i_am_ben
running_here_and_there
still her best performance to date.
Teacher Michelle McCutchan, convicted of raping two students, sentence 15 years
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
still her best performance to date.
timetokill
Banned
No way! Guys are always totally in control of their situation and never manipulated by hormones or emotion. Only girls, who are always innocent and never interested in sex, can ever be victimized in such a way!
Ugh.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
If this is statuory rape, then the sentence is insane.
Male or female, no one should go to jail for 15 years for consensual sex with a 16 year old. That's pretty much age of consent in most states anyways.
Male or female, no one should go to jail for 15 years for consensual sex with a 16 year old. That's pretty much age of consent in most states anyways.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
even statutory rape x2, giving them alcohol, sending them naked pics? How many statutory rapes equals 15 years?
Statutory rape x2, males=<15 years.
Statutory gang rape, drunk female=her fault.
We need a list of what it should be. We can keep adding to it.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
Exactly.
No one is arguing that what she did was okay. What people are saying is that the sentence is too harsh.
People frequently get away with violent crime, intentionally causing bodily harm to another human being with less sentences.
Locking someone up for 15 years for consensual sex with two 16 year olds is wrong.
I had sex with a woman in her 30's when I was 17. Didn't do me any harm.
Ridiculous sentencing.
...And I turned out just fine! arguments are perhaps the weakest defense of anything. Firstly, it's entirely unprovable. You can't know how you might be different had it not happened and your opinion of yourself is not necessarily the best metric to go by. The people around you my have vastly different feelings on the way it affected you. Secondly, and most importantly, human psychology is not an exact science. What has no affect on you may greatly affect others.
It's not just about sex. Treating a child like an adult stunts their emotional growth. This is observable. A 16 year old still has close to ten years of physical growth left on average, what makes you think their mental development is done?
Devolution
Member
Projection. I always get people reminding me that men get raped too (which of course I agree with) but they're never in these threads, funny that.
polyh3dron
Banned
Dookake really got banned for this thread?
:lol I was gonna read this thread, but really, it won't improve after this post.
Robertsan is the king.
Most of the dudes I know lost their virginity at 16 or 17. One of my best friends lost it at age 12 (he was a 7th grader hooking up with an 8th grader). They turned out okay.
I've never heard of a single person saying "Man, I wish I had waited until my brain was fully developed to have sex. Why oh why did I fuck my high school girlfriend?!?!?"
Probably has something to do with her providing them alcohol. She's also in a position of power and knew exactly how old her students were. She deserves at least the sentence she's given.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Even if that's so, which it really isn't, what's so wrong about a 16 year old guy having sex with an older woman? She spots a guy that she thinks she can get because perhaps he doesn't have much experience with women or maybe he's not sexually active. Why does society punish her for that? There's a lack of research to show that younger males, and 16 is hardly young, face any ill development effects from being preyed on by an older lady.
If such evidence exists, then I understand the need for preventing cougars preying on younger dudes. If not, then let them have their fun. The societal implications that involve girls make that a completely different argument. While predators exist in both cases, younger girls face a more complex slew of emotions and expectations regarding their sexual experiences than guys.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
I dont understand why a grown woman would want to have sex with a young kid.
How many of their high school girlfriends were adults? Like I said, it's not just about sex. It's about an adult acknowledging a child as an adult before they actually are one and to a child there are few, if any, more "adult" things than sex. If the feel accepted as an equal at such a young age what incentive do they have to grow?
Do people really consider 16 year old boys as 'young kids?'
What if the 15 year old boy is recognized as an adult by the law?
Alligatorjandro
Banned
Well they may not be kids but they arent adults.
What exactly signifies 'adulthood' outside of morality arguments?
Alligatorjandro
Banned
Age?
It varies depending on country.
How is it any different? You're still forcing yourself sexually on someone else.
It's rape.
Agreed.
And we're raised in a country where 18 is adult. Also a country where 21 is the legal drinking age. She gave alcohol to her students who were 5 years younger than the drinking age, in this country.
We have laws. She knows these laws but chose to break them. You can argue they should be changed but until they are, if you get your 16 year old high school students drunk then fuck them, you're going to get a pretty severe punishment.
That wasn't the argument here. The original comment was:
My argument wasn't whether this particular situation was rape nor was it a legality one.
