[Kish]

Damn. These stories always get me upset. Not because I feel sorry for the "victim" but because I wish this type of thing happened to me. Where were all these slutty/perverted teachers when I was a highschool?!?

[Screwston]

LMAO that kid is a is he gay or just one of those emo kids? I barely even remember the girl that took my virginity.

[porscheguy]

I want to know how we've managed to raise such pussies masquerading as males. This kid was getting teary eyed because she popped his cherry and it wasn't "special enough." The teacher is kind of plain, but she's not fat. He probably got to raw dog it and bust inside. If the teacher was the least bit popular, he'll be able to bang other classmates despite his grossly beta behavior.

[NYJ]

Why couldn't that shit happen to me at 16?

[Tuthmosis]

(05-10-2012 11:01 PM)rakishness Wrote:  

Damn. These stories always get me upset. Not because I feel sorry for the "victim" but because I wish this type of thing happened to me. Where were all these slutty/perverted teachers when I was a highschool?!?

That emo kid's comments are laced with some juicy innuendo. LOL.

They need to sew that bitches cooch shut. Until male teachers can do this shit and get a slap on the wrist, they need to throw the book at these broads.

[Beyond Borders]

That other kid wishes he'd have banged her...or maybe he did and he's smart enough to keep his mouth shut.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

But the opposite = (statutory) rape

[OGNorCal707]

This isn't about a teacher and student, but here's a pretty fucked up story about a woman who had sex with her daughters' boyfriend. Apparently she could get 6 years in prison, for having sex with the "victim", and maybe he could be considered a victim, because she's busted.

http://www.the33tv.com/news/ktla-santa-a...4280.story

One thing I've noticed on a lot of articles I've read about older women having sex with underage boys, the commenters all seem to think that it's not a big deal. They tend to think that the woman should get a slap on the wrist and that it's not something that should be punishable with jail time. While, I don't disagree necessarily, these same commenters freak out and will burn a man at the stake if he's caught with an underage girl. That's what irks me, we live in a society and culture where there's supposed to be complete equality between the sexes, but yet this is another inconsistency.

Either way, if the guy or girl is over 14 and the sex is consentual, I don't think people should be thrown in jail for 5 + years, while people are getting less time for violent crimes. The system is truly fucked up.

[Kitsune]

I'm pretty sure these women are doing it because there are no alpha men and the closest substitutes they can get are the 'bad boys' who show them attitude at their work.

[Hotwheels]

While the teacher is nothing to write home about, if that was me at 16 I woulda been hitting it on the down low for quite some time.

[Sourcecode]

Id smash

[Caligula]

Most 16 year old guys would fuck anything that moves, these teachers get to feel way more desired than they could with older guys.

[Deluge]

(05-11-2012 01:17 PM)Kitsune Wrote:  

I'm pretty sure these women are doing it because there are no alpha men and the closest substitutes they can get are the 'bad boys' who show them attitude at their work.

Male teachers are even more overwhelmingly beta (with people their age, different story for students) than the general population. The most arousing men that female teachers interact with 40 hours a week are their male students.

[Basil Ransom]

(05-11-2012 01:03 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

That emo kid's comments are laced with some juicy innuendo. LOL.

They need to sew that bitches cooch shut. Until male teachers can do this shit and get a slap on the wrist, they need to throw the book at these broads.

Here's what's happening - you have a law that you fundamentally disagree with. It's a law that forbids something you think should be legal. And the law is usually levied on group A to "protect" group B.

Do you then use the law to punish group A, to get back at them?

For example, you oppose laws forbidding sexual discrimination. You want employers to have the right to choose, for whatever reason, to hire a man or woman for a position. In practice that means favoritism for the protected group, in this case women. You find a case of clear discrimination against men. Who do you side with - the employer exercising his right to discriminate, or the men discriminated against?

Siding *against* the person whose actions would be legal under your ideal laws, eg this female teacher, seems hypocritical and reactionary. The reasons for doing so is more tactical than principled, and I'm not sure it's all that tactically effective either.

Honestly, I think the guy is a pussy. He seemed to go along with it at the time - she "led him into a closet" - so why he is complaining now? He's in the same book as Miss I Now Regret It, So He's Now A Rapist. Don't care whether you have a dick or a vagina, if that's the card you're playing, you deserve to be laughed out of court.

And, given how DTF 16 year old dudes are and how she is decent looking, the likelihood that it was consensual at the time is very high. Without strong evidence to the contrary, I would not convict.

If it was forcible, it'd be a different story.

Hmm, oddly enough, she looks hotter in her mug shot than in her professional picture. The mug shot makes her look like she could be a 7-7.5 with makeup and her hair done well.

