Support NeoGAF

[bill0527]

If you want to fuck high school kids then don't get a job at a high school.

Job or not, we all want to fuck high school girls.

That's why they had to make a law against it.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Job or not, we all want to fuck high school girls.

That's why they had to make a law against it.

We do?

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

Obligatory:

Has the female-female scenario happened yet?

 

[Majine]

Fantasies of teacher-student sex is driving like 50% of all porn, no wonder this happens often.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Don't fuck your students. There. Done.

That's what Texas did! Although they disagree with your idea of how to punish.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

We do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nPZEVmCnRI

 

[Dereck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nPZEVmCnRI

Perfect

 

[YoungHav]

She would have faced less time for abusing a child or attempted murder.

 

[Evlar]

His parents entrust the school with his safety in their absence. The school basically acts as his parent while he is in school and is responsible for his care and custody. The fact that he is 18 is irrelevant.

This is pretty much exactly the argument that the Christian college I attended used to argue against ALL physical contact between ALL students and others (including other students) throughout college. Mommy and Daddy expect the school to keep little ones safe! Even if the "little ones" are 25.

 

[Wafflecakes]

She would have faced less time for abusing a child or attempted murder.

Pretty sure both those crimes have similar or greater maximum penalties. (some probably have minimum sentences which this one does not have).

 

[ShironRedshift]

This is rather an important point. No one sends their kid to school thinking the teacher is gonna be the one fucking their kid. Other students maybe but an authority figure? It's predation. Pure and simple.

Not that simple, since you can't possible know that. It's also possible that they simply enjoyed each other's company enough that they felt it was worth the risks to pursue a relationship. Denying that's even possible is simply being ageist, as it would be based on the assumption that people with that kind of age difference, in those positions, even though they're both consenting adults, can't possibly develop actual feelings for each other or be interested in pursuing any sort of actual continuous relationship (it also has traces of the idea that the younger party here can't even possibly have had his own thought processes and actually decided this on his own, of his own wants and free will, and made the decision as his own fully self-aware choice as an adult, which is equally insulting--doesn't matter whether you would have made that kind of choice if you were in that kid's shoes or not, what matters is whether or not this is a choice that he himself consciously made, which we can't possibly say with what we know).

However, taking a moment to catch our breath and think calmly here and not try to jump to conclusions, we would realize that is actually a possibility. Even if you want to frame it as only the smallest sliver of chances, regardless, that would still actually be possible that they really simply mutually enjoyed each other's company to the point they felt pursuing a relationship was worthwhile. So again I ask, how can it possibly purely and simply be predation, when you can't possibly know that, and there are other scenarios which are also possible? I understand this is a passionate topic, but simply jumping to conclusions and making up facts to fill in the blanks when you can't possibly know them doesn't solve anything and just prevents any form of actual discussion from taking place.

 

[Loofy]

This is pretty much exactly the argument that the Christian college I attended used to argue against ALL physical contact between ALL students and others (including other students) throughout college. Mommy and Daddy expect the school to keep little ones safe! Even if the "little ones" are 25.

Naw they probably had other reasons as well. Probably the same ones that state you cant show physical affection in most workplaces.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Not that simple, since you can't possible know that. It's also possible that they simply enjoyed each other's company enough that they felt it was worth the risks to pursue a relationship. Denying that's even possible is simply being ageist, as it would be based on the assumption that people with that kind of age difference, in those positions, even though they're both consenting adults, can't possibly develop actual feelings for each other or be interested in pursuing any sort of actual continuous relationship (it also has traces of the idea that the younger party here can't even possibly have had his own thought processes and actually decided this on his own, of his own wants and free will, and made the decision as his own fully self-aware choice as an adult, which is equally insulting--doesn't matter whether you would have made that kind of choice if you were in that kid's shoes or not, what matters is whether or not this is a choice that he himself consciously made, which we can't possibly say with what we know).

