36 year old female teacher had sex with 14 year old student
22 Oct 2013, 8:00 am
If it's not an actual rape, and just a label called "statutory rape" (no abuse and no victim), I would hope he doesn't get caught and be punished especially when the law is going to be too harsh for something so relatively trivial.
Why would I not have mercy on my own loved one if the situation wasn't rape and I just respond by lacking empathy and acting like a monster?
Now if it was a real crime like real rape, like murder, and all that stuff, then that would be different story. But it would still hurt me to see my loved go through this regardless.
22 Oct 2013, 8:02 am
Schneekugel wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Hey, Jono, theoretical question:
Let's say you have an adult sibling/loved one who got involved in a scandal similar to this with a teenager (no feeling of abuse reported from the teenager and the teenager is actually fine with what happened) and he/she got caught by the authorities, would you make sure he/she gets punished by law and, if so, what is a fair punishment for such a case?
Let's say you have an adult sibling/loved one who got involved in a scandal similar to this with a teenager (no feeling of abuse reported from the teenager and the teenager is actually fine with what happened) and he/she got caught by the authorities, would you make sure he/she gets punished by law and, if so, what is a fair punishment for such a case?
Do you think, that if your sister drove double as fast as the speed limit is, in your country, that it would be unfair to sue her for driving double as fast as allowed, because out of luck, noone was harmed?
Money comes and goes. I would be glad she didn't get hurt more than worry about the fine.
I would also be fine with having her license stripped (for a while on first offense at least).
22 Oct 2013, 9:49 am
Coitus is a natural part of life for other animal species. Our species is uniquely absurd in seeking to associate this perfectly natural act with enormous layers of guilt, shame, and psychological trauma.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN4HvrMXbmA[/youtube]
For reasons outlined in the above video, it is perfectly sensible to keep penises away from teenaged girls. Girls have wombs, and may suffer a lot of consequences if impregnated. Shaming, and legal consequences for adult men, both serve as useful and powerful deterrents.
For boys: spermatozoa is very cheap. If we're not ejaculating into a vagina, then we'll empty it into a tissue, or it will come out during a wet dream. Trying to associate any shame with these activities, and trying to keep boys away from willing cougars, is useless and petty.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYkXcHLPf18[/youtube]
Last edited by ArrantPariah on 22 Oct 2013, 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
22 Oct 2013, 11:17 am
ArrantPariah wrote:
Coitus is a natural part of life for other any species. Our species is uniquely absurd in seeking to associate this perfectly natural act with enormous layers of guilt, shame, and psychological trauma.
Actually, that's entirely wrong. No human society has ever associated the act itself with any of that, other than perhaps certain gnostic religious sects who saw reproduction itself as evil, such as the Cathars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism .
In fact, not even the most religious groups, who think that any sex outside marriage is immoral, associate the act itself with "enormous layers of guilt, shame, and psychological trauma" as you have just claimed, even they regard it as either pleasurable or associate it with reproduction, they just want it done within the bounds of traditional marriage. However, regardless of whether a society is permissive or conservative with regards to sexuality, they all mostly agree that as bare minimum, consent, (even informed consent, which an immature child or teenager cannot give to an adult) has to be given before any sexual activity takes place. So no, the human species is not different at all with regard to sexuality in that respect to other species, as long as it is done while conforming to the rules of society.
ArrantPariah wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN4HvrMXbmA[/youtube]
For reasons outlined in the above video, it is perfectly sensible to keep penises away from teenaged girls. Girls have wombs, and may suffer a lot of consequences if impregnated. Shaming, and legal consequences for adult men, both serve as useful and powerful deterrents.
For boys: spermatozoa is very cheap. If we're not ejaculating into a vagina, then we'll empty it into a tissue, or it will come out during a wet dream. Trying to associate any shame with these activities, and trying to keep boys away from willing cougars, is useless and petty.
For reasons outlined in the above video, it is perfectly sensible to keep penises away from teenaged girls. Girls have wombs, and may suffer a lot of consequences if impregnated. Shaming, and legal consequences for adult men, both serve as useful and powerful deterrents.
For boys: spermatozoa is very cheap. If we're not ejaculating into a vagina, then we'll empty it into a tissue, or it will come out during a wet dream. Trying to associate any shame with these activities, and trying to keep boys away from willing cougars, is useless and petty.
The above video talks about Bateman's Principle which has nothing whatsoever at all to do with adults having sex with children, or whether it should be allowed. Not to mention that Bateman's Principle, at least in it's original form and the way it's described in that video, is actually wrong it especially doesn't apply in that way to humans. In fact, it doesn't even apply in that way to closest relatives, namely the chimpanzees and bonobos (because the is an evolutionary benefit for females to mate multiple males), that's how we know that it probably doesn't apply to humans either. Also, just by bringing this up, you are invoking the naturalistic fallacy here, just because something is found in nature, that does not make it right ethically.