Well then cut out most of what I said. 16 in our country is a kid... I don't see how you can argue otherwise. The rest is to paint a picture of exactly how wrong this is and why she deserves every bit of the punishment she's getting.
This isn't an argument about the US. This isn't about whether or not the teacher deserves the punishment she got. The teacher got them drunk before having sex with the students. She'd probably would've been charged with rape even if they were 18.
The point of my reply to you was that you're jumping into a debate without understanding what it's about. You keep arguing from a legal standpoint even though my comment was from a moral one.
Frankly, I don't agree with people 18+ being put in prison and labeled sex offenders for having sex with someone 16 or 17 years old. However, the line must be drawn somewhere. Where it is (IMO) can be argued from 16 years old to the early 20s.
Yeah, I'm sure the two kids would've liked that instead
You're just jealous because they have a bigger dick than you.
Everyone in this thread understands that the teacher broke the law and was stupid to do so. The questions/arguments I see are: 1. Does the teacher deserve that harsh of a sentence? and 2. How morally wrong was the act?
For the first argument I'd say the sentence was too harsh, I think pretty much everyone can agree with that, to a certain degree. She does, though, absolutely deserve to serve a sentence in jail as she did break the law.
For the second argument, morally speaking, I see nothing wrong with a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with an older woman. I think at 16, all laws set aside, a male (or female) can decided what to do with his (or her body) and with whom to do it with as long as it's consensual and no one gets hurt. Is this not somewhat reasonable? Only a law in this particular state dictates this is a crime. If this were to happen in any other state or country where the law says a 16 year old can consent there would be zero problems here - not word about it would be heard. Now if there's any studies or research, or any kind of information that suggest that older women having sex with boys (or visa versa) of 16 years of age, (in states/countries where that is the age of consent) causes emotional, psychological issues, what have you, I would very much like to know. The problem with the age of consent laws are, where do we draw the line? The line has to be drawn somewhere; some states says its 18, others say its 15. And I think the age of consent is skewing people's ultimate judgment towards this woman. In the state in which she lives, she's a rapist. If she had done this is Alabama, for instance, where the age of consent is 16, would she be facing the same label as rapist?
In this particular case, (and all of the following is pure conjecture on my part) I can find no tangible, hard evidence indicating these boys seem to have been mendaciously tricked into having sex with this woman, nor do I find any strong evidence that this woman used her position of authority to manipulate these boys to have sex with her, nor do I see any convincing evidence that she used alcohol specifically to get these boys drunk with the sole intent to have sex with them without their consent. I also see no hard evidence that the boys wanted to actually have sex with her or actually indeed consent; it's hard to prove either way, she could have very well done all these things. But, for the sake of the argument, I ask you, if the age of consent was indeed 16, would anyone say that she must have done all of these things? Again, if you believe she did all of the above with the intent to have sex with and to rape these boys, you have to assume that other women her age are doing the same thing to their 16 year old sex partners in their states, but with the distinct privilege of it being perfectly legal.
This, of course, and I stress, can not be applied to other statutory rape cases as standard. Neither do I think that if there is no evidence of manipulation from the accused that one should just assume that the victims "wanted" sex. Every statutory rape case should be investigated equally, victim(s) being male or female. One cannot and should not assume that because the victim(s) are male that they are hurt in any way less than if the victim(s) are female. It cannot be the judgment of any one to say how a male or female should respond to sex, consensual or otherwise. Stereotypes and preconceived perceptions are, I believe, a hindrance and completely irrelevant in these circumstances. And regardless of rather anyone can claim in fact the victims "wanted" the sex, it's completely irrelevant as a statutory rape law was broken, end of story.
But lets look at this particular case with common sense (again with a great deal of conjecture on my part): I think, given what we know, this is most likely a case where all parties involved wanted to engage in sex and decided to do so. The problem started when the teacher decided it was worth breaking the law for. I can see it being said perhaps that the boy who was bragging about the sex to his friends should have kept his mouth shut, but this is completely irrelevant - it's not his duty to keep secrete what the teacher should have never have done in the first place. And I do not think there is an answer to whether or not the boys were truly "mature" or old enough to have made a right decision. Some people say 16 is too young, some people say 18 is too young. Who is right? The answer is the state, in which the sex happens, is right - the state is always right, and was very well right to charge this woman and judge her accordingly. The moral decision, though, I think is very much debatable.