However, taking a moment to catch our breath and think calmly here and not try to jump to conclusions, we would realize that is actually a possibility. Even if you want to frame it as only the smallest sliver of chances, regardless, that would still actually be possible that they really simply mutually enjoyed each other's company to the point they felt pursuing a relationship was worthwhile. So again I ask, how can it possibly purely and simply be predation, when you can't possibly know that, and there are other scenarios which are also possible? I understand this is a passionate topic, but simply jumping to conclusions and making up facts to fill in the blanks when you can't possibly know them doesn't solve anything and just prevents any form of actual discussion from taking place.

True but the law is put into place because its almost impossible to tell one way or the other so its easier to just ban it altogether so that abuses aren't allowed to happen simply because it "might" all be innocence and love at first sight etc.

 

[Evlar]

Naw they probably had other reasons as well. Probably the same ones that state you cant show physical affection in your workplace.

When I say "no contact" I mean up to and including holding hands on a date.

Hell, you had to be escorted by college employees during all off-campus dates until the age of 23.

 

[Loofy]

When I say "no contact" I mean up to and including holding hands on a date.

And like I said holding hands would probably get you fired in most work places too.

 

[Raistlin]

Nope. Not the same.




Dude. Gross.


No she shouldn't just be fired. Having an inappropriate relationship with a minor while you're are an authority figure in their life is predatory. Even if she waited till he was technically legal, it's predatory what she was doing. If she were a man this wouldn't even be up for debate.

Unless more info was disclosed, you're making a number of assumptions here.

 

[pigeon]

However, taking a moment to catch our breath and think calmly here and not try to jump to conclusions, we would realize that is actually a possibility. Even if you want to frame it as only the smallest sliver of chances, regardless, that would still actually be possible that they really simply mutually enjoyed each other's company to the point they felt pursuing a relationship was worthwhile. So again I ask, how can it possibly purely and simply be predation, when you can't possibly know that, and there are other scenarios which are also possible? I understand this is a passionate topic, but simply jumping to conclusions and making up facts to fill in the blanks when you can't possibly know them doesn't solve anything and just prevents any form of actual discussion from taking place.

Is it difficult for you when you see water falling from the sky and you have to take a moment to consider the multitudinous possible events and interactions that could cause water to fall from the sky without it being rain? And then you can't go out with an umbrella because that would be jumping to conclusions? Anything is possible, but some things are sufficiently more likely that we assume them for the sake of getting through our lives without dissolving into Humean froth.

 

[Evlar]

And like I said holding hands would probably get you fired in most work places too.

... Do you comprehend that I am talking about a blanket ban on college students. From holding hands. With other students. On their free time.

 

[squidyj]

Job or not, we all want to fuck high school girls.

That's why they had to make a law against it.

i'm also pretty fond of interefering with corpses, I think you might be on to something here.

 

[Loofy]

... Do you comprehend that I am talking about a blanket ban on college students. From holding hands. With other students. On their free time.

Youre trying to equate this situation to policies of a christian college. You might as well equate it to a private businesses policy of no alcohol/public affection.

 

[The C-Word]

It would be nice if that law could be more narrowly defined in order to exclude situations like this where clearly there is no victim.

for those saying that the teacher used her power of grade giver or whatever to force the student into a sexual relationship well I mean what actual concrete evidence is there of that? I mean sure that is one plausible situation, but couldn't this just have blossomed out of awkward glances and brushing hands. Not to mention I really don't buy an 18 year old male, feeling threatened by a sexual relationship with his decently attractive female teacher. But that's just my opinion

 

[Evlar]

Youre trying to equate this situation to policies of a christian college. You might as well equate it to a businesses policies of no alcohol/public affection.

When I said that the rationale Brithouse made was the same I meant exactly the same. Not "it's kinda like place of business restrictions". It was precisely the same "you are still under your Parents' authority" justification.

It was stupid then and it is stupid now. Either 18 is the age of consent, when guardianship loses its legal effect, in the eyes of the law or it is not.

