Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

[Tiassa]

A Pretentious Proposition

When I went through Teachers Training College here in New Zealand (several years ago now) we were specifically, and explicitly warned - both male, and female teachers, about putting ourselves in 'at risk' situations such as this. This included things like making sure another teacher was in earshot when you detained a student after a class (leave the room door open, and make sure a colleague is in the hallway or classroom).

This wasn't about PC gone mad or anything like that, it was about protecting yourself, purely and simply. It wasn't even about male teachers protecting themselves against female students, it was about teachers protecting themselves from students, period. Because false accusations happen, and if you're careful, you can prove they're false, otherwise you risk your job and your career.

In the Puget Sound region, we tend to be more comfortable throwing the book at stupidity than brutality. We're a bit pretentious about stupidity around here. That doesn't mean there aren't those who relish the opportunity to squelch brutality with a big freakin' stick, but in a state where we didn't have a proper bestiality law until someone died while fucking a horse and the only person the authorities could find to charge with a crime was the guy who was filming it, and they charged him with trespassing, we tend to roll our eyes when Mary Kay Letourneau enters pretty much any discussion, because we get it: they're in love. And we all seem to think that's completely whacked. But we're not going to cry about it, so we generally consider them something of an outlier.

But whatever the hell was going on in Kentucky, if that was up here, popular sentiment would be simmering over the "You've got to be fucking kidding me!" factor.

The condoms on the ground? If they can be matched to the couple, we'd probably hit her up a thousand dollars a condom for littering. Just because she's an idiot. And if anyone cried about persecution and public vengeance, the answer would be to remind that their kind of stupidity is more dangerous to society than the completely insane. It seems to me it's Ms. Shafer's stupidity, not her sex life, that is the issue here.

The kid obviously isn't too badly hurt by anything but the embarrassment of getting busted and becoming part of a national headline. He's not giving the cops what they want, or else they would have charged Shafer with a sex crime by now. Continuing to lean on him in order to get Shafer on the registry would only increase the harm of the situation to him. And it would waste resources. Her teaching career is over. Her name is an embarrassment to her family. She's pleading not guilty on the beer rap, so she's going to be absolutely pilloried if this goes to trial. No matter what the outcome, even if they don't charge her with a sex crime, even if she beats the beer rap, she's being punished. This is a public spectacle, and that is the punishment for being an idiot to this degree.

It seems an extremely strenuous reach to make this the basis for the sex fantasy we might otherwise call the topic post.

 

[phlogistician]

A. That's not the point of the post, and apparently you aren't smart enough to realize it as being an example.

You said you would engage in violence. That's YOU not being smart.

B. You can't prove how any teacher would react in a situation like that.

And you DON'T KNOW how they would react until you've struck them. And as the results of that violence would leave evidence (your dreamt up ability to knock out teeth (although I doubt you've ever punched _anybody_ )), but the events you alleged leading up to it not, it's YOU who would be up shit creek boy.

C. We'll be sure to let every woman on this planet (teacher or otherwise) know that they are welcome to grab your genitals without fear of being related against by a spineless coward who is unwilling to defend his or herself.

Did you mean 'retaliated'? Anyway, thing is kid, I'm too smart to end up in a situation like that in the first place, I wouldn't have to panic and resort to violence.

 

[Skeptical]

I'm with phlogistician on this. Any guy who punches a woman is an a$$hole of the worst kind. Non retaliation is the way to go, and anyone who calls that cowardice is just stupid.

 

[Vengeful Rebel]

You said you would engage in violence. That's YOU not being smart.



And you DON'T KNOW how they would react until you've struck them. And as the results of that violence would leave evidence (your dreamt up ability to knock out teeth (although I doubt you've ever punched _anybody_ )), but the events you alleged leading up to it not, it's YOU who would be up shit creek boy.



Did you mean 'retaliated'? Anyway, thing is kid, I'm too smart to end up in a situation like that in the first place, I wouldn't have to panic and resort to violence.

