No good can come from this:

Pigman · Post by **Pigman** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:12 am

A 23-year-old teacher. A 14-year-old student. The backseat of an Isuzu Rodeo. No good can come from
this:

When *I* was 14 .. this would have been ONE HELL OF A DREAM CUM TRUE!

Post by **eddiecanuck** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:33 am

If it's true, and not just the wet dreams of a 14 year old boy and his cousin. I'm still skeptical until I see more proof than just the word of the two boys.

bugfreezer · Post by **bugfreezer** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:45 am

Interesting how the perspective changes, isn't it?

Post by **bio** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 12:55 pm

I'm with eddie on this one.

I'd like to see some proof that she's guilty before passing judgment. It seems a little too much like a pre-pubescent fantasy to me.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 4:14 pm

It's happened before, though. Why shouldn't it happen again?

bugfreezer · Post by **bugfreezer** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 4:50 pm

bio wrote:I'd like to see some proof that she's guilty before passing judgment. It seems a little too much like a pre-pubescent fantasy to me.

Well, she did turn herself in, though that may have been to forestall further intrigue (her teaching career is toast if she is convicted-it may be anyway- and hiding would not have helped)...On cursory examination of the legal paper at the link, the stories were similar (I was rather embarrassed to read it, actually).

The legal process will sort this out in the end. Like Mox said:

It's happened before, though. Why shouldn't it happen again?

Remember Mary Kay LeTourneau?

The funny thing is, many guys in their younger years would have dreamed of hooking up with a "hot teacher" (Remember Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher"?), like Porc said earlier - I think the indignation level would have been higher were the teacher a male and the student a female, all other things being the same. The question is, which way should the double standard shift?

I think you might know my answer. It would not go well for a teacher of either gender if they accessed my son or daughter that way, if I had anything to say about it.

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:41 pm

OK, here is my liberal view...

There is less of an age difference between the two than between my girlfriend and I. I guess I just don't see the big deal. They both consented to the sex, what's the problem. Most other countries of the world wouldn't be that worried about this. Sure, in our society its against the law, and they should be prosecuted for that, but I think the law should be changed. This doesn't make me a pervert or anything, I don't desire 14 year old girls (or boys for that matter). Biologically the boy is an adult, so is the woman and for centuries the marrying age has been around 13-14 years old. Its only in the last century or so that all this has changed.

I guess I get tired of the view that sex is evil. Its not, its natural, enjoy as often as you can!

Lucky guy, I never had an oportunity like that.

*YAWN*

Post by **miftah** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:20 pm

No suprise, I side with Rocket on this one. I don't understand it, but then I'm regularly suprised by the mouthbreathers at Wal-Mart, so whatever... This whole statutory rape thing is all in place to protect fathers. No father wants to believe their daughter would want to have sex at all much less someone capable of being their co-worker. And if you protect the girls then you gotta protect the boys too, otherwise its a double standard.

I lost my virginity at 12 (to a girl of 18). I know a lot of girls who lost theirs around that time or shortly thereafter. It's just sex folks. Only marginally different than french kissing, and that I started when I was around 9. Sure you can get pregnant from sex, but it just goes to show, that can happen to anyone at any old time whether the partner is 14 or 40. If anything having sex with someone of an older age only decreases the likelihood of pregnancy, because someone older is more likely to know something about contraception.

It amazes me that the same people who don't want any restrictions on gun ownership are the same ones who tell you that you can't give kids contraception or they'll use it. Teach 'em to handle their pistol correctly rather than denying them the education that can save their lives or their quality of life.

Of course, all of this exists in the emotionless sphere of idealism, and I'd likely want to punch any 23 year old who came round the house after my 13 year old (presuming I one day have kids). I don't condone sex between young teens and adults, I'm just saying that the law is a bit emotional and reactionary.

bugfreezer · Post by **bugfreezer** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:21 pm

Point-counterpoint - Is a good thing!

Y'know, the whole sex is evil thing's a bit old

. Its that "all or nothing" biz that bungs it up. The issue has to do with what sex does to one's mind as well as the body. Let's look at the casualties of this little doo-dad (if in fact the crime was committed, as Bio put it):

1. The kid may be physiologically able to have children, but emotional maturity is another matter. We do not raise our kids to handle the responsibilities of maintaining a household by age 14 - they are not able to drive to work, they are not allowed to work at all until they are 16; they are not allowed to vote. The gal in this scenario claimed to be using the pill, so they had unprotected sex, but what if she got preggers and elected to keep the kid. Is the boy ready to take responsibility for what his gametes produce? Doubtful. In the LeTourneau case, the boy is the father of 2 kids and his mum is raising them.

Maturity? They enlisted a 15 year-old to drive a vehicle while they were shagging in the back - the cousin was watching and driving at the same time, allegedly. It was a miracle they did not get in a wreck.

2. The gal suggested that there were sexual difficulties in her existing marriage, so she turns to a kid because it excited her - forbidden fruit an' stuffs! The kid is a commodity to help her meet her needs.

Odds are that her marriage is toast if the allegations are true. What if she had kids previously (she did not in this case)? That whole family is disrupted, possibly irreparably. The guy is gonna have a complex b/c he wasn't good enough for her. Imagine if your girlfriend did what this gal allegedly did. It'd bung me up for sure if my wife tossed me aside sexually.

That's all for now.

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:56 am

The psychological damage that would happen to the kid is a result of the sex is evil argument. If sex was looked at as just another bodily function there wouldn't be the stigma of evil and I've done something wrong or had something wrong done to me. I have no trauma from going to the bathroom (most of the time

) another natural biological function.

