Prosecutors drop sex case against teacher
She offers 'deepest apologies' to boy, 14, and his family
Tuesday, March 21, 2006; Posted: 5:44 p.m. EST (22:44 GMT)

The teacher, Debra Lafave, offered her "deepest apologies" to the 14-year-old boy and his family.

Lafave, 25, said she is undergoing therapy for bipolar disorder and was "very remorseful" about the events that led to her arrest in June 2004.

"My greatest regret would probably be the fact that I put this young man through this," she said.

Read the rest here. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/21/charges.dropped/index.html)

WTF?!?!?!?!?!

Pederast green light....

One must wonder how this case would have gone if the teacher was male.

Wish she would have taught at my high school...

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Wish she would have taught at my high school...

Me too, my teachers were hot for my young hormones back in the 1950's.

Of course I only wanted her for myself.

Originally posted by Evakian
One must wonder how this case would have gone if the teacher was male. Do we really need to? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would know a man's case would have turned out much different. Blonde hair, blue eyes, and a pair of breasts will get you preferred treatment in this society.

99% of all 14 year old boys in the world would be extremely happy to be having sex with Lafave. I seriously doubt he has been scarred in any fashion.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-03/22/xin_57030322083217406061.jpg

:flybyt:

Blonde hair, blue eyes, and a pair of breasts will get you preferred treatment in this society.

As it should be...

She really is pretty cute. Here's a shot of her with her now ex-husband.

I'm sure she feels like a big stupid idiot at this stage. She's flushed her life down the toilet, although a new life as a stripper & centerfold in hustler awaits her.

http://64.238.110.206/images/gt/uploads/botd/gt9589/debra_lafave3.jpg

Originally posted by Napsterbater
As it should be...


LOL, don't tell that to Ma Barker, one of America's most brilliant criminal masterminds, and HER looks never held HER back---ain't she purty?


http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_home/1361:0/Ma_Barker.htm

Seems like there is a disorder for everything if someone has the right looks money or fame.

She lost her job, husband and way of life so she lost much more than the boy did, but by modeling for playboy she can give happiness to millions of lonely boys in their lonely rooms with a copy of Playboy. Everynight, they can pretend that they are the one lucky boy who won her favors.

Everyone who thinks this is a good thing needs to seek counseling immediately. Rape is never good. If this were a 14 year old girl we were talking about, i dont believe you guys would be perving on about it in such a manner.

I can't help but think she wanted the kids to do something else for her--like off her husband...but that's just me.

In nature the female must carefully select her partner because she needs someone strong, healthy and loyal to her that can support her and her child for years to come.

The male just wants to plant his seeds often and with little thought of tomorrow except as to where he can next plant his seeds.

I guess God never heard of equal rights.

The stereotypical male in many of us would like to believe this is a realization of a kid's fantasy. That same stereotypical male would happily cast the plunderer of a young girl into the deepest dungeons of our prison system. Interesting, huh?

Interesting but understandable.

A 14 year old boy has to be a willing participant to have sex with a teacher. A 14 year old girl does not have to be willing.

Not totally in agreement. While this was indeed something I would kill to do when I was 14, mayby the kid had some personal problems and the teacher took advantace of him for her own pleasure.
Boys can be molested by women.

Originally posted by es347fan
The stereotypical male in many of us would like to believe this is a realization of a kid's fantasy. That same stereotypical male would happily cast the plunderer of a young girl into the deepest dungeons of our prison system. Interesting, huh?

That is me.

I know several guys who were given the pleasure of their teenage lives by older women. It was their best childhood memories while I also know plenty of women who were wrecked from being abused by older men.

I knew a steroid taking, muscle bound, pshcho dyke who was abused by her father and she spits on his grave and curses him for what he did to her. I didn't dare get near her or she would growl at me. but she lived with a pretty little blond that seemed happy with the muscle woman. I saw some teenage girls in their pool that were high as a kite. So I guess it is muscles turn to abuse the youth.

teacher took advantace of him for her own pleasure.

They had his friend drive them around while they had sex. 'Scuse me, I have to go get some little fireman time.

LOL, don't tell that to Ma Barker, one of America's most brilliant criminal masterminds, and HER looks never held HER back---ain't she purty?

Good looks probably would have held her back.

I have been looking at it from "What's fun and What's not".

Thinking about the moral and legal issues. Would we want to encourage young female teachers to suduce students? Would the boys become aggressive if they were turned down? What about Jealousy among the boys? How would that effect their studies? Would you want you wife or daughter to teach in a school where she was expected to bang the students?

This is an issue that should really stay outside the realm of expected human behavior. It's nice to think that everyone could be enlightened about such matters, but the truth is that they aren't.

That said, I think it would be very important for the sexual health of the nation if older women would pitch in and contribute to the education of our young men. They just don't have to take advantage of the teacher-student power dynamic to do so.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
This is an issue that should really stay outside the realm of expected human behavior. It's nice to think that everyone could be enlightened about such matters, but the truth is that they aren't.

That said, I think it would be very important for the sexual health of the nation if older women would pitch in and contribute to the education of our young men. They just don't have to take advantage of the teacher-student power dynamic to do so. :D :D :D

I wanna agree with you for the pleasure of all our young boys.:D

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
WTF?!?!?!?!?!

Pederast green light....
So, now we're living in a pedophilic dictatorship, I guess. I mean, c'mon - it's irrefutable...it's right there in black and white.

Would this woman be called a pederast? Was the boy a passive partner. He would just as gladly allowed a prostitute service him as his teacher. A girl would never ever be interested in a prostitutes services.

