door saying she'd been sexually assaulted. Of course things got incredibly dark that night but what made it all even darker, aside from this guy getting his ass beat by two other guys, getting picked up by the cops, and being a registered sex offender - this girl was 12 and dating a 25 yr old Jamaican; she had a pattern. Even as things were getting messed up that night a friend's girlfriend surmised that this girl likely lead things on, he went with it, and it went farther than she wanted it to. Any time I saw that girl after that though I had cold chills, I knew she'd put a guy's life away and a different friend's girlfriend said with some horror "OMG! She could do that to anyone!".

Indeed. Yes, I'm pursuing an argument that's terribly out of character for me, but I have nothing else to do at the moment. But I am genuinely disturbed when a justice system built on presumption of innocence disproportionately favors the accuser and places the burden of proof on the defense. It's frightening for exactly the reason that you put forth: It could happen to anyone.

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
That said I feel absolutely terrible for any male teachers who want to be there to be role models in K-6, to be at least one male face for the boys to relate to; just in the fact that they will always need to be on guard against this thing particularly if they're under 40. Its longshot, its rare, but - I have to side with LKL on this - the guy who'd say "Well....this is right in my lap...." is practicing such aweful judgment (even on that hypothetical stance) that all known penalties apply. If nothing happened and she was able to get the guy caught in a compromising position with all of the above against his will - that would be truly dispicable and disgusting, however that's also a situation where the press needs to be extremely sensitive to the privacy of both sides in such a case and NOT demagogue either way before the case has been looked at thoroughly to ascertain what really happened. Its a messed up world, you're right that kids are as capable of doing really messed up things as adults are (including murder); its just that there would still be a huge difference between a male or female teacher being come onto by a student and refusing it, trying to stay clear of them vs. engaging it as an opportunity.

When I was finishing up my education core prior to practice teaching, my field experiences professor would state about every other week "DO NOT LAY HANDS ON A STUDENT." You would think this is common sense, but apparently enough teachers get in trouble over this they feel the need to regularly remind us to NOT LAY HANDS ON A STUDENT.

In the Bible, there's a passage in the Old Testament that instructs the Israelites if a woman is out in the field, a man forces her, she cries out, and nobody hears her, her attacker is to be put to death and she is to be left alone. The wisdom is this: Always have a buddy system. If two men spot a woman in a field at a distance, change direction and avoid her so you cannot be even falsely accused. If you ARE falsely accused, you have a witness to back up your alibi. If the woman is caught in a lie, she will be put to death because that would have been the penalty you would have faced. The elders would want to know why the woman went out into the field alone in that scenario. If there are no witnesses, it's his word against hers. The question is why did HE go out into the field? It's pretty common sense and aims at protecting women during a time in which women were often viewed as property and particularly vulnerable as such.

AOC laws have the same function in protecting children as ancient Biblical laws that protected women. It places an enormous amount of power within the grasp of the child.

And that raises a very important question: Why did the accused have unsupervised contact with the child? What was he doing there? Even if he really is innocent, what business does he have being alone with a child?

The scary part for me is that being alone and isolated with young children and teenagers for a half hour at a time, I'm at considerable risk for that kind of thing myself. It's something I have to deal with every day. I have a few advantages that most adults generally don't have. For one, private music teachers generally (as far as I know) have an impeccable reputation for working alone with children without weird stuff happening. For another, I insist that parents remain either in the room with the child or at least in the adjacent waiting room. As a matter of fact, there is no door between the piano room and the waiting room, there are other teachers' offices in the same office complex where the piano is located, and from time to time even random people drop by because they are curious about the music they hear and like to see what I'm doing.

I just quit a day gig (as of August) in which my teaching studio was located in a storage/filing room. No joke. Practically a broom closet. I called it my dungeon. Other teachers called it the "rat room." There was so much coumarin in there that "Chemical Ali" would have been proud. My studio had fewer windows than a Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall. The redeeming qualities was that 1) Previous piano teachers had used that room; 2) The outer wall was cardboard-thin, so passers-by would hear EVERYTHING that was going on, one of the school counselors often randomly popped in and out to look up or return files, and groups of students would randomly interrupt lessons to retrieve the folding tables they stored in there. Even if I'd intended to do something improper, it would have been a stupider risk to take than Sandusky.

