| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/15/2005 07:42:29 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
Originally posted by TLL061:
even if these kids ack like they do , they will still run back to there mommies and dadies like little kids do , most of them are acting tough but there not . |
I'm 30 and I still run back to my mom like a little kid does sometimes. There are no ages for feeling hurt. Does that mean if a woman hurts me emotionnaly, that she should go to jail for it? No. |
Yes she should, if you were hurt physically or emotionally while still under the legal age of consent for your state. And in many parts of the world, and as far as I can tell through the various sites I've researched and my years of training, the United States as a whole, 14 is still considered a child. Puberty does not make someone a legal adult.
I have a student in my parenting teen program who was 11 when she gave birth to her son. She had already been through puberty, so I guess that made it OK for her to have sex with someone and have his baby, according to your logic.
To think of a 14 year old as not being a child anymore simply because of the fact that his voice has changed and he has hair on his testicles is a gross error in judgment. |
11 years old in some countries is the norm. So where to draw the line?
Besides, many 14 year olds are having sex with other 14 year olds. So why is it a problem if they have sex with someone older?
Message edited by author 2005-01-15 19:43:06.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 07:43:35 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by giega:
11 years old in some countries is the norm. Sow where to draw the line?
Besides, many 14 year old are having sex with other 14 year olds. So why is is a problem if they have sex with someone older? |
We aren't talking about other countries...we're talking about the USA. It is against the law. That is why it is a problem. What part of this do you people not understand?????????
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 07:46:12 PM · #103 |
| YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS , COME ON |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 07:46:23 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by TLL061:
you just don't get it , so is it ok to have sex with a 14 yr old girl ? |
I'll be honnest with you, my personnal feelings will interfere in that situation and I will tell you it's wrong. I feel it's wrong, but I don't know if it is. My feelings keep me from making a rational opinion. But like I 've said before, girls cannot be compared with boys. Because they are not the same.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 07:50:08 PM · #105 |
| thats the problem with this world , they want there children to grow up too soon , they need to live and learn there young lives and not to be taken advantage of by people with worped minds |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 07:51:00 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
I would say you are using homosexuality to interfere in a debate that has nothing to do with it? |
It is tough to break down a joke semiotically, but here goes. The humor lies in the fact that the father's willingness to reward the boy rather than punish him is due to the fact that the father envies the boy's siuation, i.e. sex with female teacher. The punch line reverses the situation when the father is now faced with a very different situation than he had assumed. Perhaps the boy is gay and wanted the relationship, but now daddy realised he is too young to have sex, while before it was all nudge nudge wink wink. Father no longer envies boy.
If you don't see how the situation would loose some of the subtelty of it's shadings by the teacher being a gay man as opposed to a straight woman, then you missed the joke. If the teacher was a gay man and the boy had consented would you still think it was alright? To my mind the situation has to do with an abuse of power by the teacher, and if you think that it would be wrong for the boy to be coerced into gay sex but not straight sex how can you justify that? That is the point of the joke, if the sex involved is nothing that would appeal to you, then " lucky boy" turns into "poor victim".
Bringing the different reactions that heterosexualty and homosexuality into the situation exposes the difference between sexual fantasy and abuse of power. |
I thought it was a great joke and brought up a very good point which of course was very relevant to this discussion. Unfortunatly, some people of certain political viewpoints have little if any sense of humor.
That reminded me of a similar joke I heard a few years back. I will post it here and probably get flamed, but so what:
A guy walks into a bar and orders a dozen shots of whiskey. The bartender places 12 shotglasses on the bar and fills each one up. The guy tosses them down one after the other rather quickly. The bartender says "12 shots of whiskey, what's the occasion?"
The guy says "I just had my first blow job".
The bartender says "congratulations, let me buy you another shot on the house".
The guy says "No thanks, if 12 of those won't kill the taste, nothing will!". |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 08:05:03 PM · #107 |
Here's an interesting story...
When I was 22, I was working in a store where this 14 year old would come everyday, inviting me to go to her place to "swim" (not to mention all the other stuff too like: Do you have a girlfriend? Do you think I'm sexy, etc.) She had fireworks in her eyes when she talked to me.