This could be as big as row verses wade.



Noun 1. pederast - a man who has sex (usually sodomy) with a boy as the passive partner
child molester, paederast
degenerate, deviant, deviate, pervert - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior

Oddly enough, no she wouldn't. A pederast is a man who sexually molests (or sodomizes) a boy. I think the term is you're looking for here is pedophile. As to whether or not the sex was consensual, it matters not.

"degenerate, deviant, deviate, pervert - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior" - now those terms fit the build perfectly when used to describe Lafave.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
"degenerate, deviant, deviate, pervert - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior" - now those terms fit the build perfectly when used to describe Lafave. I hope you meant that as a rather clever pun, otherwise the idiom is "fit the bill".

No, I wasn't trying to do anything clever, so thank you for correcting me. I guess I'll have to seize the iron while it's hot and correct myself because I was only a spit's throw away from using the proper parlance. :)

You're a good man, Charlie Brown...

Yes. Sometimes you have to tow the line into arm's way.

I see your point.

Sometimes you just gotta grab the bull by the nuts and make sure you don't look like a fool in the process. Hey, the way I figure it, it's in your ballpark, ya know...?

WTF?!?!?!?!?!

Pederast green light....

This isn't the Middle East.

Anytime there is a rape, I can only see a male raping a female. Now this teacher might be easily manipulated by complimenting her or pushing her need buttons but women just don't go around raping men/boys. True that the law must be followed and our law only cares about age and not gender.

But in England a teacher was raped by a 12 year old boy. Now boys will rape.

I would like to hear what a female has to say about this.

Here is the student rapes teacher report.

news.bbc.co.uk
A 12-year-old boy has been charged with the rape of a teacher in County Durham, police have confirmed.

The incident is alleged to have happened at an address in the County Durham force area on 29 November.

The woman claims she was raped by a boy while providing personal tuition. He is then alleged to have taken her car, later found abandoned in Gateshead.

The boy is due before South Durham Magistrates charged with rape and theft of a vehicle at a later date.

http://www.atsnn.com/story/104535.html

Originally posted by DrewM
Interesting but understandable.

A 14 year old boy has to be a willing participant to have sex with a teacher. A 14 year old girl does not have to be willing. So a stiff dick means compliance? A young girls vagina will lubricate even if she is raped. Does that also show she is willing? A physical reaction? Weak arguement there, IMO.

that must have been one hell of a 14 year old, cuz she could get almost any guy she wanted.

Originally posted by WindWip
that must have been one hell of a 14 year old, cuz she could get almost any guy she wanted.

This is exactly the point she obviously had a screw lose. She is no different then a man that rapes children, but because she is female blonde and attractive she must be OK. What a double standard If this were a guy he would have been burned at the stake, I quess it all comes down to the size of the ti**. Justice system, bwahaahaahaaahaa what justice system?????????

Originally posted by old-reb
Anytime there is a rape, I can only see a male raping a female. Now this teacher might be easily manipulated by complimenting her or pushing her need buttons but women just don't go around raping men/boys. True that the law must be followed and our law only cares about age and not gender.

But in England a teacher was raped by a 12 year old boy. Now boys will rape.

I would like to hear what a female has to say about this.

Here is the student rapes teacher report.

http://www.atsnn.com/story/104535.html

Old -reb,
There was a case in Chicago in which a 9 year old raped a young playmate.
Because he was a juvenile offender, he was never identified, nor was the victim. He served a sentence in a juvenile facility and received counseling. (more punishment than this woman got). Tho it's not common, cases involving very young sexual offenders do happen.

What bothers me about this case are 2 things-- a double standard--there's no arguement that it this were a man he'd be serving a harsh sentence; and

the fact that she abused her status as an authority figure (teacher) to use the young boy.... a tactic no different from other predators.

("Bipolar"? Now that is truly bizarre).

Statuatory rape has nothing to do with the sex of the person being raped and everything to do with that person's age and ability to give informed consent.

Quiet a few of the male posters have been making flippant remarks about how lucky the boy is and how since the woman was beautiful he should consider himself lucky.

The operative words in this situation are boy and woman. The boy is not the lucky recipient of some sort of gift from the woman. He is the victim of statuatory rape.

Whether he enjoyed the act or not is not relevant to the crime any more than it would be relevant if a fourteen girl enjoyed having sex with a grown man.

The woman should have been given jail time and registered as a sex offender. To do anything less sends a message that pretty, blond, white women are to be judged by a different standard than other people. It is the crime that should be judged and not the looks or gender of the person committing it.

Originally posted by Frogger
To do anything less sends a message that pretty, blond, white women are to be judged by a different standard than other people. It is the crime that should be judged and not the looks or gender of the person committing it.

Don't forget rich and famous............If the sysytem started judging the crime then we'd have a real system, and we don't want that, how could the OJ's of the world get off?

Originally posted by rendova
Old -reb,
There was a case in Chicago in which a 9 year old raped a young playmate.
Because he was a juvenile offender, he was never identified, nor was the victim. He served a sentence in a juvenile facility and received counseling. (more punishment than this woman got). Tho it's not common, cases involving very young sexual offenders do happen.

What bothers me about this case are 2 things-- a double standard--there's no arguement that it this were a man he'd be serving a harsh sentence; and

the fact that she abused her status as an authority figure (teacher) to use the young boy.... a tactic no different from other predators.

("Bipolar"? Now that is truly bizarre).


It is good to hear a womans point of view on this matter. I see you agree with what the media and most people say and even the law is on your side but because of my 65 years of life experience I see it differently.