This conversation is starting to degrade fast. So after this response, I'll let you cackle on as much as you wish. And you can continue to point out spelling mistakes if it makes you feel any better or you think gives your post any more value than mine.

As for the knocking out teeth, it's obvious you are not aware this matter has been used to catch murderers. There was a case of a janitor at a motel up north who killed a guest... and in the process struck her in the mouth and dislodged some teeth.

He was caught because the laceration the teeth left on his finger resulted in serious bacteria entering the wound. His knuckle and hand swelled up to the point where it would have had to have been amputated had he not been to see a doctor who treated the wound... the same doctor who reported to the police that the particular kind of bacteria from this wound would only be caused by a puncture from human teeth.

It's clear you aren't capable of addressing the thread topic at hand... which was regarding female teachers sleeping with male high school students. But instead have chosen to continuously divert it in the direction of "the best way to decline a teacher who comes on to you" When the punching example wasn't the point to begin with. Perhaps you weren't even intelligent enough to read the first paragraph which states "Just say No and walk away"

 

[phlogistician]

This conversation is starting to degrade fast.

Yeah, it started going down the shitter when you started getting all macho about knocking a woman's teeth out, rather than politely saying 'no'.

So after this response, I'll let you cackle on as much as you wish. And you can continue to point out spelling mistakes if it makes you feel any better or you think gives your post any more value than mine.

Well it does. If you put actual consideration into your posts, you make fewer mistakes, see?

As for the knocking out teeth, it's obvious you are not aware this matter has been used to catch murderers. There was a case of a janitor at a motel up north who killed a guest... and in the process struck her in the mouth and dislodged some teeth.

He was caught because the laceration the teeth left on his finger resulted in serious bacteria entering the wound. His knuckle and hand swelled up to the point where it would have had to have been amputated had he not been to see a doctor who treated the wound... the same doctor who reported to the police that the particular kind of bacteria from this wound would only be caused by a puncture from human teeth.

My point entirely, there would be evidence that you punched the teacher, but none that they touched you! Are you so daft you can't see that you have just proven MY point.

When the punching example wasn't the point to begin with.

Why talk about violence if you didn't mean it?

Perhaps you weren't even intelligent enough to read the first paragraph which states "Just say No and walk away"

That was not your text. That was detectives asking why he didn't walk away. You said you would punch the teacher's teeth out, not walk away.

Think before you write kid, it will save you future embarrassment.

 

[Trippy]

In the Puget Sound region, we tend to be more comfortable throwing the book at stupidity than brutality. We're a bit pretentious about stupidity around here. That doesn't mean there aren't those who relish the opportunity to squelch brutality with a big freakin' stick, but in a state where we didn't have a proper bestiality law until someone died while fucking a horse and the only person the authorities could find to charge with a crime was the guy who was filming it, and they charged him with trespassing, we tend to roll our eyes when Mary Kay Letourneau enters pretty much any discussion, because we get it: they're in love. And we all seem to think that's completely whacked. But we're not going to cry about it, so we generally consider them something of an outlier.

But whatever the hell was going on in Kentucky, if that was up here, popular sentiment would be simmering over the "You've got to be fucking kidding me!" factor.

The condoms on the ground? If they can be matched to the couple, we'd probably hit her up a thousand dollars a condom for littering. Just because she's an idiot. And if anyone cried about persecution and public vengeance, the answer would be to remind that their kind of stupidity is more dangerous to society than the completely insane. It seems to me it's Ms. Shafer's stupidity, not her sex life, that is the issue here.

The kid obviously isn't too badly hurt by anything but the embarrassment of getting busted and becoming part of a national headline. He's not giving the cops what they want, or else they would have charged Shafer with a sex crime by now. Continuing to lean on him in order to get Shafer on the registry would only increase the harm of the situation to him. And it would waste resources. Her teaching career is over. Her name is an embarrassment to her family. She's pleading not guilty on the beer rap, so she's going to be absolutely pilloried if this goes to trial. No matter what the outcome, even if they don't charge her with a sex crime, even if she beats the beer rap, she's being punished. This is a public spectacle, and that is the punishment for being an idiot to this degree.