Anyways, I have always refused to see her anywhere else but the store and made it clear that I didn't want anything to happen with her (in a not so direct, but firm way not to hurt her feelings).
There was no way I was going to do anything with her. Why? Because society doesn't approve that. I happy I did not do anything... But still, do you realise that my decision was based on what everybody else would think of it, disregarding what the two person in that hypothetical relation would feel.
Anyways, I understand the point you guys are trying to make and I agree with most of what you are saying... It's a very difficult issue to have a solid, unbreakable opinion. What I'm trying to do is bring food for toughts that might make us look at the matter with more detachment because the answers are not all black and white. Expand your ways of thinking and try to understand what some other mght think and feel about it. Nobody holds the absolute truth. Doesn't mean we should disregard it.
Message edited by author 2005-01-15 20:08:51.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 09:14:58 PM · #108 |
I think the biggest problem with this issue is that most people have prejudices against sex to start with (and I do too).
The argument that come the most is: "the adult woman was imposing sex to a 14 year old". Sex in itself, is not something bad. Neither is religion.
Yet, when we baptise infants, adults impose a belief that if the child had been given the choice, might have rejected. Silly comparison? How many people feel their lives was screwed-up by religion? A lot.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 09:22:28 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
I'm just wondering if she gave him gold stars... |
And where she placed them!! |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 09:54:07 PM · #110 |
this whole discussion should be stopped.
or moved to rant.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2005 11:33:18 PM · #111 |
The emotions seem to be running very high for those with families and I can understand that as I don't condone the act this teacher committed. As has been pointed out before in this thread, 14 year olds do not have the mental maturity to be making decsions regarding their sexuality. The same may apply to a 23 year old woman, regardless of her position of authority (however unfortunate that she is in authority), and despite that she is of legal age. She may have been the victim of abuse during her childhood and adolescence and is now acting out. Those issues many not have resolved for her when she became an adult, and they don't for most in that situation.
I think she needs to be cut some slack regarding the emotions we feel for her and the accuasations of criminality until we know more about her and what actually transpired. This does not in the least abdicate her from her transgression(s), but she may be in as much need of unconditional love and acceptance as the boy, and maybe more so.
I find the United States to be a somewhat puritanical country when it comes to talking about sex. while we see many images of sexuality in the media and news it seems that sex is only allowed to be broached when it is commerce related. I wonder how many parents, both mother and father, actually have open discussions with their children about it. What healthy sexual role models do kids have these days? Not many, if any, imo. That should definitely be the job of the parents, but how many know how to present sex as something in a positive light? Many couples, married or otherwise, don't understand how to have good sexual relations between themselves, let alone educating their children about it.
While ALL adolescents have a great need to "fit in" and be accepted by their peers, this does not automatically transfer to the reason the boy had sex with his teacher. Unconditional love, imo, is more of an issue for girls, whereas boys at this age are attempting to forge an identity of independence and strength. Yes, he may have wanted to have sex with someone beautiful to help him feel good about himself, but isn't that true of everyone, whatever the age? We all fall in love with people that make us feel special and with whom we can admire. I agree that men and boys do have psycholgical motivations for their behaviors and desires, but this does not seperate it from the biological. The psychology of boys and girls at this age are different and what can be applied to one gender may not fit the other.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 02:12:45 AM · #112 |
Nothing is either good or bad, but thinkng makes it so. I can't remember who said that but I think it was Shakespeare. Another thing, it seems taht when we grow up we forget how we thought, acted, and felt as teenager. We are appalled buy the very same things we used to do or would have done given the opportunity. I tend to think about things in a very scientific way, and scientifically speaking, a 14 year is ready to have sex, heck, a 12 year old is ready to have sex. I personally have been having sex since a rather early age by american standars but then again I come from a somewhat different culture and as I explained earlier I was very sexually attracted to a much older teacher when I was in high school. Now, with that said, do you think I can one day ground my daughter for life for having sex at 14 or for flirting shamelessly with a teacher? In my mind, no because I know what I did and I would just feel like the biggest hypocrite on earth. Sex is the most natural thing in the world but since thousands of years ago it's been hardwired into our brains that it is something to be ashamed about, something to be done in secret and only in ways "society" deems acceptable. Humans make laws according to what society has decided is an acceptable practice. I agree with the teacher-student situation but had the woman not been his teacher, I don't see what the big deal is.