 

[ShironRedshift]

True but the law is put into place because its almost impossible to tell one way or the other so its easier to just ban it altogether so that abuses aren't allowed to happen simply because it "might" all be innocence and love at first sight etc.

That's a guilty-until-proven innocent mindset though, and is exactly what our legal system stands against. There's already laws against sexual assault/harassment ,particularly on the subject of sexual assault/harassment of a minor, so there's no need for those particular law, which would seem to potentially treat all such cases as worth-case-scenarios regardless of whether that can actually be proven or not in each individual case. In the cases where that can be proven, of course they should be appropriately punished, but there's no need for a law to make all such encounters between two consenting adults illicit based on just the possibility it can go wrong, and then assuming they'll all go that way and banning the whole thing.

There's already laws to account for those problems if something does go wrong--there's absolutely no need for a whole separate law to outlaw every instance of it with that being so, and when some of these cases really genuinely are between two consenting adults, and again the laws that already exist are already there to cover those incidents where problems do arise anyway.

Is it difficult for you when you see water falling from the sky and you have to take a moment to consider the multitudinous possible events and interactions that could cause water to fall from the sky without it being rain? And then you can't go out with an umbrella because that would be jumping to conclusions? Anything is possible, but some things are sufficiently more likely that we assume them for the sake of getting through our lives without dissolving into Humean froth.

Of course, however, we're talking about the possibility of two adults entering into a mutual relationship here, not a black hole suddenly appearing out of nowhere with no warning and swallowing up the Earth or something. If the two really seem equally unlikely to you to the point where it's not even worth considering the scenario and you'd feel comfortable with convicting without any more proof than the fact that they're in a relationship, that would really seem quite worrisome to me, as I'm hardly taking conspiracy theory stuff here, but simply two people who enjoyed spending time with each other deciding to mutually pursue that further. There being an age difference shouldn't make that so unlikely as to not even consider it, especially as they're both passed the age of consent, making that by default a scenario that needs consideration. Unless you want to say that 18 isn't the age of consent and that people can't make choices at that age and thus are vulnerable to and need protection from authority figures, being unable to give consent on their own? Like has been said, either 18 is the age of consent, or it isn't--either people can make the choice at that age, or they can't. Pick one.

 

[Wafflecakes]

That's a guilty-until-proven innocent mindset though, and is exactly what our legal system stands against. There's already laws against sexual assault/harassment ,particularly on the subject of sexual assault/harassment of a minor, so there's no need for those particular law, which would seem to potentially treat all such cases as worth-case-scenarios regardless of whether that can actually be proven or not in each individual case. In the cases where that can be proven, of course they should be appropriately punished, but there's no need for a law to make all such encounters between two consenting adults illicit based on just the possibility it can go wrong, and then assuming they'll all go that way and banning the whole thing.

There's already laws to account for those problems if something does go wrong--there's absolutely no need for a whole separate law to outlaw every instance of it with that being so, and when some of these cases really genuinely are between two consenting adults, and again the laws that already exist are already there to cover those incidents where problems do arise anyway.


Of course, however, we're talking about the possibility of two adults entering into a mutual relationship here, not a black hole suddenly appearing out of nowhere with no warning and swallowing up the Earth or something. If the two really seem equally unlikely to you to the point where it's not even worth considering the scenario and you'd feel comfortable with convicting without any more proof than the fact that they're in a relationship, that would really seem quite worrisome to me, as I'm hardly taking conspiracy theory stuff here.

Oh I agree overall. I do understand the law though.

If I made the rules the law would be different. At the same time I don't have any serious dislike for it either because I have no sympathy for teachers sleeping with students (I am studying to become one myself)

 

[jaxword]

Has the female-female scenario happened yet?

If it has, they were probably smart enough to keep it quiet.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Was it struck down on constitutional grounds? State or US? What grounds?

Without this information bringing it up is pointless.

It got struck down because it didn't pass strict scrutiny (did it promote the state's interest in the least restrictive way possible?), which is essentially a test for laws which infringe on the 14th Amendment of the US (not Arkansas) Constitution.