It seems an extremely strenuous reach to make this the basis for the sex fantasy we might otherwise call the topic post.

I'm inclined to agree, to some extent.

Some local headlines
Sex teacher back in class
Sex accused teacher: I was naïve
A Taranaki high school teacher has been charged with indecently assaulting two students.
Relief teacher found not guilty of underage sex
False Allegations - NZ Cases 2006
Peter Ellis on Wiki

I looked at it (and still do) this way: Why risk it?

As far as I'm concerned, irrespective of whether or not you think teenage boys are somehow sexually more mature than girls - an assumption that is in and of itself bogus, why would you risk it?

We all know how crushing teenage angst is, and we all know how inherently mentally unstable teenagers are - both male and females. We've all seen, or all experienced in Highschool how petty and vindictive teenagers can be. Who in their right mind would risk subjecting themselves to that and coming out of it with a rape charge based on a false accusation? An I'm not talking about a stautory "You shouldn't have had consensual sex with that 16 year old" charge. I'm talking "He physically restrained me and forced himself on me".

Because let's face it - it happens.

The key point, though, is it's a power thing. Irrespective of whether or not the boy is fine with it, but a little embaressed, the teacher had the power, and the student was her subordinate. It's the same reason why they discourage fraternizing between officers and enlisted personell in the military. Hell, it's the same reason why the discourage University staff from having sexual relations with their students. It doesn't matter how old the participants are, where you have a power structure in place, and trust is involved, the potential for abuse of that power structure for sexual favours exists, and where that abuse occurs, it's no different to holding a gun to someone's head, or tying them to the bed. But also, where that power structure exists, the potential for false allegations of abuse of it also exists.

"Sleep with me, and I'll make sure you never take point on the convoy again, but if you tell anyone, I'll make sure you never get off it."

I suppose my point here is that I am, to some extent agreeing with you, that it is stupidity, but suggesting that the stupidity lies in getting involved in the very place.

However, no matter which way you cut it, whether it's physically forced, or psychologically forced, rape is rape. As far as feelings of adulation and such go, well, yeah, sure, okay, they could be genuine adulation, but consider for example factors such as the Stockholm Syndrome, and Grooming which suggest that if done properly, it's possible (especially with a susceptable victim) to not only force yourself upon them, but convince them that they want it, and that it's consensual.

While it's not a sole requirement, having some sort of a power dichotomy certainly helps this.

But then, I also come back to this:

Who says the macho attitudes are a good and harmless thing to begin with?

 

[Trippy]

Yeah, it started going down the shitter when you started getting all macho about knocking a woman's teeth out, rather than politely saying 'no'.

In New Zealand, the test for provocation was "Could we have expected a reasonable person to behave the same way."

I would suggest that physically assaulting a woman for what amounts to a sexual advance would fail that test (in fact, I believe it did).

I say, incidentally, that that was the test for provocation, because the defense of provocation has recently been removed.

 

[Skeptical]

A factor not yet mentioned is the attraction of status. It has been said that power is the best aphrodisiac. That is because young women are strongly attracted to guys who have status, money or power.

A male who is older that a particular woman and is in a position of power over her, is automatically likely to be sexually attractive to her. An officer in the army who is 'superior' to women soldiers is likely to be attractive to them. Why do you think so many middle aged men run off with their young secretaries? The young women are attracted to power.

An older male teacher will tend to be attractive to his female students. A university lecturer/tutor/professor to his female students.

Lots of relationships, and even marriages began with a younger woman attracted to an older guy in a position of power or status. That is probably OK, but there are situations where a guy taking advantage of that situation is committing a moral crime. eg. a male teacher with female students.