I see that teacher as someone who has been used by men for their gradification for many years so that she has become weak to resist or just morally bankrupt. But I just can't see her as a predator looking for a sex kick like a male would.

I don't think she picked this one boy out of hundreds she could have. I think that this boy was the most agressive and the best talker to talk her into her friends car for oral sex which does nothing for her but does a lot to humilate and degrade her. Why would she risk it all to help a young boy get his jollies? It just goes against human nature. Males are always aggressive, all the female has to do is to acquiesce.

I could be wrong but that is my opinion.

I respect your opinion old reb.

But in following other cases of this kind, involving much older female, young boy/student, and there's a few, the woman was an active predator who sought the boy out, granted favors, and then asked the boy to perform a violent act. One case involved the lady wanting the boy to kill her husband. He did so.

I cannot help but feel as if there is more to this case than meets the eye.

Maybe I should say, her ex husband is fortunate to be alive.

Originally posted by Frogger
Statuatory rape has nothing to do with the sex of the person being raped and everything to do with that person's age and ability to give informed consent.

Quiet a few of the male posters have been making flippant remarks about how lucky the boy is and how since the woman was beautiful he should consider himself lucky.

The operative words in this situation are boy and woman. The boy is not the lucky recipient of some sort of gift from the woman. He is the victim of statuatory rape.

Whether he enjoyed the act or not is not relevant to the crime any more than it would be relevant if a fourteen girl enjoyed having sex with a grown man.

The woman should have been given jail time and registered as a sex offender. To do anything less sends a message that pretty, blond, white women are to be judged by a different standard than other people. It is the crime that should be judged and not the looks or gender of the person committing it.

Frogger,
Here's a link showing Florida statutes involving statutory rape/child molstation. God help the MEN who do such things. If the families don't take care of him, the prison inmates will, as these kinds of offenders are near the bottom of the prison caste system, ranking slightly above kid killers.

http://www.criminalattorney.com/states/fl_statutory_rape.htm

Originally posted by rendova
I respect your opinion old reb.

But in following other cases of this kind, involving much older female, young boy/student, and there's a few, the woman was an active predator who sought the boy out, granted favors, and then asked the boy to perform a violent act. One case involved the lady wanting the boy to kill her husband. He did so.

I cannot help but feel as if there is more to this case than meets the eye.

Maybe I should say, her ex husband is fortunate to be alive.


There is NOTHING in this post that I could disagree with. And , the key is that there is more to this case than meets the eye. We just don't have the whole story and maybe we are better off not having the whole story.

I just sat back and looked at this post and noted that I spoke in negatives when I should have spoke in positives.

Rendova,

You have a great understanding of the case and I agree with your statements. You have changed the whole dynamics of the case. Before she was seen as someone using a boy for her sexual gradification.

If she is doing this to control the boy then it makes sense.

Thanks, old-reb.

My youngest son is almost 14. It would bother me very much if something like this happened to him. I would feel as if he were being used in some way. He is just too young for this kind of thing and that's why there's statutory rape laws. Our system of justice realizes that there is something inherently wrong with kids being in a relationship with an older person, and it's ususally an authority figure.

Earlier I made a silly post about Ma Barker. I'll say this--vicious criminal that she was, she had more class than this woman. She did her own killing, left kids alone, and when she got tired of her boyfriend, she shot him 116 times and left his body on a golf course. She didn't have someone else do it, especially a kid.

Now THAT'S class.:)

Rendova,

by your womans view point, you proved me right that the teacher was not out to get her sexual kicks but most likely did the act to control the youth.

Now I learn that your opinion on culpability is skewed by your protective mother feelings for your teenage son.

Also your post about Ma Baker scares me and I ain't afferd of nothing.:D

Now I would like to hear from a woman who has been used and abused.

What would be really great would be to hear from a woman teacher and what goes on at schools and what women teachers gossip about.

Ain't the internet great!

You're somehwat right, old reb, that maybe my viewpoint is skewed....but, in all fairness, if my son was having an affair with someone closer in age to him , say a fellow student, it wouldn't bother me like the other would. Nor would it bother me if it was a slightly older person ( say 4 years) who I knew and trusted. Someone who truly had feelings for my son...but how many older women ( say, 10 plus years older) are going to have true romantic feelings for a young boy in middle school?

What they could possibly have in common is beyond me...I would REALLY have to question this older person's true motives.

Originally posted by rendova


What they could possibly have in common is beyond me...I would REALLY have to question this older person's true motives.

That is so true, and the whole world is in the same boat with us.

It is like the old radio mystery show called the "Phantom". It started out by asking "Who knows what evil lurkes in the hearts of man?" only this time it is woman.

Yep, "When there's a great disparity in age, there's usually a great disparity in wealth."

Or other things.

(I would really like to know how much insurance that ex-husband was carrying.) LORD, I'm a suspicious type--somebody STOP me.....:D

old-reb

The reason why she did it does not enter into the equation. The fact that she might have been looking for some sort of validation does not mitigate what she did. She raped a child. That is the simple truth of it.

You are attempting to blame the victim by saying the boy was probably the best talker and most aggressive and somehow convinced her to join him in her car and give him oral sex. It doesn't matter whether he liked it or not. It doesn't matter whether he was the boldest fourteen year old and best talker in her class. All that matters is the fact that she was an adult and he was a child.

As a teacher she had a special responsibility towards this child. She was an authority figure, someone to be looked up to. She used her position to rape a child. There is no way this can be justified or explained away.