22 Oct 2013, 11:28 am
ArrantPariah wrote:
Coitus is a natural part of life for other animal species. Our species is uniquely absurd in seeking to associate this perfectly natural act with enormous layers of guilt, shame, and psychological trauma.
Exactly how is "This is how a condom works." No have fun with your friends associated with "seeking to associate this perfectly natural act with enormous layers of guilt, shame, and psychological trauma."
Could you please decide yourself, what you want to accuse us europeans? Sometimes you are writing about us being so perverted, only because of us not having that typical problems with sex as US people have it, and suddenly, only because of you poor boy being forced to only have access to 90% of our citizens, we are suddenly "associating this perfectly natural act with enormous layers of guilt, shame, and psychological trauma"?
Could you decide yourself, which of both you want to accuse us? Or is that oppinion of yours changing, according what fits the actual topic best to rant around?
22 Oct 2013, 1:17 pm
Jono wrote:
In fact, not even the most religious groups, who think that any sex outside marriage is immoral, associate the act itself with "enormous layers of guilt, shame, and psychological trauma" as you have just claimed, even they regard it as either pleasurable or associate it with reproduction, they just want it done within the bounds of traditional marriage.
Oh? Well, someone above was arguing that boys shouldn't have coitus with MILFs because of the possibility of experiencing latent psychological trauma during adulthood.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c2a6.htm
Catholic Catechism wrote:
...Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
...By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.
...Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
...By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.
...Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
So, what is one to make of all of this talk of being "morally disordered", "intrinsically and gravely disordered", and "intrinsically disordered?" Teenaged boys can generate buckets of sperm every day. Why not let them have a little fun, and go ahead and ejaculate, without calling them "intrinsically and gravely disordered?"
Jono wrote:
However, regardless of whether a society is permissive or conservative with regards to sexuality, they all mostly agree that as bare minimum, consent, (even informed consent, which an immature child or teenager cannot give to an adult) has to be given before any sexual activity takes place.
A teenager can consent. The only distinction is that his consent has no legal bearing, depending upon the jurisdiction. Albania says that one can consent at 14. In Mexico, one can consent at 12. Are 14-year-old Albanians really such much more mature than 14-year-old Americans, that their consent is meaningful whilst the consent of their American counterparts is not? Laws are purely artificial in this regard.
Jono wrote:
So no, the human species is not different at all with regard to sexuality in that respect to other species, as long as it is done while conforming to the rules of society.
Conforming to so-called "rules of society" is uniquely human.
Jono wrote:
The above video talks about Bateman's Principle which has nothing whatsoever at all to do with adults having sex with children, or whether it should be allowed. Not to mention that Bateman's Principle, at least in it's original form and the way it's described in that video, is actually wrong it especially doesn't apply in that way to humans. In fact, it doesn't even apply in that way to closest relatives, namely the chimpanzees and bonobos (because the is an evolutionary benefit for females to mate multiple males), that's how we know that it probably doesn't apply to humans either.
Scientists are applying Bateman's principle all over the place. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096780/
Jono wrote:
Also, just by bringing this up, you are invoking the naturalistic fallacy here, just because something is found in nature, that does not make it right ethically.
And how does one determine what is "right ethically?" If a simple act does no party any harm, then it should be "right ethically."
Last edited by ArrantPariah on 22 Oct 2013, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
22 Oct 2013, 1:29 pm
This gives new meaning to " Teacher's Pet."
Even if it was legal,it's unprofessional,like office dalliances.It just causes trouble in the long run.What if a boy gets mad because teach didn't pick him to pound erasers?More like pound something else.And if the boy does not please her,will she get mad?Will he have to write a hundred times"I will not ejaculate too soon?"And what if he drops the teach for a girl his age,a jealous grown woman could make a young girls life a living hell .Then some of the male teachers will start to b***h if they don't have the same rights as the females to screw the students.
_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi
22 Oct 2013, 2:17 pm
Misslizard wrote:
This gives new meaning to " Teacher's Pet."
Even if it was legal,it's unprofessional,like office dalliances.It just causes trouble in the long run.What if a boy gets mad because teach didn't pick him to pound erasers?More like pound something else.And if the boy does not please her,will she get mad?Will he have to write a hundred times"I will not ejaculate too soon?"And what if he drops the teach for a girl his age,a jealous grown woman could make a young girls life a living hell .Then some of the male teachers will start to b***h if they don't have the same rights as the females to screw the students.