June
Message edited by author 2005-01-16 02:14:27.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 02:18:24 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The original post and thread title pose this as a question. From the facts of the incident as given and discussed here, I do not see any need for legal intervention. The purpose of law is not to limit individual liberties, but to prevent and curb harm. As I said, I see no harm done.
Just because you and, possibly, others find someone's conduct 'wrong, sick and wrong', is no reason I have to.
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.
-Tacitus |
I disagree...in some countries in Eastern Europe, young boys consent to prostitution to help the family buy food and rich men gleefully book appointments on the internet to have some fun with them. No harm done?
Sorry, that makes no sense to me. |
I fail to see what this example has to to do with the scenario posed in the original post.
The nature of the relationship between the partners is different, their motives are different, and the social circumstances are different.
In the first scenario we have voluntary parcipants, in the second there is evidence of social coercion. One is a commercial contract motivated by need and greed, the other is an amorous relationship motivated by mutual attraction. |
The second example also has voluntary participants...Social coercion, to me, would also be a great way to describe the possible situation of somebody in position of authority soliciting sex from a minor.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 02:19:56 AM · #114 |
This isn't about punishing the student, chiqui...the discussion is about the teacher.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 05:19:53 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I concur. Women always think guys are way deeper than they actually are. Women associate an emotional connection with sex while men just like to have orgasms. |
Wow. Didja read that in your bible, or just make it up on your own? Or is this you just playing 'devil's advocate' again? <<>>
Fortunately I'm not that insensitive. I guess I'm just wondering if you'd be OK with perpetuating all stereotypes, no matter how offensive.
Message edited by Konador - Personal attacks are not acceptable on this forum.. |
|
|
|
01/16/2005 06:51:41 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I concur. Women always think guys are way deeper than they actually are. Women associate an emotional connection with sex while men just like to have orgasms. |
Wow. Didja read that in your bible... |
Ouch! Lori meet Jimmy. Jimmy meet Lori. Hey! I see you both live in Calgary, you guys should go out for drinks!
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 11:36:55 AM · #117 |
Are you serious? Mine wasn't a personal attack, if you care to read it closely...and yet it gets removed while GoldBerry's entirely offensive (and yes personal if you're a guy) comment remains. This is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 11:40:22 AM · #118 |
Greetings,
I've got to agree with Jimmy, Goldberry's post was highly offensive to me as a male, and still bothers me, while Jimmy's was mild in comparison and directed at one person, not half the planet! Konador, please put Jimmy's back in its original version, or delete GoldBerry's as well.....
Mike
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 11:54:01 AM · #119 |
Wow! This thread has surely sparked some emotion!
The simple point in this whole thing is that the teacher has psycological issues to say the least! I saw her on T.V., She is very beautiful and Im sure could get any single man over the age of 21 to have consenting sex with her. She choose a innocent child to exploit. His life is most likely scared because he had a moment that he couldnt resist...a sexy beautiful woman on top of him.
The teacher should get significant jail time with ongoing psychological help! |
|
|
|
01/16/2005 11:57:20 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The original post and thread title pose this as a question. From the facts of the incident as given and discussed here, I do not see any need for legal intervention. The purpose of law is not to limit individual liberties, but to prevent and curb harm. As I said, I see no harm done.
Just because you and, possibly, others find someone's conduct 'wrong, sick and wrong', is no reason I have to.
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.
-Tacitus |
I disagree...in some countries in Eastern Europe, young boys consent to prostitution to help the family buy food and rich men gleefully book appointments on the internet to have some fun with them. No harm done?
Sorry, that makes no sense to me. |
I fail to see what this example has to to do with the scenario posed in the original post.
The nature of the relationship between the partners is different, their motives are different, and the social circumstances are different.