For the first argument I'd say the sentence was too harsh, I think pretty much everyone can agree with that, to a certain degree. She does, though, absolutely deserve to serve a sentence in jail as she did break the law.
For the second argument, morally speaking, I see nothing wrong with a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with an older woman. I think at 16, all laws set aside, a male (or female) can decided what to do with his (or her body) and with whom to do it with as long as it's consensual and no one gets hurt. Is this not somewhat reasonable? Only a law in this particular state dictates this is a crime. If this were to happen in any other state or country where the law says a 16 year old can consent there would be zero problems here - not word about it would be heard. Now if there's any studies or research, or any kind of information that suggest that older women having sex with boys (or visa versa) of 16 years of age, (in states/countries where that is the age of consent) causes emotional, psychological issues, what have you, I would very much like to know. The problem with the age of consent laws are, where do we draw the line? The line has to be drawn somewhere; some states says its 18, others say its 15. And I think the age of consent is skewing people's ultimate judgment towards this woman. In the state in which she lives, she's a rapist. If she had done this is Alabama, for instance, where the age of consent is 16, would she be facing the same label as rapist?
In this particular case, (and all of the following is pure conjecture on my part) I can find no tangible, hard evidence indicating these boys seem to have been mendaciously tricked into having sex with this woman, nor do I find any strong evidence that this woman used her position of authority to manipulate these boys to have sex with her, nor do I see any convincing evidence that she used alcohol specifically to get these boys drunk with the sole intent to have sex with them without their consent. I also see no hard evidence that the boys wanted to actually have sex with her or actually indeed consent; it's hard to prove either way, she could have very well done all these things. But, for the sake of the argument, I ask you, if the age of consent was indeed 16, would anyone say that she must have done all of these things? Again, if you believe she did all of the above with the intent to have sex with and to rape these boys, you have to assume that other women her age are doing the same thing to their 16 year old sex partners in their states, but with the distinct privilege of it being perfectly legal.
This, of course, and I stress, can not be applied to other statutory rape cases as standard. Neither do I think that if there is no evidence of manipulation from the accused that one should just assume that the victims "wanted" sex. Every statutory rape case should be investigated equally, victim(s) being male or female. One cannot and should not assume that because the victim(s) are male that they are hurt in any way less than if the victim(s) are female. It cannot be the judgment of any one to say how a male or female should respond to sex, consensual or otherwise. Stereotypes and preconceived perceptions are, I believe, a hindrance and completely irrelevant in these circumstances. And regardless of rather anyone can claim in fact the victims "wanted" the sex, it's completely irrelevant as a statutory rape law was broken, end of story.
But lets look at this particular case with common sense (again with a great deal of conjecture on my part): I think, given what we know, this is most likely a case where all parties involved wanted to engage in sex and decided to do so. The problem started when the teacher decided it was worth breaking the law for. I can see it being said perhaps that the boy who was bragging about the sex to his friends should have kept his mouth shut, but this is completely irrelevant - it's not his duty to keep secrete what the teacher should have never have done in the first place. And I do not think there is an answer to whether or not the boys were truly "mature" or old enough to have made a right decision. Some people say 16 is too young, some people say 18 is too young. Who is right? The answer is the state, in which the sex happens, is right - the state is always right, and was very well right to charge this woman and judge her accordingly. The moral decision, though, I think is very much debatable.
And it's against the law in that state because the people decided upon it being a law. Since the crime didn't occur in another state our country, their opinion on the incident is a non-factor.
Plus the fact that it's an adult abusing an immature kid to get sex.
We're not talking about any of those other states, though.
That's a whole ton of victim blaming and projection. The adult or older person in the situation DID abuse her position of power to have sex and commit a rape. She damn well knew the law, and not only broke the law, but used beer to lower their guard (while knowing it was illegal to give it to them in the first place) and then even went to the point of recording it. She knew what she was doing the entire time, and she knew it was wrong. The evidence for the bold is that she was was their teacher. Them being drunk or not doesn't even have to be considered here. When someone older than you hands you a beer when you're notably underage, it's an adult going "it's okay to do this" and make them drop their guard and get closer to them. There's an actual term for it, and it's called grooming.
I understand I'm projecting, but I don't confidently say that what I wrote actually happened. I'm about 50% sure that's what may have happened and I'll admit bias. My point, though, was to illustrate that all because statutory rape is illegal in her state that it doesn't mean one has to assume that she has ulterior motives, other than thinking she can get away with breaking a law. I realize, the discussion is with this one state, but if this were to happen in any other state without this law, would people automatically be assuming that she was abusing the boys?