Even if it was legal,it's unprofessional,like office dalliances.It just causes trouble in the long run.What if a boy gets mad because teach didn't pick him to pound erasers?More like pound something else.And if the boy does not please her,will she get mad?Will he have to write a hundred times"I will not ejaculate too soon?"And what if he drops the teach for a girl his age,a jealous grown woman could make a young girls life a living hell .Then some of the male teachers will start to b***h if they don't have the same rights as the females to screw the students.
Well, okay. You're starting to make some sense for the other side.
22 Oct 2013, 2:41 pm
Schneekugel wrote:
Could you decide yourself, which of both you want to accuse us? Or is that oppinion of yours changing, according what fits the actual topic best to rant around?
I'm not claiming to be an adherent of any particular ideology.
I'm pointing out that, while clear and logical reasons exist for preventing teenaged girls from experiencing coitus, these reasons do not apply to boys, as we don't have wombs, vaginas nor hymens. The various arguments surrounding psychological issues, legal issues, social expectations and ethical appeals seem not sufficient to justify preventing boys from voluntarily emitting semen into the crevices of willing adult females. A desire may exist to treat boys and girls the same. But, I see no reason to restrain boys, and stop them from having a bit of fun, just because there are good reasons for protecting the reproductive organs of girls.
22 Oct 2013, 5:45 pm
ArrantPariah wrote:
Jono wrote:
In fact, not even the most religious groups, who think that any sex outside marriage is immoral, associate the act itself with "enormous layers of guilt, shame, and psychological trauma" as you have just claimed, even they regard it as either pleasurable or associate it with reproduction, they just want it done within the bounds of traditional marriage.
Oh? Well, someone above was arguing that boys shouldn't have coitus with MILFs because of the possibility of experiencing latent psychological trauma during adulthood.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c2a6.htm
Catholic Catechism wrote:
...Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
...By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.
...Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
...By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.
...Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
So, what is one to make of all of this talk of being "morally disordered", "intrinsically and gravely disordered", and "intrinsically disordered?"
First of all, I may be atheist but I was born and raised Catholic. Believe it or not, the Catholic Church is not opposed to sex for pleasure, all they say, really, is that sexual pleasure should only be enjoyed within marriage by a married couple but otherwise they are not opposed to it.
ArrantPariah wrote:
Teenaged boys can generate buckets of sperm every day. Why not let them have a little fun, and go ahead and ejaculate, without calling them "intrinsically and gravely disordered?"
Not with an adult who has a power differential over him and to whom he can not give meaningful consent.
ArrantPariah wrote:
Jono wrote:
However, regardless of whether a society is permissive or conservative with regards to sexuality, they all mostly agree that as bare minimum, consent, (even informed consent, which an immature child or teenager cannot give to an adult) has to be given before any sexual activity takes place.
ArrantPariah wrote:
A teenager can consent. The only distinction is that his consent has no legal bearing, depending upon the jurisdiction. Albania says that one can consent at 14. In Mexico, one can consent at 12. Are 14-year-old Albanians really such much more mature than 14-year-old Americans, that their consent is meaningful whilst the consent of their American counterparts is not? Laws are purely artificial in this regard.
Two issues here. First of all, you'll notice that I said informed consent, not just consent. You may not realise that there's a difference, but there is one and it's quite important:
Wikipedia wrote:
Informed consent is consent given by an entity who has a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action; consent is uninformed when the entity does not have this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent
A child or young adolescent may think that they are giving consent but they are likely not mature enough to have a "clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences" as per the above definition. Only when it is informed consent, as per the above definition, can any consent given be considered valid or meaningful. With regards to differences in age of consent laws, we know that some teens mature faster than others, however we also know that fully developed adult is mature, or is supposed to be, and a child isn't. In between child and adult, there is a fuzzy line called adolescence where some people can mature faster than others and therefore some people of the same age are more mature than others. Unfortunately though, we cannot from a legal point of view, work on a case by case basis, therefore we have to place cutoff line within this fuzzy boundary between child and adult which is called the age of consent, such that an adolescent younger than this age cannot legally consent to adult older than it. The rule itself is not arbitrary and is the only workable solution because nobody has a crystal ball to determine the consequences for any individual.
ArrantPariah wrote:
Jono wrote:
So no, the human species is not different at all with regard to sexuality in that respect to other species, as long as it is done while conforming to the rules of society.
Conforming to so-called "rules of society" is uniquely human.
No it's not. About all social species of animals have social rules that an individual must follow, not just humans.