[teh_skeeze]

(05-12-2012 11:18 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 01:03 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

That emo kid's comments are laced with some juicy innuendo. LOL.

They need to sew that bitches cooch shut. Until male teachers can do this shit and get a slap on the wrist, they need to throw the book at these broads.

Here's what's happening - you have a law that you fundamentally disagree with. It's a law that forbids something you think should be legal. And the law is usually levied on group A to "protect" group B.

Do you then use the law to punish group A, to get back at them?

For example, you oppose laws forbidding sexual discrimination. You want employers to have the right to choose, for whatever reason, to hire a man or woman for a position. In practice that means favoritism for the protected group, in this case women. You find a case of clear discrimination against men. Who do you side with - the employer exercising his right to discriminate, or the men discriminated against?

Siding *against* the person whose actions would be legal under your ideal laws, eg this female teacher, seems hypocritical and reactionary. The reasons for doing so is more tactical than principled, and I'm not sure it's all that tactically effective either.

Honestly, I think the guy is a pussy. He seemed to go along with it at the time - she "led him into a closet" - so why he is complaining now? He's in the same book as Miss I Now Regret It, So He's Now A Rapist. Don't care whether you have a dick or a vagina, if that's the card you're playing, you deserve to be laughed out of court.

And, given how DTF 16 year old dudes are and how she is decent looking, the likelihood that it was consensual at the time is very high. Without strong evidence to the contrary, I would not convict.

If it was forcible, it'd be a different story.

I don't know what the state law is in this situation. In New Jersey, she has committed sexual assault. Doesn't matter if it's consensual. She holds a position of authority and has legal parental responsibilities (in loco parentis), and she abused them to get some dick. It's rationalizations like yours (16 year old boys are perpetually horny) that essentially give women carte blanche to sexually assault our children.

If she wasn't a teacher then it's fair game. It's not that age is an issue, it's the abuse of authority

[Basil Ransom]

(05-12-2012 11:28 AM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

I don't know what the state law is in this situation. In New Jersey, she has committed sexual assault. Doesn't matter if it's consensual. She holds a position of authority and has legal parental responsibilities (in loco parentis), and she abused them to get some dick.

If she wasn't a teacher then it's fair game. It's not that age is an issue, it's the abuse of authority

1. As a juror, it is your right to vote 'not guilty,' even if you believe the defendant was technically guilty, when you believe the law shouldn't be on the books. Eg, if you believed possession of marijuana should be legal, you would vote 'not guilty' on someone you were convinced did possess marijuana. Link

2. It is an abuse of responsibility, but I don't see it as a criminal one if there was consent from all parties.

Quote:

It's rationalizations like yours (16 year old boys are perpetually horny) that essentially give women carte blanche to sexually assault our children.

It's not a rationalization. It's a statement of probability met with the desire not to convict someone who isn't guilty, male or female. Alleged victim is male, 16. Alleged perpetrator is female, decently attractive. The encounter described doesn't sound very forceful. It sounds like regret, with a bit of reluctance, not rape. I don't know the case well, and maybe some facts would come out would change my opinion, but based on what I've seen, that's my conclusion.

Yeah, I'm a bad 'Men's Rights Activist,' because I believe men are different from women. If it were a homosexual encounter, with man on man or woman on woman, and the alleged victim had no history of homosexuality, I'd be more circumspect.

[teh_skeeze]

(05-12-2012 11:46 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

(05-12-2012 11:28 AM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

I don't know what the state law is in this situation. In New Jersey, she has committed sexual assault. Doesn't matter if it's consensual. She holds a position of authority and has legal parental responsibilities (in loco parentis), and she abused them to get some dick.

If she wasn't a teacher then it's fair game. It's not that age is an issue, it's the abuse of authority

1. As a juror, it is your right to vote 'not guilty,' even if you believe the defendant was technically guilty, when you believe the law shouldn't be on the books. Eg, if you believed possession of marijuana should be legal, you would vote 'not guilty' on someone you were convinced did possess marijuana. Link

2. It is an abuse of responsibility, but I don't see it as a criminal one if there was consent from all parties.

Quote:

It's rationalizations like yours (16 year old boys are perpetually horny) that essentially give women carte blanche to sexually assault our children.

It's not a rationalization. It's a statement of probability met with the desire not to convict someone who isn't guilty, male or female. Alleged victim is male, 16. Alleged perpetrator is female, decently attractive. The encounter described doesn't sound very forceful. It sounds like regret, with a bit of reluctance, not rape. I don't know the case well, and maybe some facts would come out would change my opinion, but based on what I've seen, that's my conclusion.