As a grown man I find the woman extremely attractive and when I was fourteen I would probably have loved having her give me head. That wouldn't have changed the fact that she would be a rapist though and rapists should be punished and registered as sex offenders. She should have received jail time.

Originally posted by rendova
LORD, I'm a suspicious type--somebody STOP me.....:D I'd try, but I don't want my bullet-riddled body found in an Indiana cornfield.

Sedan, that's the best laugh I've had all week!
(coffee all over keyboard)

Funny, you sound like my hubby, hehe......

I think it is necessary that society make sex with minors a crime, but that really it should be judged on each individual case. I was happy in how this case turned out because to me it was quite clear that the teacher was not taking undue advantage of the boy. It would be the same to me if the genders were reversed. Sex begins at puberty, and never stops until the day you die. We do NOT need people taking undue advantage of our youth, but it would be nice if our sex education involved more than learning how to put a condom on a banana, and a bunch of pictures of some nasty diseases.

In a similar way that children are better off learning how to shoot and handle guns when they are younger than when they are older, we should stop pretending that a person's sex life begins at 18 and demand that they remain abstinent until they become of age.

And it doesn't really cut it to just let kids play around themselves, because that sets patterns in their sexual health that seriously impedes their enjoyment of sex. Sexual frustration leads to a frustrated social life.

We really need older people to step in and educate people on more than how to have sex safely.

Napsterbater

The fact that children are physically able to have sex at a particular age does not mean they are emotionally ready. Girls in Puerto Rico were experiencing menarch at age nine. While they were capable of having sex and even of bearing children they were in no way emotionally ready.

While there might be a few children emotionally ready for sex before age sixteen society has decided that protecting all children from sexual predators is more important than allowing the very few who are emotionally and physically for sex to exercise this right freely.

The teacher knew the law before she decided to engage in sex with a minor. Dropping the case is sending the wrong message to both children and adult predators.

[ http://www.wchstv.com/newsroom/eyewitness/0603/i/060322-1_200.jpg

This female sex offender got a sentence of four to twenty years in jail.

What is different about her and the other woman who had her case dismissed?







Hmmmmmmm! Wonder what it is.http://http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-03/22/xin_57030322083217406061.jpghttp://http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-03/22/xin_57030322083217406061.jpg

Originally posted by Frogger
[ http://www.wchstv.com/newsroom/eyewitness/0603/i/060322-1_200.jpg

This female sex offender got a sentence of four to twenty years in jail.

What is different about her and the other woman who had her case dismissed?







Hmmmmmmm! Wonder what it is.http://http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-03/22/xin_57030322083217406061.jpghttp://http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-03/22/xin_57030322083217406061.jpg

She wasn't so good looking that the judge wanted a knob job? She admited to getting the kids drunk? She said she was a monster?

Dishonesty pays?

TEACHER SENTENCED
Had Sex With 4 Students

Eyewitness News Video
March 22, 2006

Thirty-eight-year-old Toni Woods, a former 6th grade teacher in Braxton County, received 4 to 20 years in prison.

Woods was arrested last March after telling police she had sex with four boys--all under the age of 16.

The former teacher said nothing outside court as a wedge of family and friends tried to hide her from photographers.

Inside the courtroom, Woods said: "I was the monster these families think I am."

She tried tp convince the court her bizarre behavior was linked to taking Prozac and diet pills and that she was a candidate for probation or home confinement.

The Judge wasn't buying it.

One victim's parent said Woods turned her son into a drinking, drug using somebody she doesn't know.

Dale Fisher, another parent: "For him (his son), this is a lifetime thing. It's not going to end today."

Fisher is suing the school board over the impact on his son.

Debra LaFave, a Florida teacher facing similar charges avoided prison this week. What was different?

William Martin, parent: "Up here we had multiple victims. I wanted her to hear what she has done to our family."

The Judge gave Woods until April 1st to turn herself in to the Central Regional Jail.

Bob Aaron reporting.

The fact that children are physically able to have sex at a particular age does not mean they are emotionally ready.

I never said they were.

Originally posted by Frogger
[ http://www.wchstv.com/newsroom/eyewitness/0603/i/060322-1_200.jpg

This female sex offender got a sentence of four to twenty years in jail.

What is different about her and the other woman who had her case dismissed?

Hmmmmmmm! Wonder what it is.http://http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-03/22/xin_57030322083217406061.jpghttp://http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-03/22/xin_57030322083217406061.jpg

She was 37 (and butt ugly) - the other woman was 23 only 9 yrs older than the boy, plus she was a babe.

What more do you need?

No kidding!

Everyone who thinks this is a good thing needs to seek counseling immediately. Rape is never good. If this were a 14 year old girl we were talking about, i dont believe you guys would be perving on about it in such a manner.

You are right - but it wasn't a 14 year old girl.

Dictionary definition of rape

To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.

Doesn't apply here.

Yes it does, Drew. Just as cohersion of a young girl to commit oral sex is considered statatory rape cohersing a young boy to commit oral sex is considered statutory rape. The assumption is that the adult has forced the child to commit the act by the fact that the adult is an authority figure to the child. This is even more the case in the situation of a teacher and a student.

You are right - but it wasn't a 14 year old girl.

Dictionary definition of rape

To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.

Doesn't apply here.
Ding, exactly. Let's be honest with ourselves, men. When you were 14, would you tap that ass? The answer: Until it fell off. So there you go. The kid should be lauded for getting some poontang at 14 (which, at 17, has still eluded me), and the teacher lauded for making a hero out of the kid. Case closed.