ArrantPariah wrote:
Jono wrote:
The above video talks about Bateman's Principle which has nothing whatsoever at all to do with adults having sex with children, or whether it should be allowed. Not to mention that Bateman's Principle, at least in it's original form and the way it's described in that video, is actually wrong it especially doesn't apply in that way to humans. In fact, it doesn't even apply in that way to closest relatives, namely the chimpanzees and bonobos (because the is an evolutionary benefit for females to mate multiple males), that's how we know that it probably doesn't apply to humans either.
Scientists are applying Bateman's principle all over the place. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096780/
By any chance, did you even read the study that you linked to? Because, in trying to prove to me that Bateman's Principle as originally stated is applicable to humans, you have in fact linked to an evo psych paper that actually supports my position. It in fact even lists human societies that practice polyandry (where a woman can marry multiple men) and even really permissive societies (where everyone has sex with everyone, both male and female whether through serial monogamy or multiple partners), both of which violate Bateman's original idea that males of any species are generally promiscuous while females are choosy.
ArrantPariah wrote:
Jono wrote:
Also, just by bringing this up, you are invoking the naturalistic fallacy here, just because something is found in nature, that does not make it right ethically.
And how does one determine what is "right ethically?" If a simple act does no party any harm, then it should be "right ethically."
As I've been saying all throughout this thread, there is harm done, that's why it's unethical and immoral. Also, practically all psychiatric papers on the subject actually conclude that not only is there psychological harm done in the majority of case but also that sexual activity between children and adults or children and adolescents is inherently abusive.
22 Oct 2013, 7:06 pm
Jono wrote:
Believe it or not, the Catholic Church is not opposed to sex for pleasure, all they say, really, is that sexual pleasure should only be enjoyed within marriage by a married couple but otherwise they are not opposed to it.
No. According to the Catholics, sex is for procreation. Pleasure is beside the point.
Jono wrote:
Not with an adult who has a power differential over him and to whom he can not give meaningful consent.
What is all this talk about "power differentials?" It sounds like some silly Feminist buzzword. Are people only supposed to have coitus with others of similar power status?
Jono wrote:
Two issues here. First of all, you'll notice that I said informed consent, not just consent. You may not realise that there's a difference, but there is one and it's quite important:
Okay, fine.
ArrantPariah's Correction wrote:
A teenager can informedly consent. The only distinction is that his informed consent has no legal bearing, depending upon the jurisdiction. Albania says that one can informedly consent at 14. In Mexico, one can informedly consent at 12. Are 14-year-old Albanians really such much more mature than 14-year-old Americans, that their informed consent is meaningful whilst the informed consent of their American counterparts is not? Laws are purely artificial in this regard.
Jono wrote:
A child or young adolescent may think that they are giving consent but they are likely not mature enough to have a "clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences" as per the above definition.
A teenager might or might not. A good reason to protect girls, as the consequences of coitus to girls can be enormous. The consequences to boys are comparatively trivial.
Jono wrote:
we cannot from a legal point of view, work on a case by case basis, therefore we have to place cutoff line within this fuzzy boundary between child and adult which is called the age of consent, such that an adolescent younger than this age cannot legally consent to adult older than it. The rule itself is not arbitrary and is the only workable solution because nobody has a crystal ball to determine the consequences for any individual.
The rule couldn't be more arbitrary.
Jono wrote:
No it's not. About all social species of animals have social rules that an individual must follow, not just humans.
Other species don't argue over the internet so much about their social roles.
Jono wrote:
As I've been saying all throughout this thread, there is harm done, that's why it's unethical and immoral. Also, practically all psychiatric papers on the subject actually conclude that not only is there psychological harm done in the majority of case but also that sexual activity between children and adults or children and adolescents is inherently abusive.
I agree that there is harm done to girls. I disagree that teenaged boys are harmed in the majority of heterosexual cases. The greater harm is done to the MILF once the law enforcement officers get wind of the boy bragging. As per the example of the Marquesas Islands, such activities are not "inherently abusive."
22 Oct 2013, 8:09 pm
pawelk1986 wrote:
Apparently this boy is a habitual truant, in article on internet
Someone post funny comment on this article saying that: " if she want to have sex with boy she should have sex with the top student not with disobedient truant boy"
Someone post funny comment on this article saying that: " if she want to have sex with boy she should have sex with the top student not with disobedient truant boy"
I wonder why the ladies always seem to go for the bad boys?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Florida teacher, aide accused of tying student to chair |
21 Feb 2024, 1:53 am |
| How does 40 year old look any different than a 38 year old? |
03 Apr 2024, 11:30 am |
| 33 year old never been in a relationship- need help. |
16 Apr 2024, 11:57 am |
| Happy Lunar New Year |
10 Feb 2024, 3:24 pm |