Yeah, I'm a bad 'Men's Rights Activist,' because I believe men are different from women. If it were a homosexual encounter, with man on man or woman on woman, and the alleged victim had no history of homosexuality, I'd be more circumspect.

I'm aware of jury nullification and I'll grant you that point. I'm thinking more like a prosecutor. Again, I don't know the law where this happened, but in New Jersey, she committed sexual assault. Once indicted, the facts of the case can come out.

edit:

wikipedia Wrote:

The age of consent in Florida is 18, but close in age exemptions exist. By law, the exception permits a person 23 years of age or younger to engage in legal sexual activity with a minor aged 16 or 17.

794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.-- (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose Florida code, Title XLVI, Chapter 794

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Basil, while I agree that all the sane and probable factors lead to the conclusion of this being consensual, the law declares this illegal. Please remember that, if it were the opposite, NO ONE would have been looking for the sane and probable factors and concluded that it was consensual. The male teacher would have been dubbed a predator, pervert and child molester, and the girl a poor victim, and in that case the law would be fully enforced instead of explained away with "willingness".

Your logic is correct, but I feel that not treating these cases as (statutory) rape - as they are by law, simply because it might be consensual (as it would have probably been in the opposite case) - gives feminists room to expand the comprehensive treatment of all guys like sexual predators by default without ever suffering any embarrassment from their own behavior. Why should men yield ground to them when the law is, for once, clearly on their side? It reminds me of Jesus turning the other cheek. But he got impaled on rusted nails and bled to death in the end because of that, so it can hardly be said that it was an effective strategy.

[Gmac]

Are you fucking kidding me? Dude shoulda smashed for 4 years.

[Basil Ransom]

(05-12-2012 05:41 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Basil, while I agree that all the sane and probable factors lead to the conclusion of this being consensual, the law declares this illegal. Please remember that, if it were the opposite, NO ONE would have been looking for the sane and probable factors and concluded that it was consensual. The male teacher would have been dubbed a predator, pervert and child molester, and the girl a poor victim, and in that case the law would be fully enforced instead of explained away with "willingness".

Few, outside this forum that is. I, on the other hand, per the guidelines of jury nullification, would vote 'Not Guilty.' And that is my right as a juror. You've never heard of jury nullification because the prosecution sure as hell doesn't want you to know about it, and nor does the judge as it takes power from him. And the defense is forbidden from mentioning it.

(05-12-2012 05:41 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Your logic is correct, but I feel that not treating these cases as (statutory) rape - as they are by law, simply because it might be consensual (as it would have probably been in the opposite case) - gives feminists room to expand the comprehensive treatment of all guys like sexual predators by default without ever suffering any embarrassment from their own behavior. Why should men yield ground to them when the law is, for once, clearly on their side?

Your idea behind punishing her is, "people will see women like this punished and that will lead to them stop defending statutory rape laws, and choose something more sensible in its place." The issues with that is:

1. You're subjecting someone to criminal punishment for a person who did something you deem non-criminal. If you believe something is not criminal, you don't send someone to prison over it.

2. More importantly, will this strategy even work? "Send enough horny female teachers to prison, and the statutory rape laws will come off the books?" Better than arguing that *all* cases of this nature should be dropped?

Also, the law here isn't, "for once, clearly on their side." It's on the side of a single man, in questionable circumstances. And this law, of statutory rape, is usually levied against men. I don't see how upholding the law here redounds to the benefit of men as a whole. It's just spite. Putting her behind bars is not going to advance the cause of men, IMO. It will just make the sorts of MRAs who support that look like bitter capricious fools. After convicting a woman like this, they'll be in no place to argue that statutory rape laws should be abolished.

BTW, this is why I HATE Reddit's Men's Rights. They would downvote me to oblivion for saying what I've said, for not immediately coming to the aid of the butthurt alleged victim, who they support because he's a man proclaiming his victimhood at the hands of a woman. The ethos there often seems to be "Ha! Let's show feminists how bad their laws are by turning 'em back on them!" I'd rather just get rid of stupid evil laws in the first place.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Indeed, this forum does owe its members and the public to have a more reasonable discussion about all this than the one going on on Reddit Men's Rights. However, while that is all very nicely explained and reasonable, I still feel that "Let's show feminists how bad their laws are by turning 'em back on them!" is the lesser evil in the very limited array of options for making those stupid laws go away (what are other options? writing letters to congressmen?). I do not see that happening anytime soon, or even the trend of such laws getting worse and worse halting at all.

[Deluge]

(05-12-2012 05:46 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

Are you fucking kidding me? Dude shoulda smashed for 4 years.