Over the years, I've had some very odd ducks come through my doors. One girl was just nuts and had a terribly disturbing home life, not to mention constant harassment from other students. She ended up moving in with relatives and going to a public school. There was another girl who--and I dunno what her problem was--frequently acting inappropriately towards me. I don't mean necessarily in a sexually suggestive way, but certainly in a suspicious way. I held on for a school year, and the next year just "oops, forgot" to put her back on my roll. At my evening gig I once had a young girl who was, um, a little slow but not unteachable. Her mother was just loony toons. Either she or, well, I guess it was her husband, would drop this little girl off with me and then just disappear. One night, after a lesson, the girl told me she was meeting her dad at such-and-such a place, I walked her down, waited a few minutes, and she insisted she'd be ok. And I really wasn't in a position to wait with her, and I really didn't know what to do. This is on a college campus, btw. What parent leaves a small child alone on a college campus??? One night they left her older sister or cousin with her, and all that girl did was complain. And I mean the WHOLE TIME. About a month went by that they booked lessons, responded to followup calls, and then, BOOM, wouldn't show up for lessons. I asked my supervisor to take those people off my role. She initially refused, I explained the situation, that the mother was crazy and the child wasn't learning anything, and when she resisted I told her, "look, it's them or me. You can book them for the time if you want to, but I will NOT be showing up." And that was the end of it. The ONLY time I've ever kicked a kid out of piano lessons.

The point I'm trying to make here is that this is a fear I know firsthand as a male teacher who spends a significant amount of time alone with children. I have to know that the parents trust me. I prefer that parents either be present or nearby. And basically I do what I can to protect myself and make sure I don't get in Sandusky-esque kind of trouble. Having control over who my students are is a big help, and that is a privilege that classroom teachers do not have (it is a privilege for students to study with me, actually). It boggles my mind that individuals who go through the process of BECOMING teachers make it to the classroom can't seem to keep their hands to themselves or their d!cks in their pants. I bear the burden of praying that I don't have a kid go nuts on me. While people like me are the ones you can trust to spend extended periods of time alone with your kids, it's the guys in the public school classrooms ejaculating all over themselves because of jailbait. And yes, I'm aware that piano teachers aren't immune, either. It's just not as publicized. What, are we just expected to be pervs that it doesn't make the news?

The other thing is how frighteningly common this kind of thing really is. It's a fairly recent fad to blow it all up in the press, but only certain high profile cases are the ones getting the attention. Just do a google on "piano teacher jailed" or "band director jailed." Where I'm from, you never hear about this stuff. Band directors are constantly networking, so I got to hear more than I wanted about former acquaintances of mine and even teachers I'd even admired at one point in time--one or two who no longer teach and at least one who is sitting in prison. I even remember a trip I took to S. Korea with an all-state band in which a college-age chaperone got busted doing something hinky with a teenager. They both got busted for it, were not allowed to participate further, might have gotten an early ride home, but it hardly made national news.

No, it's the Debra "Does Dallas" Lafave types that get all the media attention for being young, pretty, and blonde bombshells fulfilling every freshman hormone-injected boy's Van Halen fantasy. Sure, it's the teacher's poor judgment that gets them in trouble. But it's reprehensible that it's OK for teenage boys to manipulate female teachers and cause them such misery, only to have the teachers end up doing time and unable to support themselves afterwards without the kids being given any discipline whatsoever in pulling garbage like that. I mean, really, who do they think they are? I don't know if anything like this already exists or not, but there ought to be a way that teachers can take action against students for approaching teachers in grossly inappropriate ways. Show the KIDS what happens when you mess with the wrong person, and I'm pretty sure you'll have fewer teachers screwing up from kids playing manipulative games.



pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

17 Nov 2012, 1:40 am

What a bunch of BS.

You might as well say that the Jews themselves are to blame that they were murdered in concentration camps, or Tutsi are guilty of that they were killed by Hutus.

Only a lawyer could come up with such nonsense



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Nov 2012, 3:15 am

Shatbat wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
We are SO priviledged to have the one guy on the planet who knows better than the entire rest of the civilized World about the issue - right here lecturing us-and lecturing us-and lecturing us about this.

So Angelrho- since your so bent on saving the world from being sexually exploited by young children -why dont you start your crusade by freeing Sandusky. He claimed that all those young kids came on to HIM. So I guess Sandusky was telling the truth!