Borg might be awesome but Borg is also wrong.

The laws are in place to protect children not only from predatory adults but also from their own libidos. Sure the kid was probably delighted to have a beautiful female teacher go down on him. That doesn't make it any more right than it would be for a male teacher to have a young girl student who had a crush on him give him head.

In both instances the child might be delighted but the adult would still be guilty.

It might be unlawful, but it is not wrong.

You are right - but it wasn't a 14 year old girl.

Dictionary definition of rape

To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.

Doesn't apply here.Why not? The law would disagree when going by the letter.



statutory rape



Main Entry: statutory rape
Function: noun
: sexual intercourse with a person who is below the statutory age of consent

Below the age of consent. Why would one be considered below the age of consent? IMO, it is because the law views these indiviuals as not mature enough to make an informed decision on this subject. So that means the lady, no matter how attractive you guys may find her, is a predator. If she were fat and ugly, like the other pedo, she would be in a cell right now. That also applies if she were male and molested either a little boy or girl. If you are not old enough in the eyes of the law to consent to a sex act, then that means the person you have sex with "forced" you.


Of course, I could be wrong and Borg's juvenile perspective may be more appealing to others.

The argument isn't whether the act was against the law or not. It is whether her actions are wrong. If an American jury decides that an act was unlawful, but not wrong, they are honor-bound to acquit that person. Justice isn't about following a bunch of rules to the letter, it's about ensuring that justice is done.

The argument isn't whether the act was against the law or not. It is whether her actions are wrong. If an American jury decides that an act was unlawful, but not wrong, they are honor-bound to acquit that person. Justice isn't about following a bunch of rules to the letter, it's about ensuring that justice is done.
Another ding for my friend Napsterbater. Aye, the law says that the teacher is a dirty, dirty perv. I am not inclined to say that she is some sex fiend, though. Do I think she should have been wholly acquitted? No, I don't. (And admittedly, my post was intended mostly for comedic effect.) Do I think she deserves twenty years and a label as a sex offender? Hell no! House arrest and probation sounds just dandy to me.

I agree with that & don't get me wrong - I think she did a wrong thing.

I just don't think this is the same as a a male teacher having sex with a female student, especially when you take into account that the woman was only 23 herself.

Napsterbater

You have it completely ass backwards. Even if it had been lawful it was wrong.

Well now, that's up for debate isn't it?

She obviously was not acting in a predatory way, seeing as how the sex was completely consensual.

So if a grown man convinces an underage girl to have consensual sex with him it isn't predatory behavior. you had better notify the police of this fact since they are constantly pretending to be young girls to catch sexual predators on the internet. Those men who have convinced children to have sex should all be released from jail immediately.

NAMBLA loves people who think as you do.

NAMBLA loves people who think as you do.

Which brings up an interesting question - if that same boy who just wants to get some has seemingly consentual sex with a man instead of a hot female teacher, is everyone still cool with that?

So if a grown man convinces an underage girl to have consensual sex with him it isn't predatory behavior.

When men chase young girls it should be assumed that it is a predatory behavior. Men by their nature are more willing to take advantage of girl's emotions and vulnerability. The same should be said for men preying on boys. Women should not be automatically assumed to be acting in a predatory manner, whether they are having sex with boys or girls. The age of consent in such cases should be lowered to fourteen.

Borg might be awesome but Borg is also wrong.

The laws are in place to protect children not only from predatory adults but also from their own libidos. Sure the kid was probably delighted to have a beautiful female teacher go down on him. That doesn't make it any more right than it would be for a male teacher to have a young girl student who had a crush on him give him head.

In both instances the child might be delighted but the adult would still be guilty.

Yup. That why I posted the pederast greenlight comment. So how many male teachers can now take advantage of the ignorant 14 year old students? Yes she lost her job and her husband I would expect no less. However she also broke the law that is in place to protect minors. This is a totally bullshit move by the courts based on the attractiveness of the aggressor. The prosecutor should be chastized as well.
When men chase young girls it should be assumed that it is a predatory behavior. Men by their nature are more willing to take advantage of girl's emotions and vulnerability. The same should be said for men preying on boys. Women should not be automatically assumed to be acting in a predatory manner, whether they are having sex with boys or girls. The age of consent in such cases should be lowered to fourteen.Sexism...good job...

Yes. Sexism.

Oh yeah I forgot the law should just make assumptions on cases as oppossed to being "blind" and "fair" based on the evidence....

Consent should be based on the age level but also the difference in age. 18 year old should be able to get with 15 year olds.

25 year olds however should not be allowed to get with 14 year olds...

What you are saying would work well for older boy, younger girl pairings. Five years should be the standard, with fifteen being the youngest. 18, 19, and twenty year olds can get with 15 year olds; 18-21 year olds can get with sixteen year olds, 18-22 year olds can get with seventeen year olds, and anyone can get with 18 year olds.

But I maintain that for women deciding to attract a younger set, the age should be a flat fourteen. Fourteen year old girls wanting to experiment with sex should find an older woman to experiment with. Older girls would do well to find an older female lover before they start dating boys, even the older ones that the law would say they can get with.

I'm sorry, but in this case, men and women are decidedly not equal, and any attempt to make the situation equal is not justice, but blind rule-following.