Sometimes it is hard to know where to draw the line, though, between what is OK and what is not.

 

[chimpkin]

It doesn't matter how old the participants are, where you have a power structure in place, and trust is involved, the potential for abuse of that power structure for sexual favours exists,

Indeed.

 

[Tiassa]

The unnecessary risks of being stupid

I suppose my point here is that I am, to some extent agreeing with you, that it is stupidity, but suggesting that the stupidity lies in getting involved in the very place.

Well, there is that.

The American conservative humorist P. J. O'Rourke once wrote that the first rule of doing cocaine is to do someone else's cocaine.

This isn't quite correct, as I see it. The first rule of doing cocaine is, "Don't do cocaine."

Once you've violated that, however, yes, the first rule of doing cocaine is to do someone else's cocaine.

I think the same difference exists here. The first rule of screwing your students is that you should only do so in grading their papers. If you're going to violate that standard, however, I would think the first rule would be to not have sexual contact with your students in such a manner as to elevate the probability of being embarrassingly busted while doing so.

People are going to make bad decisions. That much is a given with humanity. What always slays me, though, is that once they cross that threshold, so many of our human neighbors seem to dive headlong into the Stupid River.

I mean, I do stupid things all the time, and manage to very rarely meet any substantial consequence. And when shit does go wrong? Well, it usually means I've done something astoundingly stupid.

The first rule of doing stupid shit, then, is to be smart about being stupid. For instance, if you're going to smoke pot in public, don't do so in front of a police officer while talking to his horse.

To the other, if you're going to smoke pot in front of a police officer while talking to his horse, do so in the famous French Quarter of New Orleans, and you might actually get away with it. But you're always, always, always taking unnecessary risks at the point you're smoking pot in front of a police officer while talking to his horse.

 

[Trippy]

Well, there is that.

The American conservative humorist P. J. O'Rourke once wrote that the first rule of doing cocaine is to do someone else's cocaine.

This isn't quite correct, as I see it. The first rule of doing cocaine is, "Don't do cocaine."

Once you've violated that, however, yes, the first rule of doing cocaine is to do someone else's cocaine.

I think the same difference exists here. The first rule of screwing your students is that you should only do so in grading their papers. If you're going to violate that standard, however, I would think the first rule would be to not have sexual contact with your students in such a manner as to elevate the probability of being embarrassingly busted while doing so.

People are going to make bad decisions. That much is a given with humanity. What always slays me, though, is that once they cross that threshold, so many of our human neighbors seem to dive headlong into the Stupid River.

I mean, I do stupid things all the time, and manage to very rarely meet any substantial consequence. And when shit does go wrong? Well, it usually means I've done something astoundingly stupid.

The first rule of doing stupid shit, then, is to be smart about being stupid. For instance, if you're going to smoke pot in public, don't do so in front of a police officer while talking to his horse.

To the other, if you're going to smoke pot in front of a police officer while talking to his horse, do so in the famous French Quarter of New Orleans, and you might actually get away with it. But you're always, always, always taking unnecessary risks at the point you're smoking pot in front of a police officer while talking to his horse.

Heh. Quite.

1. Don't do Stupid shit.
2. If you must do Stupid shit, Don't do it Stupidly.
3. If you get caught doing stupid shit, because you were stupid about doing stupid shit, don't expect any sympathy.

 

[JuNie]

Looks like the guy in the OP has anger issues. Punch a woman in the face and knock her teeth out? Seriously? Feel sorry for whoever is lucky enough to date you.

 

[phlogistician]

Looks like the guy in the OP has anger issues. Punch a woman in the face and knock her teeth out? Seriously? Feel sorry for whoever is lucky enough to date you.

Makes you wonder if he's carrying some repressed anger about being touched previously, when he didn't do anything to stop it, through fear or lack of self empowerment, doesn't it?

 

[YoYoPapaya]

When I was 17, if a hot teacher touched my crotch, punching her in the mouth would be the last thing I'd be thinking about.