Giggity
- Thread starter Hantlers
- Start date
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
I think the situation is somewhat different because it involves a teacher and student - i.e. the adult is in a position of authority. It would be different if the two were neighbors, or had met in some other social situation. I'm not saying I approve of that. If it were MY 17-yr old daughter I'd not want her having sex with a 22-yr old woman - OR man.
I think the police and DA's are only going to prosecute these cases if there is forced sex or if it was "consensual" but could have been under duress - i.e. the adult is a teacher, leader, supervisor, etc. who has direct authority over the younger person. In this case, prosecution should probably hinge on that factor. At the very least, the woman loses her teaching credentials and has to expalin that away for many, many years as she seeks other employment.
I can see how this counts as professional misconduct. I'm not even comfortable with a college professor having a relationship with one of his/her students. But serious criminal charges and a hysterical public response of life-long humiliation and ostracization over an act of pleasure with another consenting person? That isn't that far removed from witch burning. Keep in mind that I'm talking about the situation in general, and not about this case in particular.
MoreFeasts
Member
You guys realize that once a girl is legal, sex with guys pushing 30 (or more...) is commonplace, right?
So why are 17/22 matchups horrible, and 19/29 matchups normal?
So why are 17/22 matchups horrible, and 19/29 matchups normal?
Yeah, I'm confused where the crime here is. I think she should be fired (she resigned, so it's a non-issue) but I'm not understanding why criminal charges are being filed unless she forcefully raped the girl or used some form of coercion to get the girl to participate.
You do realize that most of the posters in here have agreed with you right? The main problem the majority of posters in this thread have had is the position of authority the teacher had.
MoreFeasts
Member
My gut tells me that whatever happened was a grey area, and there would not be such a big deal if the girl was a little older. I could be totally wrong about that, it is just a hunch, based on a tiny bit of details.
The age here really shouldn't matter since the girl is above the age of consent and not more than 10 years younger than her partner.
Mr. McGibblets
Well-Known Member
Yep. There is no middle ground. Life is as simple as the dichotomy you propose. Or, just maybe, people can look at the publicly available facts and judge for themselves - it isn't necessarily always presumed guilty nor always presumed innocent.
You're probably confused because the police haven't publicized many of the facts. Here is what the law requires to be found guilty of rape and forcable sexual abuse like she is here:
Forcible sexual abuse:
Rape:
So again, the charge indicates that the teacher never had the girl's consent. Is the consent based on the teacher being her teacher or did the girl actually resist and not want to do it?
Other news reports detail that the teacher touched the victim's breasts and genitals which is the basis for the forcible sexual abuse charge. The fact that she's being charged with these counts says that the 17 year old did NOT consent. We do not know if the 17 year old actually resisted and did not consent or whether police are basing the lack of consent on the teacher being the teacher and holding a position of "special trust." If an accused holds a position of "special trust" such as a teacher then the law presumes that the victim did not consent if under 18. https://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_040600.htm
Last edited:
Mr. McGibblets
Well-Known Member
Her age does matter. If you are under 18 then it is presumed that a person cannot consent to sexual acts with parents, guardians, or others in a special position of trust over the person. The law has to draw a line somewhere and they've decided to choose 18 years old for when people can choose to have sex with teachers or guardians.
But we don't even know if the 17 year old did consent. She might have resisted. I haven't seen any reports saying the 17 year old wanted to go along with it. Why is everyone presuming it was consensual? Does anyone have a link to other news stories about that?
But we don't even know if the 17 year old did consent. She might have resisted. I haven't seen any reports saying the 17 year old wanted to go along with it. Why is everyone presuming it was consensual? Does anyone have a link to other news stories about that?
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Keep dropping the ages and where do you draw the line: 16/21...15/20...14/19...13/18?
Society has to set a legal limit at in most states in the US that is 18. In some other countries it can be much younger. I'm more concerned with the question over whether it was consensual or not and the issue of the adult being in a position of trust. And the consensual question may not be as simple and straightforward as we think. The young woman could have consented but is now changing her story to rape to avoid being punished by her parents, ridiculed/ostracized by friends, etc. We have no basis to form an opinion on that as we are not privy to medical information or other facts such as whether there were physical marks, torn clothing, etc.
It does but in many cases it shouldn't.
For example an 18 year old and his 16 year old gf and the parents just don't like him. Ruins his life.