I fail to see the way everything AngelRho has said implies that Sandusky should go free.

Not necessarily that Sandusky should go free, but that maybe all of those boys he was accused of "raping," to use AngelRho's scare quotes, actually consented ahead of time just like Sandusky said. Maybe it was their fault for 'coming on to him.'
Sandusky was a good man, well respected in the community... why should his reputation be friviously destroyed by these accusations?



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

17 Nov 2012, 7:00 am

AngelRho wrote:
LKL wrote:
Statutory rape exists as a legal reality because children are incapable of consent, regardless of what they think they're capable of.

Not buying it. Sounds too much like a rationalization to me. Children consent to all sorts of things all the time. Depending on what mood the wife and I are in, like if we're both ambivalent towards doing one activity or another, or maybe we just couldn't care any less, we'll call the oldest into the room, present him with two choices, and let him decide. Now, sure, little kids typically choose the second option, so we'll ask twice and reverse the options. If he still makes the same choice, we know it's because it's something he wants and not something he's just going along with.


It's a proven fact that they cannot give informed consent to an adult. Even a teenager is often not mature enough to understand all the ramifications (including emotional) of the act itself. Plus, an adult has power over them and can easily manipulate them, even if this does not cause trauma immediately, it will later on and effect the child's life later on as well.

AngelRho wrote:
I object to child sex for completely different reasons ...


"Because it says so in the bible" obviously, based on your posting history. Although, I should point out then that the bible does not mention an age of consent.



Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

17 Nov 2012, 7:57 am

LKL wrote:
Not necessarily that Sandusky should go free, but that maybe all of those boys he was accused of "raping," to use AngelRho's scare quotes, actually consented ahead of time just like Sandusky said. Maybe it was their fault for 'coming on to him.'
Sandusky was a good man, well respected in the community... why should his reputation be friviously destroyed by these accusations?


The way I understood it, naturalplastic was just strawmaning, and I figured I should say something about it.

To grossly simplify AngelRho's argument in a few lines, he mantains that while it's certainly true that an adult has no business having sex with a 12 YO, and if a girl appeared naked at a teacher's office demanding sex then, he'd be showing incredibly bad judgment, at best, if he accepted it, so if that actually happened then the main blame falls on the teacher, he isn't arguing that. But we can't just dismiss completely what the child did because "she is immature and doesn't know what she's doing" Sure enough, that exactly is the basis why we charge adults to protect them, as you said, they should be protecting them from themselves instead of having sex with them, but we can't deny that in that example what the kid did was just wrong. 12 years old are smarter and more perverted than we give them credit for. In fact, when I was 12, there were some guys in my classroom who would sometimes grab the English teacher's ass, they definitely knew, maybe not as clear as an adult, but they knew what were they doing and some of the implications. Age of consent is a slippery slope, why 18 is alright but 17+364 isn't? Or plain 17, 16, etc. Slippery slope, and the law decides to fail in the side of safety and put it at an upper limit; but in reality, as my father says, some 16 YO can be smarter and more mature than some 30 YO. It's debatable whether 12 years old are old enough to consent for sexual activity with an adult; and I see a fundamental difference between that one, and a 12 with another 12, or 14, or whatever: while an adult is a fully mature person who should know better, and also, an adult has the capacity to manipulate a kid who doesn't know better into doing what he wants him to do, both 12 are just as inexperienced, so the fact that they can and have sex between themselves doesn't mean an adult can too. But it means thay kids do know about sex to some extent, and have a grasp of the situations that can lead to it. At least they can understand, and if they don't know, then they should be taught.

Also, another thing he worries about is the possibility of a kid screwing his teacher's life over through accusations of rape. Let's talk about Michael Jackson. I believe that at least one of the children who claimed to have been molested by him later said, after his death, that it had been just a ploy to get money off him through a lawsuit. God knows whether the other accusations were true or not, but talking about that specific one, what the kid did was terrible. And if a kid felt like saying that his teacher molested him to get something out of it, the teachers should have some sort of protection too, so far they are already walking on eggshells and like the example of the field and the personal stories later on imply, must not only not do anything indecent, which is obvious enough, but make sure that they are seen at all times while not doing it, and avoid putting themselves in suspicious circumstances even if nothing is actually happening, because of that risk. Although anyway, I'd really appreciate if AngelRho could provide us with a concrete example of a kid using sex as a way to manipulate one of his or her teachers, I can imagine it, but proof is better.