In the first scenario we have voluntary parcipants, in the second there is evidence of social coercion. One is a commercial contract motivated by need and greed, the other is an amorous relationship motivated by mutual attraction. |
The second example also has voluntary participants...Social coercion, to me, would also be a great way to describe the possible situation of somebody in position of authority soliciting sex from a minor. |
I see where you stand now, and I accept your position.
We, apparently, differ in what and what doesn't constitute a minor.
I was held responsible for my actions at that age and, by and large, accepted that responsibility capably and willingly with the understanding that there were plenty of adults older than I who struggled to live up to such expectations.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 12:05:21 PM · #121 |
Most of you in this thread are missing the point entirely. The sex is an aside to the real issue: the abuse of a position of power and authority. The teacher has a professional responsibility to the welfare of the children in her charge, and she is an authority figure to them. Introdicing a personal relationship, no matter if the student was of age or not, is inappropriate. This issue comes up at universities and in workplaces where much older people are involved. The key is that it introduces a conflict of interest, in addition to the inappropriate and (in this case) illegal act. The subordinate person in the relationship may be consenting to sex for reasons other than pleasure: fear of reprisal, insecurity etc. which are brought on by the power relationship. The sex part is just the catchy headline.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 12:14:36 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by smoon273:
Wow! This thread has surely sparked some emotion!
The simple point in this whole thing is that the teacher has psycological issues to say the least! I saw her on T.V., She is very beautiful and Im sure could get any single man over the age of 21 to have consenting sex with her. She choose a innocent child to exploit. His life is most likely scared because he had a moment that he couldnt resist...a sexy beautiful woman on top of him.
The teacher should get significant jail time with ongoing psychological help! |
Why do you assume the boy was 'innocent'? The question of whether or not he is a 'child', also, remains an open one, given the varying views of the posters here. 'Exploitation', again, implies a value judgement drawn from the preceding points.
Given the wide gap between the views and values presented under this thread, it appears possible that you might err in your judgement of the persons and their actions as it relates to the incident. If you did, the 'jail time' you allot one and the therapy you prescribe the other would achieve either nothing or create harm where no harm was due.
How do we 'know'? If we cannot 'know', beyond a reasonable doubt, should we judge?
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 12:15:54 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
...Introdicing a personal relationship, no matter if the student was of age or not, is inappropriate... |
I agree.
(I can appreciate the Freudian slip in the spelling of introdicing above. It was, indeed, a dicey thing to do).
Message edited by author 2005-01-16 12:22:39.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 12:33:31 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I see where you stand now, and I accept your position.
We, apparently, differ in what and what doesn't constitute a minor.
I was held responsible for my actions at that age and, by and large, accepted that responsibility capably and willingly with the understanding that there were plenty of adults older than I who struggled to live up to such expectations. |
True, very perceptive. That's probably where we differ. I spend a great deal of my time working with high school students, and I have no problem believing that in our culture, 14 year olds are 'kids'.
In another culture, perhaps, where 14 year olds are treated like adults and must bear responsibility like an adult it would be a different story. In our cushy environment, many 14 year olds are kids with little sense of responsibility, little sense of self-worth, and a high dependance on others to provide them with value.
That's why laws exist to protect them from this type of situation, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 03:00:49 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by mfairbanks:
Greetings,
I've got to agree with Jimmy, Goldberry's post was highly offensive to me as a male, and still bothers me, while Jimmy's was mild in comparison and directed at one person, not half the planet! Konador, please put Jimmy's back in its original version, or delete GoldBerry's as well.....
Mike |
In my opinion, Jimmy's comment was aimed directly at GoldBerry in an insulting and derogatory manner, and while I think that what she said was totally wrong and was a stupid and ignorant thing to say, I do not consider it a personal attack so I did not remove it. I did read Jimmy's post carefully and while he did not implicate himself in the attack, I still saw it as an attack.
It's being discussed in the SC forum and the post may be put back, as I'm only one person responding to a post that was reported and I have my own opinion and interpretation which obviously differs from other people's. I removed it as a precaution to avoid any potential flaming that could be sparked off by it and escalate beyond control.
|
|