That being said, I've done a lot more reading and there is another similar statute in Connecticut which was ruled the other way by that state court.

Both cases sited Lawrence (which is why I initially thought this was batshit insane), but the Connecticut court ruled the relationship as inherently coercive, so it doesn't need to pass strict scrutiny, while the Arkansas court ruled that there are other ways to promote the state's interest than to criminalize adult sexual relationships.

I happen to agree with the Arkansas ruling, but there are multiple opinions out there.

 

[Wafflecakes]

It got struck down because it didn't pass strict scrutiny (did it promote the state's interest in the least restrictive way possible?), which is essentially a test for laws which infringe on the 14th Amendment of the US (not Arkansas) Constitution.

That being said, I've done a lot more reading and there is another similar statute in Connecticut which was ruled the other way by that state court.

Both cases sited Lawrence (which is why I initially thought this was batshit insane), but the Connecticut court ruled the relationship as inherently coercive, so it doesn't need to pass strict scrutiny, while the Arkansas court ruled that there are other ways to promote the state's interest than to criminalize adult sexual relationships.

I happen to agree with the Arkansas ruling, but there are multiple opinions out there.

Yeah.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

I sorta kinda see it. Don't really buy the argument until the supreme court rules on it though since states have always determined who can or cannot have sex with whom(such as the disabled) and what the age of consent is.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

So the fuck what? Doesn't mean the law is okay or should be respected.

You should respect the law if you want to work as a teacher in the State of Texas, and choose to draw a paycheck from the citizens of the State of Texas who don't want their kids fucked by teachers.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

It would be nice if the state had to actually prove an allegation like that to get a sentence.

You mean by telling teachers explicitly to keep their hands off students?

This is exactly why you can't have a level-headed discussion with her. She in no way addresses what you said and instead goes off half-cocked with some nonsensical ravings. Apparently in her wacky world, telling someone something is the burden of proof? wtf.

It got struck down because it didn't pass strict scrutiny (did it promote the state's interest in the least restrictive way possible?), which is essentially a test for laws which infringe on the 14th Amendment of the US (not Arkansas) Constitution.

That being said, I've done a lot more reading and there is another similar statute in Connecticut which was ruled the other way by that state court.

Both cases sited Lawrence (which is why I initially thought this was batshit insane), but the Connecticut court ruled the relationship as inherently coercive, so it doesn't need to pass strict scrutiny, while the Arkansas court ruled that there are other ways to promote the state's interest than to criminalize adult sexual relationships.

I happen to agree with the Arkansas ruling, but there are multiple opinions out there.

Which makes it interesting to see if this passes muster through the courts. Hopefully it does not as it is overly vicious and provides nothing constructive in correcting the problem.

 

[jorma]

These morality laws are so fucked up. I mean having the school ban teacher - student sexual relations and making it a fireing offense is one thing, but actually turning this into a sex crime? Goddamnit, it's so depressing :X

 

[abusori]

Where the hell did personal responsibility go? You fuck your student, you fuck your teacher, if anything bad comes out of it, it's your fault, and you deal with it yourself. Why the hell do we need laws for every goddamn little thing?

Jeez, I'm just so sick of people.

 

[Vagabundo]

I'm intolerant of a teacher grooming her student to be her fuckbuddy when he turns 18. I assumed others would be as well. Guess I was wrong.

At what point should the nanny state stop policing peoples' sex lives? If the student is 20? 30? 40? Shouldn't adults be free to make their own mistakes?

What if the teacher is younger than the student?

Ridiculous law as it stands, it should only include minors.

 

[2San]

At what point should the nanny state stop policing peoples' sex lives? If the student is 20? 30? 40? Shouldn't adults be free to make their own mistakes?

What if the teacher is younger than the student?

Ridiculous law as it stands, it should only include minors.

How about teachers just not fucking students and vice versa. If they where "responsible adults" they wouldn't be fucking each other.