But I maintain that for women deciding to attract a younger set, the age should be a flat fourteen. Fourteen year old girls wanting to experiment with sex should find an older woman to experiment with. Older girls would do well to find an older female lover before they start dating boys, even the older ones that the law would say they can get with
:)
I'm sorry, but in this case, men and women are decidedly not equal, and any attempt to make the situation equal is not justice, but blind rule-following.You obviously haven't met the right cold-hearted predatory bitch yet...:)

No, but once I do, I will show her more than she bargained for! :D

Napsterbater

You are exhibiting some of the most Neanderthalistic thinking I have come across in a long time. You seem to think that what is sauce for the gander should not be sauce for the goose. If attractive women prey on young boys that is okay. If attractive men prey on young girls that is not okay.Men are all predators. No women are predators. Predatory acts by men should be punished. Predatory acts by women are not really predatory acts because the perpetrators are female.

Wow! Welcome to the 19th century.:bike:

That's right Frogger. Women and men are different. Now go to church and tell all your friends what a bigot I am for thinking that.

I don't think you are a bigot. I think you are wrong though. I think you are being sexist by dismissing crimes committed by women while wanting to prosecute the same crimes if they are committed by men.

Here is a reflective thought on teacher sex


Shakeshaft cites the case of one teacher, Kenneth DeLuca, who was convicted of sexually abusing 13 students between the ages of 10 and 18 over a period of 21 years. Although nearly all of the students reported the abuse at the time it was occurring, school officials ignored the accusations. "Overwhelmingly, the girls experienced a disastrous response when they told about DeLuca’s behavior," said the report. "Many were disbelieved, some were told to leave schools, parents were allegedly threatened with lawsuits."

Even more shocking, Shakeshaft's report documents that offending teachers have frequently gotten off virtually scot-free even when their sexual misdeed are exposed to school administrators.

* In one study of 225 cases of teacher sex abuse in New York, although all the accused had admitted to sexually abusing a student, not one was reported to the police and only 1 percent lost their license to teach.

* A 2003 study reports that 159 Washington state coaches were "reprimanded, warned, or let go in the past decade because of sexual misconduct" – and yet, "at least 98 of them continued coaching or teaching afterward.”

* A 2004 study reports that many school districts make confidential agreements with abusers, essentially trading a positive recommendation for a resignation. In one case, a Seattle educator named Luke Markishtum "had two decades of complaints of sex with students and providing alcohol and marijuana to students prior to his arrest for smuggling six tons of marijuana into the state. The district paid Markishtum the remainder of his salary that year, agreed to keep the record secret, and gave him an additional $69,000."

'Lucky day'

Recently, there has been a seeming explosion in a special type of teacher sexual abuse – female teachers having sex with underage teenage boys, who as a rule are willing participants in the sex.

"Generally the male doesn't feel victimized," said Steven B. Blum, a consulting psychologist to a sex offender program in Nebraska. "A lot of teenage boys would see that as their lucky day," he told the Los Angeles Times.

Lucky day? What about the next day, and the next year and beyond? Experts say sexually victimized boys experience later difficulty in developing age-appropriate relationships and gravitate toward pornography and one-night stands. They are also more likely as adults to suffer depression, anxiety and drug addiction.

The 16-year-old victim of Margaret De Barraicua, a 30-year-old California teacher who pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape, did not consider it his "lucky day."

"I'm not the same boy," the boy said in a letter read in court in Sacramento. "At school I became the center of attention. Everyone knew my name." But the boy was so traumatized, his mother wrote in a letter read in court, that "his hair is falling out."

And the father of a Colorado boy molested by Silvia Johnson – who held drug-alcohol-and-sex parties at her home with teenaged schoolboys to be "cool" – told the court the 40-year-old woman "took away my best friend, my hunting buddy. I can't have him back now. He is gone."

Many theories and factors are advanced to explain the major upsurge in illegal teacher-student sexual relationships, including:

* Two-breadwinner families mean children have more unsupervised time to be preyed upon.

* Cell-phone technology, text messaging and e-mail afford opportunities for teachers and students to communicate privately that didn't exist a generation ago.

* The explosion of hardcore pornography, especially online, has resulted in the exposure of children to graphic sexual images to a far greater degree than at any time in history.

But overshadowing virtually all explanations for adult-child sex is the simple fact that the perpetrators – and in the case of female offenders having sex with underage boys, the victims as well – often don't think there is anything wrong with what they are doing.

Essentially, the rationale is: Consensual sex doesn't kill, injure or rob anyone, so where's the victim? Why is "love" (remember Letourneau's book, "Only One Crime, Love") even a crime at all?

How did we get to the point that so many of us – including even some of our judges – just don't see anything wrong with adults having "consensual" sex with children?

To truly answer that question, we're going to have to venture beyond the boundaries of conventional journalism – beyond the presentation of facts, examples, studies, statistics, theories and comments from experts. Journalism can do an excellent job of describing the symptoms of this problem – but can never arrive at its cause, or cure.

Are you ready for a ride into new territory?

Sexism, racism, homophobe, anti-Semite, that whole slew of words are just more exact forms of bigotry. It is not sexism to acknowledge the real differences between men and women.

To quote old-reb's article:

To truly answer that question, we're going to have to venture beyond the boundaries of conventional journalism – beyond the presentation of facts, examples, studies, statistics, theories and comments from experts. Journalism can do an excellent job of describing the symptoms of this problem – but can never arrive at its cause, or cure.

Precisely. The time for blind black-white, this is right, this is wrong thinking needs to come to an end.

That's right Frogger. Women and men are different. But I thought we were all equal in this society. You're calling for preferential treatment, IMO. Does not seem fair to me.

Sexism, racism, homophobe, anti-Semite, that whole slew of words are just more exact forms of bigotry. It is not sexism to acknowledge the real differences between men and women.