_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

17 Nov 2012, 9:13 am

Shatbat wrote:
LKL wrote:
Not necessarily that Sandusky should go free, but that maybe all of those boys he was accused of "raping," to use AngelRho's scare quotes, actually consented ahead of time just like Sandusky said. Maybe it was their fault for 'coming on to him.'
Sandusky was a good man, well respected in the community... why should his reputation be friviously destroyed by these accusations?


The way I understood it, naturalplastic was just strawmaning, and I figured I should say something about it.

To grossly simplify AngelRho's argument in a few lines, he mantains that while it's certainly true that an adult has no business having sex with a 12 YO, and if a girl appeared naked at a teacher's office demanding sex then, he'd be showing incredibly bad judgment, at best, if he accepted it, so if that actually happened then the main blame falls on the teacher, he isn't arguing that. But we can't just dismiss completely what the child did because "she is immature and doesn't know what she's doing" Sure enough, that exactly is the basis why we charge adults to protect them, as you said, they should be protecting them from themselves instead of having sex with them, but we can't deny that in that example what the kid did was just wrong. 12 years old are smarter and more perverted than we give them credit for. In fact, when I was 12, there were some guys in my classroom who would sometimes grab the English teacher's ass, they definitely knew, maybe not as clear as an adult, but they knew what were they doing and some of the implications. Age of consent is a slippery slope, why 18 is alright but 17+364 isn't? Or plain 17, 16, etc. Slippery slope, and the law decides to fail in the side of safety and put it at an upper limit; but in reality, as my father says, some 16 YO can be smarter and more mature than some 30 YO. It's debatable whether 12 years old are old enough to consent for sexual activity with an adult; and I see a fundamental difference between that one, and a 12 with another 12, or 14, or whatever: while an adult is a fully mature person who should know better, and also, an adult has the capacity to manipulate a kid who doesn't know better into doing what he wants him to do, both 12 are just as inexperienced, so the fact that they can and have sex between themselves doesn't mean an adult can too. But it means thay kids do know about sex to some extent, and have a grasp of the situations that can lead to it. At least they can understand, and if they don't know, then they should be taught.

Also, another thing he worries about is the possibility of a kid screwing his teacher's life over through accusations of rape. Let's talk about Michael Jackson. I believe that at least one of the children who claimed to have been molested by him later said, after his death, that it had been just a ploy to get money off him through a lawsuit. God knows whether the other accusations were true or not, but talking about that specific one, what the kid did was terrible. And if a kid felt like saying that his teacher molested him to get something out of it, the teachers should have some sort of protection too, so far they are already walking on eggshells and like the example of the field and the personal stories later on imply, must not only not do anything indecent, which is obvious enough, but make sure that they are seen at all times while not doing it, and avoid putting themselves in suspicious circumstances even if nothing is actually happening, because of that risk. Although anyway, I'd really appreciate if AngelRho could provide us with a concrete example of a kid using sex as a way to manipulate one of his or her teachers, I can imagine it, but proof is better.

That's pretty close. I don't think the "slippery slope" bit is really accurate. There is such a thing as a non-fallacious slippery slope, but I don't slippery slope applies here in a non-fallacious way.

The thing I get hung up on more is the whole "consent" bs. You summarized my position on it well. The way AOC is implemented is as a safety-net compromise. If kids can have sex with each other and CONSENT to sex with each other, then they can consent to have sex with anyone they want to have sex with. If it really is true that kids CANNOT consent, which is nonsense because they consent all the time, then they all need to be picked up by the cops and hauled off to the D.C. every time they get caught, or DHS needs to come out to their homes and place them in "protective custody" (although they'll just end up getting sexually abused in foster care, but whatever). Lock up the parents for reckless endangerment for not knowing what their kids are doing. And stop freakin' holding kids to different legal standards!! ! If all we want to do is scare the hell out of them before they turn 18, fine. But if you want to start acting like an adult, make adult mistakes, you should suffer adult consequences, even if all you do is give the kids just enough to make them want to stop doing what gets them in trouble.