 

[shanshan310]

Wrong? Yes. Illegal? No

I thought teacher/student relationships WERE illegal, even at a tertiary level. Abuse of power or something.

 

[Kong Fisso]

I'll personally fight any dumbfuck supporting jail time for this woman. This is not a "niiice"-post. This is a "fuck you, psychopaths"-post.

 

[Steelrain]

I'll personally fight any dumbfuck supporting jail time for this woman. This is not a "niiice"-post. This is a "fuck you, psychopaths"-post.

Loltoughguy.jpg

 

[Kong Fisso]

Loltoughguy.jpg

I never fought a war but I can get real crazy if I want to.

 

[jorma]

How about teachers just not fucking students and vice versa. If they where "responsible adults" they wouldn't be fucking each other.

If i was a responsible adult i would not post on GAF while at work. How much jailtime is appopriate as punishment for my irresponsible crimes against the Swedish state?

 

[Vagabundo]

I thought teacher/student relationships WERE illegal, even at a tertiary level. Abuse of power or something.

Are employee/boss relationships illegal? What's the difference? It's all very silly.

Get out of peoples personal lives. We have laws already that cover adults coercing other adults, sexual harassment etc.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

If i was a responsible adult i would not post on GAF while at work. How much jailtime is appopriate as punishment for my irresponsible crimes against the Swedish state?

castration

 

[Wallach]

This is one of those situations where it needs to be illegal to prevent coercion.

Is two decades too severe? Maybe, but given the nature of our court system it's not likely to be the sentence she receives anyway. The potential punishment for this should remain high.

 

[Nevasleep]

I'll personally fight any dumbfuck supporting jail time for this woman. This is not a "niiice"-post. This is a "fuck you, psychopaths"-post.

Sounds like you need to be locked up :lol

 

[Kong Fisso]

This is one of those situations where it needs to be illegal to prevent coercion.

Is two decades too severe? Maybe, but given the nature of our court system it's not likely to be the sentence she receives anyway. The potential punishment for this should remain high.

maybe?

How about absolutely.

 

[mclem]

The article says that the issue is their teacher/student relationship.

It crosses my mind that it's not completely impossible for the events to occur the other way around. What if you're *married* to someone who then becomes your student?

 

[Dice]

Wait, so is this just highschool? If a college professor slept with their student would they go to jail?

I mean, once you're dealing with adults, it doesn't make any sense for jail time to be involved. Unprofessional, sure, but they are adults.

 

[Wallach]

It crosses my mind that it's not completely impossible for the events to occur the other way around. What if you're *married* to someone who then becomes your student?

Here:

(b-1) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the actor was the spouse of the enrolled person at the time of the offense; or

That is directly from the penal code being discussed.

 

[Suairyu]

Don't agree with the jailtime, but she should certainly be fired and perhaps lose her ability to teach. The kid should be expelled. Simple. No need to make this a court issue.

The law is the law. Consenting adults or not, they have to follow it. What I'm wondering is the reasoning behind the law. Because they are, after all, consenting adults.

Position of power. An 18 year old is still easily manipulated etc. etc.

It crosses my mind that it's not completely impossible for the events to occur the other way around. What if you're *married* to someone who then becomes your student?

Then any court worth their salt would immediately see the teacher/student part had zero bearing on their relationship.

Then again, as Garborn informed me in the last sex scandal thread, American courts are more "letter of the law" than "interpretting the law for the situation".

 

[KefkaPalazzo]

Fire her and ban her from teaching. That skank.

Jail is a bit much given the age though.

 

[Milchjon]

He was 18 fucking years old. Over here in Germany, that's old enough to vote, drink, drive and it sure as hell is old enough to choose your sex partners. If you never want to trust people to make their own decisions and want to make sure you take any hint of authority out of every relationship, you can probably deem 90% of them illegitimate. And no, I wouldn't think a lot different if the sexes were switched in this case.

 

[Raonak]

shouldn't have been sent to jail; theres nothing illegal about it.
he was 18 ffs.

texas being texas :/