Precisely. The time for blind black-white, this is right, this is wrong thinking needs to come to an end.Thats all well and good. However, there is no black and white thinking with rape. It's concrete, no matter how twisted your view of it is.

However, there is no black and white thinking with rape. It's concrete, no matter how twisted your view of it is.

You contradict yourself here, but I think I know what you mean. But if there ever were a crime that wasn't concrete, it would be rape. One cannot prove consent, it is a state of mind. Women can and often do change that state, even in mid-stroke. All a court has to go on often times is the character of the people involved. This court could not prove the rape according to the standards set by the law, so they dropped the case. It had nothing to do with preferential treatment.

But I thought we were all equal in this society. You're calling for preferential treatment, IMO. Does not seem fair to me.

It isn't fair.

It is not sexism to acknowledge the real differences between men and women. Nope. But to treat them differently by law is...

How do you figure?

Because you are making assumption not about physical characteristics but about personality types and intentions. The law is (suppossedly) based on facts and evidence. To write stereotypes into law flies in the face of its core priciples.

A law based on only facts and evidence is incapable of doing justice.

The fact is, society has a huge problem with men preying on young girls and boys. Society does not have the same problem with women. To make it illegal out of some idea of 'equality' does no justice.

When it becomes a problem, then we can outlaw it. Not before.

A law based on only facts and evidence is incapable of doing justice.

The fact is, society has a huge problem with men preying on young girls and boys. Society does not have the same problem with women. To make it illegal out of some idea of 'equality' does no justice.

When it becomes a problem, then we can outlaw it. Not before.
Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Statutory rape is a crime. No where does it say that this law applies to men only.

Statutory rape is a crime. No where does it say that this law applies to men only.

Of course it is. That is the law.

Society does not have the same problem with women.

Oh really? How so?

To make it illegal out of some idea of 'equality' does no justice.

Situation:
One man and one woman burn down two buildings. No one dies, and the two are taken into custody. It is found that each one of them was responsible for one of the buildings. Because of the more violent nature inherent in men, the man is sent to prison for 10 years for arson. The woman is not convicted of a crime, despite having an equal hand in it.

Fair? No. Right? Definitely not.
The Law is intended to be blind; it's the crime that counts.

When it becomes a problem, then we can outlaw it. Not before.

How many boys must be molested before you say it needs to be outlawed?

Napsterbater

Defending your position is impossible since it would pervert our entire system of laws and jurisprudence.
you are suggesting that we punish equal crimes differently both to type and severity of punishment based solely on the sex of the perpatrator. If you are in favor of that how about basing punishment on sexual orientation? Let straight robbers go but jail homosexual robbers. Maybe we should more severly punish redheads because everyone knows how they are known for their violent tempers. if we follow your line of thinking there is nothing wrong with punishing blacks more harshly than whites becaus blacks are more likely to commit crimes.

Oh really? How so?

Women do not seduce little boys over the internet and then kidnap them, even though it would be far easier for them to do so, and such a story would immediately make news. Stories of regular, non-statuatory rape of men by women are much rarer. Statuatory rape cases are almost non-existant, at least when compared to the the regular cases.

Society, irregardless of popular belief, is capable of handling singular events without resorting to the justice system. There is no need to make laws to cover every single possible crime. This is one of those events which needs to be looked at individually.

Situation:
One man and one woman burn down two buildings. No one dies, and the two are taken into custody. It is found that each one of them was responsible for one of the buildings. Because of the more violent nature inherent in men, the man is sent to prison for 10 years for arson. The woman is not convicted of a crime, despite having an equal hand in it.

We are not talking about arson. We are talking about sex.

How many boys must be molested before you say it needs to be outlawed?

Do you really consider the kid in this case, "molested"? Sign me up for sexual molestation every day then!

Defending your position is impossible since it would pervert our entire system of laws and jurisprudence.

Defending it is easy, because it is the right position, but actually implementing it is quite impossible. That matters little to me. I'm an armchair philosopher, not a politician. And as for your second argument, I am not arguing any of those things. Special cases do not need exist for every crime. Just this one. The difference in my exemption as opposed to your exemption is that in all of yours, the offenders have still done something wrong. In my case, the offender may possibly have done something wrong, but that the preponderance of cases are ones in which nobody has done any wrong. No force, no predatory actions were taking place. So that means there is no automatic assumption that she was in the wrong. Should she be found out to have either used physical force or harmful emotional manipulation to extort wrongful sex from a boy, then by all means, lock her up and throw away the key.

All I am saying is that society should not automatically assume this is the case when they run into such a situation.

Women do not seduce little boys over the internet and then kidnap them, even though it would be far easier for them to do so, and such a story would immediately make news. Stories of regular, non-statuatory rape of men by women are much rarer. Statuatory rape cases are almost non-existant, at least when compared to the the regular cases.

Society, irregardless of popular belief, is capable of handling singular events without resorting to the justice system. There is no need to make laws to cover every single possible crime. This is one of those events which needs to be looked at individually.



We are not talking about arson. We are talking about sex.



Do you really consider the kid in this case, "molested"? Sign me up for sexual molestation every day then!



Defending it is easy, because it is the right position, but actually implementing it is quite impossible. That matters little to me. I'm an armchair philosopher, not a politician. And as for your second argument, I am not arguing any of those things. Special cases do not need exist for every crime. Just this one. The difference in my exemption as opposed to your exemption is that in all of yours, the offenders have still done something wrong. In my case, the offender may possibly have done something wrong, but that the preponderance of cases are ones in which nobody has done any wrong. No force, no predatory actions were taking place. So that means there is no automatic assumption that she was in the wrong. Should she be found out to have either used physical force or harmful emotional manipulation to extort wrongful sex from a boy, then by all means, lock her up and throw away the key.