"Can't consent" is just downright absurd. If they cannot consent, then they never would consent. What we're really saying is they can't give LEGAL consent. But why? Because GROWNUPS made up laws to that effect. So really this just amounts to appeal to law and perhaps even circular reasoning. It's illogical. Or maybe we mean "can't give INFORMED consent." Maybe so, but not always. 12 year olds know more than some of us are willing to admit. They're having sex, they're aware of the risks, and they still like it anyway. Tell a nicotine addict that tobacco smoke can kill him and see just how much that deters him from lighting up.

Come on, I knew what was what by the time I was 12. And I knew girls younger than that who knew what was what a lot more than I did. We'd sneak out behind my grandfather's tool shed and make out until someone called for us. And I've even mentioned someone who lived close to us who had a sexual encounter at 12 years old with a messed-up babysitter. Can't consent...please! Utter nonsense.

Concrete example? Just do a quick google. Here's one:
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/10/11/teacher-falsely-accused-having-sex-student
Fortunately, this is an example of a teacher using GOOD judgment and actually NOT going to jail over accusations. But the police did come to her classroom and read her her rights, if I understand correctly, with children present. It's really disrupted her family, endangered her career, and negatively impacted the school and district as a whole.

Here's another, in fact, ACTUALLY INVOLVING a girl who was 12 years old at the time:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/falsely-accused-virginia-teacher-sean-lanigan-attempts-reclaim/story?id=13615934#.UKea1qUWGIg



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

17 Nov 2012, 9:34 am

Jono wrote:
"Because it says so in the bible" obviously, based on your posting history. Although, I should point out then that the bible does not mention an age of consent.

Bingo. The Bible gives that ALL unmarried sex is wrong. There is no need to concern oneself with AOC because consent doesn't magically make something right and moral. In fact, consent just makes it worse because now it puts both parties at fault. Either they would be "strongly encouraged" to get married or they'd both be put to death--one for breaking a vow to her betrothed, the other for knowingly pursuing an engaged woman.

There might be something in the Talmud about AOC, but that's beyond the scope of my knowledge on the matter. But I can say that AOC in Western society exacerbates the issue and seems to cause more problems than it actually solves. Simply put: You want to stay out of trouble when it comes to sexual issues? DON'T FREAKIN' HAVE SEX!! !



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

17 Nov 2012, 10:02 am

@Shatbat: I forgot to mention Michael Jackson. On the one hand, Michael Jackson was just smart enough to stay just this side of legal, and he could afford the best legal team(s) in the world to put a stop to criminal proceedings. And he could pull a Roman Polanski and leave the country whenever he wanted until things cooled down and people left him alone.

MJ was a poor liar, though, and he did admit to sleeping with children. Well, if that's bad, lock me up to, because my 3-year-old wakes up the same time every morning and crawls into bed with my wife and I, and all any of us wear are t-shirts and undies. We're big-time pervs, right?

The difference is we're not famous, nor do we fall under intense media scrutiny. And these are our OWN kids, not someone else's. And while we may be an eccentric family, we got nuthin on MJ.

MJ's biggest problem was that there were REPEATED accusations of abuse and he bothered to settle out of court to get charges dropped. It should come as no surprise if MJ doesn't change his behavior, it's going to happen again. I always thought more should have happened to MJ, even if the allegations were false, because MJ was being stupid.

In the end, sure, MJ did inappropriate if not criminal things. But, really, who is more at fault? MJ for doing what MJ does? Or the parents who think it's ok to endanger their kids by placing them near a known pedophile for sleepovers? The parent(s) should have been brought up on negligence charges and child endangerment.

I don't care what anybody says about MJ, nor do I care what he actually did that nobody talks about. I STILL think his music was awesome. He owned a Synclavier, which is a testament to his artistic brilliance. Being a Synclavier owner myself, I have a lot of respect for that.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

17 Nov 2012, 11:03 am

OK, here's a better example of a district actually being at fault:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/22/student-sues-school-district-over-sexually-abusive-former-band-teacher/

It still disturbs me, though, that some of the girls involved agreed to meet up with this guy for sex, and at least in one case seemed to enjoy it, and this girl whines about the teacher having sex with her because she's underaged. There's more to this story. What do I think happened? The girl found out he was doing it with other girls while she wanted him all to herself. I don't know what AOC is in Illinois, but as far as I'm aware many states have laws on the books against sex with students EVEN IF AOC isn't an issue. I don't buy the "position of authority and trust" argument one bit, so I think it's a mistake to cry abuse on that basis. It does severely damage a teacher's effectiveness, though, because of violated boundaries.