Edit: This is though a tricky situation which makes it difficult for me to come to a conclusive answer. I do understand though, that the teacher is a definite creeper for going after younger boys who, lets say, are much more easily manipulated than older ones. No doubt that the woman has relationship and or social/emotional issues of some sort.
That's irrelevant since we're arguing morals and not the law.
I'd still say she was abusing them even if the AOC was 16, since her actions fit someone that was grooming someone to get access to them. Just because two people are above the AOC doesn't mean the relationship can't be abusive. The age gap in this instance just makes it more extremely obvious that it was one, but someone even 3 years older I'd still consider an abuser for using their position of authority or trust.
I can't find a course other than ones that source DM, but that is some pretty heinous shit.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
no u
Ew, didn't know that. That's some major Jerry Springer shit, with an added creepiness factor. The woman is definitely suffering of something serious.
Okay, yeah, I can understand that.
This absolutely is about the US. Someone asked why an older woman (from the US) wanted to sleep with young kids (from the US), which they are, and you acted surprised people think kids are... well kids. Is that not where this "debate" started?
@bold: huh?
Morally and legally 16 is still a child in this country. Doesn't matter if it varies elsewhere.
what is all this child talk? The age of consent in Oklahoma is 16.
I wish there were more details because the sentence seems excessive and the facts given are vague. Ironically I think the publicity and the fact that she's doing 13.5yrs for something they were involved in will be more harmful to the 16yr olds than the acts themselves.
And the position of authority angle is hogwash. She was not their teacher. If that's the case than any crime committed by an older person should have a position of authority angle, since older people should know better.
I wish there were more details because the sentence seems excessive and the facts given are vague. Ironically I think the publicity and the fact that she's doing 13.5yrs for something they were involved in will be more harmful to the 16yr olds than the acts themselves.
And the position of authority angle is hogwash. She was not their teacher. If that's the case than any crime committed by an older person should have a position of authority angle, since older people should know better.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=41887547#post41887547
She fucked her daughters boyfriend, and involved her daughter.
I'm an expert
Formerly worldrevolution. The only reason I am nice to anyone else is to avoid being banned.
Did no one watch Dawson's Creek in this thread? Pacey becomes the MAN after getting with Tamara. Grows up to be a succesful dude with Joey in tow. And Dawson, who put his virginity on a pedestal? Forever alone.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
robertsan21
Look at ME! I'M so beautiful! Don't you wish you were ME? I love ME, who do you love?? ME ME ME!
(09-07-2012, 02:57 PM)
The only mention made to the U.S. was "That's only in the U.S." You aren't understanding, at all. I'm not arguing the law because that's pointless. I'm not arguing whether what she did in the U.S. is legal.
This is what's going on:
Me: I think a 16 year old having sex with an adult is okay morally.
You: I think a 16 year old having sex with an adult is wrong, legally.
Everyone in the U.S. already knows that. Why don't you actually give me your own opinion so we can actually have a discussion.
Your ignoring the context. Morals in the U.S. are different from other places in the world. So that's why I asked that question. The rest of the argument is a moral one.
I'm not condoning her crime at all, and she definitely broke the law, but I just feel weird about 13 mandatory years behind bars for consensual sex. Those dudes weren't saying no. 13 years. She deserves punishment but come on.
My "she would have been better off stabbing them instead" comment was only meant to say she would have probably gotten a lighter sentence for Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
Hell, Manslaughter charges would have gotten less probably.
My "she would have been better off stabbing them instead" comment was only meant to say she would have probably gotten a lighter sentence for Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
Hell, Manslaughter charges would have gotten less probably.
I never said either wasn't. Obviously they're both rape, but as far as a sentencing goes, I don't think they're entirely equal.
Why?
The Anti-Monitor
Banned
Even though it's always said in these threads, I guess it doesn't help to join the people saying how the double standard regarding how 16 yo males are always willing and so lucky to bang a teacher and have become legends whereas 16 yo females are pure and innocent and male teachers are absolute monsters is sickening.
Ridicolous sentence. If there was any moral balance here then the jury and judge should get years behind bars for destroying a life. Assuming these were normal 16 year old males and she didn't restrict their freedom etc then no real harm was done here. Male and female sexuality is obviously different.
- Status