All I am saying is that society should not automatically assume this is the case when they run into such a situation.



Napsterbater

Seldom before have i discussed an issue with someone who was so completely wrong in every particular of a topic.Let's look at what you posted piece by piece.

do not seduce little boys over the internet and then kidnap them, even though it would be far easier for them to do so, and such a story would immediately make news. Stories of regular, non-statuatory rape of men by women are much rarer. Statuatory rape cases are almost non-existant, at least when compared to the the regular cases.

We are not talking about internet stalking. We are talking about two people who are in physical contact, one an authority figure.The commoness or rarity of a crime does not lessen its criminality. Statuatory rape is almost non-existant when compared to rREGULAR crimes according to you as if that is some sort of justification for not punishing it. Cannibalism is even more rare. Do you think the rarity of cannibalism should mean we don't punish cannibals?

Society, irregardless of popular belief, is capable of handling singular events without resorting to the justice system. There is no need to make laws to cover every single possible crime. This is one of those events which needs to be looked at individually.

Society has at times handled singular events without resorting to the justice system. We call these handlings vigilantism. Lynchings of blacks in the south are an example of handling singular events without resorting to the justice system.

We have and enforce laws for such crimes as jaywalking and spitting on the sidewalk and you are suggesting we don't need laws relating to such topics as rape. Statuatory rape laws are in place to protect children from predatory adults and from their own actions. Every crime should be looked at individually and when a crime has been committed the person committing it should be punished.

We are not talking about arson. We are talking about sex.

No, we are not talking about arson. We are not talking about sex either. We are talking about rape.

Do you really consider the kid in this case, "molested"? Sign me up for sexual molestation every day then!

If you want to be molested that is your right as an adult. Children do not have the ability to volunteer to be molested. Your flip comment regarding this does nothing to advance your argument.

Special cases do not need exist for every crime. Just this one. The difference in my exemption as opposed to your exemption is that in all of yours, the offenders have still done something wrong. In my case, the offender may possibly have done something wrong, but that the preponderance of cases are ones in which nobody has done any wrong. No force, no predatory actions were taking place. So that means there is no automatic assumption that she was in the wrong.

Of all the crimes in the world you consider this one somehow different. According to you in all other crimes the defendants have done something wrong but in this one that is not so. The fact that an adult, an adult in a postition of authority has had sexual congress with a child is not wrong. according to you the adult is not a predator because she is a woman and the victim is a boy.

Should she be found out to have either used physical force or harmful emotional manipulation to extort wrongful sex from a boy, then by all means, lock her up and throw away the key.

She was a teacher, an adult children are taught to respect as authority figures. She convinced a minor child to have sex with her. This is clear cut emotional manipulation. She didn't have to hogtie the boy and then have her way with him in order to be guilty of rape.

Wish she would have taught at my high school...
Agreed! Who wouldn't want that at their school?

Society, irregardless of popular belief, is capable of handling singular events without resorting to the justice system. There is no need to make laws to cover every single possible crime.

Why not?

Also- your statement that "society does not have the same problem with women" (the one that this rebuttal was supposedly addressing) falls flat when dealing with females such as the lovely one Frogger graced us with.

This is one of those events which needs to be looked at individually.

All crimes are looked at individually.

We are not talking about arson. We are talking about sex.

Thanks for ignoring the example, especially an example that deals with different punishment based on preconceived notions of human nature in relation to gender.

Do you really consider the kid in this case, "molested"?

Did I say the child was?

Society, irregardless of popular belief, is capable of handling singular events without resorting to the justice system. There is no need to make laws to cover every single possible crime. This is one of those events which needs to be looked at individually.If thats the case, then anyone should punish her how they see fit, or look the other way if they dont mind her crime. If the boy were my child, i would probably be arrested for what i would do to that pedophile.



We are not talking about arson. We are talking about sex.No, we are talking about a crime.



Do you really consider the kid in this case, "molested"? Sign me up for sexual molestation every day then!Yes i do. Just because you feel you would have enjoyed this type of liason with the pedo does not mean that way of thinking applies to all. Are you that twisted in your logic that this idea doesnt seem possible to you?



Defending it is easy, because it is the right position, but actually implementing it is quite impossible. That matters little to me. I'm an armchair philosopher, not a politician. And as for your second argument, I am not arguing any of those things. Special cases do not need exist for every crime. Just this one. The difference in my exemption as opposed to your exemption is that in all of yours, the offenders have still done something wrong. In my case, the offender may possibly have done something wrong, but that the preponderance of cases are ones in which nobody has done any wrong. No force, no predatory actions were taking place. So that means there is no automatic assumption that she was in the wrong. Should she be found out to have either used physical force or harmful emotional manipulation to extort wrongful sex from a boy, then by all means, lock her up and throw away the key.

All I am saying is that society should not automatically assume this is the case when they run into such a situation.You're not defending it though. You're only making silly points that mean absolutely nothing in the defense of the pedo.

As far as the "harmful emotional manipulation" goes, she was a TEACHER. A person of authority over a 14 year old child. You cannot have anymore opportunity to manipulate a child than a situation like that.

I think the parents/grandparents on this thread have a different viewpoint than those who don't.
When it perhaps hits home, then you will see what bothered people about this....there really is nothing funny about this sad case at all.