My gut tells me he bragged about to his friends and eventually a girl at the school told her mum, which is when the "anonymous letter" was sent to the Principal. Then when Ms Wilson texted her the topless pics, either his parents found them or he showed them to his buddies and the word spread real fast around the school. After all of this came out into the open, the guy played along as the "victim" because the jig was up. I do not believe for a second that he didn't come forward because "he was afraid he'd get in trouble".

[Jean Valjean]

(05-12-2012 11:28 AM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

If she wasn't a teacher then it's fair game. It's not that age is an issue, it's the abuse of authority

Is it an abuse of authority, if she didn't actually use her authority to coerce him to have sex? Now, she may be abusing her position, since her employer probably hired her under the understanding she wouldn't be using her access to minors to have sex with them; but as long as she's otherwise doing her job the way she's supposed to, that's different from abusing her authority. In that case, she's committing a breach of contract against her employer, rather than a wrong against her student. (Of course, students may be inconvenienced when she gets fired, but she still hasn't committed a wrong directly against them.(

Let's suppose you have a female boss, who is hot enough that you'd be willing to bang her regardless of whether she was your boss. If she gives you an IOI, and you bang her outside of work hours, does that count as an abuse of her authority? If I were a company owner, I would not view it that way, but I would view it differently if she made unwelcome advances on employees.

Even sexual harassment law works that way; it's only sexual harassment if there's a quid pro quo or a hostile work environment. But if the person who's getting hit on is willing to have sex with their boss without the need to be motivated by threats of getting fired, or promises of promotion; and if they don't mind getting hit on, then it's not harassment.

Personally, when I was 15, if a hot (or even average-looking) teacher had made a pass at me, I would've viewed that as using her position of access to minors for a very good cause. I probably would've bragged about it for years. But of course, if she hadn't been hot, then I would've been uncomfortable with the situation. She would've been creating a hostile school environment.

So morally, I think it's a case of, if (and only if) there's no harm, there's no foul. Game teaches us that it's best to look for indicators of interest as signs of when there's a window in which escalation can be successful. If a teacher can detect when a student would be interested in sex, and pursue only those students, then maybe it's not creating a hostile school environment.

Of course, there could be allegations of favoritism toward a student she's having sex with. But favoritism already happens in school. A lot of grading (for example, of essays, artwork, or participation in class discussions) is subjective. There's plenty of room for teachers to give better grades to the students they like and worse grades to the students they dislike, and we all have seen instances where that has happened. We also have seen teachers go out of their way to help a student they liked, while offering minimal help to a student they didn't like.

An example would be, one time I forgot to complete a section on an exam, and the teacher invited me to her house to complete that section, without the same time limits that would've been applicable to other students. She just happened to like me, plus she was friends with my dad. So I got a benefit that probably wouldn't have been given to other students.

Other times, favoritism worked against me. I remember a teacher spending endless amounts of time helping a girl get her Young Author's Contest book just perfect, so that she could win an award. I felt jealous at not getting so much help with my own book, but I think she saw talent in that student that she didn't see in me, and also probably had a rapport with her that she didn't have with me.

If the teacher were to refrain from sex with students altogether, or if she were to be a total slut, and bang ALL her male students equally, without regard to their likability and attractiveness, then there would be no favoritism. But, despite how bureaucratic the school system already is, we'll never be able to render relations between teachers and students totally sterile and impersonal. It's like the scene in Enemy at the Gates, where Danilov says, "We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."

If we want kids to be in a more meritocratic environment, where their ability to deliver objectively-measurable results is how they get ahead, then the solution is to take them out of school and put them in the workforce, where market forces will tend to reward productivity. Even in the workplace, though, bosses will show a certain amount of favoritism to employees they like, regardless of whether their relationship with that employee goes in a sexual direction. Even the company owner will factor the pleasure or displeasure he gets from being around an employee into the personal economics that decide how much he's willing to pay them or how well he's going to treat them. (He may do the same with his customers, charging them less, or doing a better job, if he likes them.) It's just that a sexual relationship makes affinity more obvious and unmistakable, because a penis going into a vagina is a clearer and less deniable sign of liking another person than, say, laughing at their jokes or dangling a shoe.

I would consider this particular teacher a WNB, though.

[The Beast1]

Curious Jean ValJean, how did you come upon this thread and more importantly why did you feel the need to post such well written comment?

Not trying to be rude, i'm just genuinely curious how you got here

[polar]

(01-30-2017 09:30 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

If the teacher were to refrain from sex with students altogether, or if she were to be a total slut, and bang ALL her male students equally, without regard to their likability and attractiveness, then there would be no favoritism.

I agree with this logic. To prevent the favoritism in schools, all under-30, height-weight proportionate teachers should have sex with each and every one of their male students who have reached the legal age of consent.

The only cut-off point shall be a "B" grade point average.

No Child Left Behind!