As to the maturity point. The teacher was involved too. The maturity of the boy is not in question here, he obviously isn't, but the 23 year old teacher that allowed the buddy to drive, unprotected sex etc should be the one questioned here. She doesn't sound like she made the most mature decisions. Now, in our society where we are children until we are 18, we propagate the idea that we have no responsibility until then. If we raised our children to be responsible and ready to care for themselves earlier in life, they would be. History teaches us this. It all goes back to the way we choose to raise our children; sex is evil, you are a child even though your body and nature say you aren't, etc. My point is, it doesn't HAVE to be that way, we choose to make it that way.

The LeTourneau case is good example to take up. If sex was not evil, and she hadn't gone to prison SHE and her young boyfriend would be raising the children. Maybe he wouldn't have been ready for it, but Mom definately was. Grandma wouldn't be raising the children in any case.

And finally, men and women get kicked to the curb all the time for lack of sexual performance...its a fact of life. Its tough, but it happens all the time.

Other societies have come up with some other ways to do this. I distinctly recall one tribe in South America that when a boy turned to a man the right of passage was an orgy with the older women in the tribe. It wasn't a bad thing, it was the way the boys became men, the entire tribe celebrated with the boys. A nice side benefit was the sexual education they received during their passage to adulthood. Unfortunately I don't recall that the women had an equal right of passage.

Post by **bio** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:02 pm

Heh...

well... if it's true and she did it... damn! I wish I was 14! She is all kinds of wow!

I'd hit it!

Post by **miftah** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:54 pm

Go back to college Bio - easily 25% of the girls here look just like her, and a good many of them are studying to be elementary school teachers. Being as they are rather common, as though they were produced by some Greek-manufactured cookie cutter, I've not had any interest in them.

Marie · Post by **Marie** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 9:01 am

You have no interest in good looking girls?

bugfreezer · Post by **bugfreezer** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:20 am

rocketdork wrote:The psychological damage that would happen to the kid is a result of the sex is evil argument. If sex was looked at as just another bodily function there wouldn't be the stigma of evil and I've done something wrong or had something wrong done to me. I have no trauma from going to the bathroom (most of the time ) another natural biological function.

But neither do you go to the bathroom wherever you wish and whenever the mood takes you; rather we use a bathroom so that we aren't stepping in the stuff, nor does it contaminate our food and water supplies. Eating is a necessary biological function but if you eat too much it's bad for your health. In the same manner, sex is not for unlimited use.

rocketdork wrote:As to the maturity point. The teacher was involved too. The maturity of the boy is not in question here, he obviously isn't, but the 23 year old teacher that allowed the buddy to drive, unprotected sex etc should be the one questioned here.

I guess I was not clear enough - the female was off base as well. Here we both agree.

rocketdork wrote:The LeTourneau case is good example to take up. If sex was not evil, and she hadn't gone to prison SHE and her young boyfriend would be raising the children. Maybe he wouldn't have been ready for it, but Mom definately was. Grandma wouldn't be raising the children in any case.

In both of your posts on the topic, you suggest that we would be free if only sex were no longer evil. There is no mention of the effect that the actions of the two consenting parties would have on others...In the LeTourneau case, she was married and had 4 kids prior to her interactions with the kid. Rumor had it that the husband was off shagging someone else, so there was instability in that area already. What do you tell the kids? What do you tell the husband if he'd otherwise been faithful to his marriage vows? You just hide it?

rocketdork wrote:Other societies have come up with some other ways to do this. I distinctly recall one tribe in South America that when a boy turned to a man the right of passage was an orgy with the older women in the tribe. It wasn't a bad thing, it was the way the boys became men, the entire tribe celebrated with the boys. A nice side benefit was the sexual education they received during their passage to adulthood. Unfortunately I don't recall that the women had an equal right of passage.

And this is why the sexual revolution failed to free us. It was inequitable from the start. Sex is pretty much no consequence for the male. Now I know that women today can take a pill, terminate a resulting pregnancy, or give the kid up for adoption, but a funny little thing seems to happen...many of the gals get attached to the resulting baby, and elect to keep it. Of course, since daddy is off getting shagged elsewhere, she may very well end up raising the kid alone in a less stable environment than a two-parent family. Bottom line, the gals get the crap end of the deal.

Your arguments assume something that is simply not true - they assume that people are inherently logical. They are not, even most of the educated ones. Most people want to be told what to think as long as it agrees with their idea of how things should be, or at least does not interfere with their chosen lifestyle. Our society's vision of tolerance really boils down to non-interference, but that does not necessarily result in the collective good. Again, it comes down to balance. Somewhere there has to be a compromise between the rights of the individual and the need for a stable society. That why there are laws and moral codes.

So much for the intellectual side. If any of us are in a committed relationship and we shag outside of it, please tell me that the female counterpart, especially for us married types, is gonna just say OK? Right. Venereal disease is also harder to spread where sexual relationships are committed, monogamous ones; we still have AIDS and Herpes that are incurable, and I hear that there are strains of gonorrhea that are antibiotic resistant.

PS: I am writing from an unabashedly male point of view, 'cuz that's what I know best. I talk with my wife a lot, however.

That's enough for one night, TTFN!

Post by **miftah** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:33 am

Marie wrote:You have no interest in good looking girls?

Well, the good-looking part is a matter of personal preference. If you mean, do I find girls who look like THAT attractive, then no. There's something far more important about a girl having her own individual character and those girls look as though they're manufactured from an assembly-line.