As an example, I'm taking it upon myself to teach my own children to play musical instruments, and we're starting out on piano. I even talk them through the tech side of keyboards, synthesizers, DAWs, mixers, cables, etc., and I let them do things in the sanctuary that ordinary parents would NEVER allow their 3-year olds to do when it comes to handling sound equipment. The trouble is that it is DIFFICULT to learn piano at any age, much less 3 years old, and so, yeah, there has been a lot of whining and crying at my house and place of business in the past when it's just me and the kids. The reason why is that my own children had this image of me as a pal, a friend, a protector, deliverer of wrath and punishment when we misbehave, and the almighty dispenser of band-aids for even the smallest of injuries. There never had been any boundaries between us as parents and our children. So when piano stops being novel and fun and becomes work, they had to learn that it's time to quit when DAD says it's time to quit, and yes, you will keep playing that until it's perfect. They had to learn the same boundaries I have to keep with my other students, so now there's not the screaming fits there used to be back when we were just getting started. What MOST piano teachers will tell you, and I agree, is never teach your own kids. I'm persistent enough to overcome it and have made myself an exception, but I would give the same advice to other piano teachers as well.

In principle, teachers having sex with students is the same thing. You can't wield power over a sexual partner because there are no longer any boundaries. It's probably possible to regain those boundaries, but it would be a distraction, and it would cause emotional turmoil for the duration. Schools that actually do their jobs don't have time for that crap. So, yeah, the teacher has got to go, he should be stripped of his credentials, and he should face misdemeanor jail time and/or fines. I think 12 years is a little much for a lovers' spat.

But back to the point--should the district be held responsible because they have a stupid teacher getting in the middle of stupid students? I say NO. Should the district be held responsible because they KNEW what was going on, tried to cover it up, and failed to stop this guy from messing with students? YES, YES, YES. I mean, the least they could have done was make up some cover story for why they didn't renew his contract, explain to him he wouldn't be offered a contract, explain to him WHY, offer to reassign him, and wish him good luck if he declined to accept reassignment. They call that "passing the trash." What we have here is a case of a stupid teacher messing with stupid students in a stupid school in the middle of a stupid school district. Ron White said it best when he talked about marrying an attractive, smart woman: Stupid is 4-EVAH!

You can't fix stupid:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL6wbsGx9qw[/youtube]

Look, forget about the moral issue. Forget about the ethical issue. Forget about AOC and whether or not kids can consent and why you hate people like me playing devil's advocate, and all that... Just for a moment... I started 1st grade in 1984, the first of 12 miserable years in the same, lame school. I spent a semester of observation the year before my field experiences semester, and I did my student teaching in 2000 before taking time off and getting my master's degree. I taught in the classroom for 5 miserable years starting in 2003. From everything I witnessed on both sides of the desk, nothing has really changed since 1984:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZF-8FSFzy0[/youtube]



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

17 Nov 2012, 11:09 am

AngelRho wrote:
Jono wrote:
"Because it says so in the bible" obviously, based on your posting history. Although, I should point out then that the bible does not mention an age of consent.

Bingo. The Bible gives that ALL unmarried sex is wrong. There is no need to concern oneself with AOC because consent doesn't magically make something right and moral. In fact, consent just makes it worse because now it puts both parties at fault. Either they would be "strongly encouraged" to get married or they'd both be put to death--one for breaking a vow to her betrothed, the other for knowingly pursuing an engaged woman.

There might be something in the Talmud about AOC, but that's beyond the scope of my knowledge on the matter. But I can say that AOC in Western society exacerbates the issue and seems to cause more problems than it actually solves. Simply put: You want to stay out of trouble when it comes to sexual issues? DON'T FREAKIN' HAVE SEX!! !


You're an idiot. The bible also has no problem with virgins as young as 12/13 getting married, indicating, of course, that there's explicitly against peadophilia. Want to have sex with a child? All you have to do is marry her. Then again, the bible endorses a lot of things I would consider immoral. Speaking of which, if your basis for considering it immoral is marriage, then am I to assume that you are OK with the cultures that do marry girls as young as 13 and have men as old as 50 have sex with them. I personally think it's immoral even if they are "married".



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

17 Nov 2012, 1:32 pm

Jono wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Jono wrote:
"Because it says so in the bible" obviously, based on your posting history. Although, I should point out then that the bible does not mention an age of consent.

Bingo. The Bible gives that ALL unmarried sex is wrong. There is no need to concern oneself with AOC because consent doesn't magically make something right and moral. In fact, consent just makes it worse because now it puts both parties at fault. Either they would be "strongly encouraged" to get married or they'd both be put to death--one for breaking a vow to her betrothed, the other for knowingly pursuing an engaged woman.

There might be something in the Talmud about AOC, but that's beyond the scope of my knowledge on the matter. But I can say that AOC in Western society exacerbates the issue and seems to cause more problems than it actually solves. Simply put: You want to stay out of trouble when it comes to sexual issues? DON'T FREAKIN' HAVE SEX!! !


You're an idiot. The bible also has no problem with virgins as young as 12/13 getting married, indicating, of course, that there's explicitly against peadophilia. Want to have sex with a child? All you have to do is marry her. Then again, the bible endorses a lot of things I would consider immoral. Speaking of which, if your basis for considering it immoral is marriage, then am I to assume that you are OK with the cultures that do marry girls as young as 13 and have men as old as 50 have sex with them. I personally think it's immoral even if they are "married".

Here we go with the ad hominem attacks. Thanks for making it clear at the start of the post you have no intention of having a rational discussion!



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

17 Nov 2012, 2:08 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Jono wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Jono wrote:
"Because it says so in the bible" obviously, based on your posting history. Although, I should point out then that the bible does not mention an age of consent.

Bingo. The Bible gives that ALL unmarried sex is wrong. There is no need to concern oneself with AOC because consent doesn't magically make something right and moral. In fact, consent just makes it worse because now it puts both parties at fault. Either they would be "strongly encouraged" to get married or they'd both be put to death--one for breaking a vow to her betrothed, the other for knowingly pursuing an engaged woman.

There might be something in the Talmud about AOC, but that's beyond the scope of my knowledge on the matter. But I can say that AOC in Western society exacerbates the issue and seems to cause more problems than it actually solves. Simply put: You want to stay out of trouble when it comes to sexual issues? DON'T FREAKIN' HAVE SEX!! !


You're an idiot. The bible also has no problem with virgins as young as 12/13 getting married, indicating, of course, that there's explicitly against peadophilia. Want to have sex with a child? All you have to do is marry her. Then again, the bible endorses a lot of things I would consider immoral. Speaking of which, if your basis for considering it immoral is marriage, then am I to assume that you are OK with the cultures that do marry girls as young as 13 and have men as old as 50 have sex with them. I personally think it's immoral even if they are "married".

Here we go with the ad hominem attacks. Thanks for making it clear at the start of the post you have no intention of having a rational discussion!


Most of my post was perfectly rational. Did you even read my post?



iBlockhead
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

17 Nov 2012, 2:29 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Jono wrote:
You're an idiot. The bible also has no problem with virgins as young as 12/13 getting married, indicating, of course, that there's explicitly against peadophilia. Want to have sex with a child? All you have to do is marry her. Then again, the bible endorses a lot of things I would consider immoral. Speaking of which, if your basis for considering it immoral is marriage, then am I to assume that you are OK with the cultures that do marry girls as young as 13 and have men as old as 50 have sex with them. I personally think it's immoral even if they are "married".

Here we go with the ad hominem attacks. Thanks for making it clear at the start of the post you have no intention of having a rational discussion!


:lol: I should have posted before you and called you were going to do that. You're not going to answer anything that hurts your reputation too much on one issue. You've already established a pattern that you're going to squirm out of tough situations using any deflection measures necessary, notably through playing the victim..

I'm sorry life isn't going so well and you have to retaliate and strike back against people who don't believe the things you do on an autism/Asperger's support message board, notably one that supports homosexuality and has a special thread for them. You want me to help you find a new message board so you don't need to do this, or do you enjoy riling up people and making them angry for pleasure? It must be nice to abuse the ToS in such a way that it makes you feel like a victim, unlike in the real world.