They’re 18 for Gods sake

go talk to some young men - there are some marvellously articulate young men out there - think of nimh but 20 years younger

I did respect your take, msolga...a bit more than you have respected mine.

In any case, I will answer your questions indirectly...as a whole and in parts.

Lemme start with:



How many times does this side have to agree to the notion that firing the teacher or taking away the license seems reasonable.

But prison!!!!!!

Yes, there is a power imbalance...and it as possible that the imbalance favored the young men over the teacher in this instance. I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE...and neither do you.

They fucked...and all indications are that both sides enjoyed the ******* very much. The young men specifically state they did NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES to have been victims. They were very willing to engage in the activity...and they ARE NOT minors. If you want to think they were motivated by fear that the teacher would give them bad marks if they did not have sex with her, what could I tell ya?

As for the punishment...yes...it was the law. But goddamit, it was once against the law for whites and blacks to have sex in Texas...and in many respects it still is against the law for same sex partners to have sex.

I have a bone to pick with the law...and I am voicing that bone right here.

As for my feelings if the teacher had been male rather than female, I will stick with what I wrote earlier:

I will acknowledge that I am not entirely consistent. I would be troubled more if the teacher were male and the students were female. I would be troubled more if the teacher were male and the students were male.


I do not have to explain that...it simply is me sharing of my feelings. It was an acknowledgement that I did not have to make...but felt it appropriate to do so. I'll stick with it as is.

Here is the Arkansas State Supreme court [not AZ] ruling on the same type of law and the judges like a lot of us here on this thread are not defensing the morality of student/teacher sex just that there can not be such a ban between adults under our constitution.



http://statehighcourtsblog.org/2012/05/07/arkansas-constitutional-law-larkansas-teacher-student-sex-ban-overturned-by-state-supreme-court/

ARKANSAS (Constitutional Law) – Arkansas Teacher-Student Sex Ban Overturned by State Supreme Court
Published May 7, 2012 | By sgraves

In a move that made headlines, the Arkansas Supreme Court has overturned a state law that prohibits public school teachers from engaging in sexual conduct with students that are under the age of twenty-one, on the grounds that it violates the fundamental right to privacy.

The issue arrived in the Supreme Court as a result of a criminal prosecution of 38-year-old Elkins High School AP World History teacher David Paschal who became sexually involved with an 18-year-old student at his school in 2009. In 2011, Paschal was convicted under the law of four counts of second degree sexual assault, as well as of bribing a witness in the case.

On appeal, the Supreme Court found, however, that the Arkansas law violated Paschal’s “fundamental right to privacy implicit in our law [which] protects all private, consensual, noncommercial acts of a sexual intimacy between adults.”In doing so, the court ignored the state’s protestations that there is no fundamental right for a public high school teacher to have sex with an eighteen-year-old high school student enrolled in that public school. Moreover, the state argued that the law prevents those in a position of trust or authority from using that position to engage in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity. To this the court responded, “[w]hile it is possible that the General Assembly intended to criminalize a teacher’s use of his or her position of trust or authority over an adult student to procure sex, [the Arkansas law] contains no language evincing such intent.”

In its ruling, the majority expressed regret at the teacher’s behavior, but stated that it nonetheless believed that the constitutional right at issue required its defense. “Regardless of how we feel about Paschal’s conduct,” they wrote, “which could correctly referred to as reprehensible, we cannot abandon our duty to uphold the rule of law when a case presents distasteful facts.”

You think so?
I don't.
Even some of the male students I've taught recently wouldn't view the situation we've been discussing here as some jolly orgasmic romp with benefits for all, as you described it earlier. Especially if they were actually involved.
Give you an example:
True story: At the school I've worked in most recently a very similar situation (to the one we've been discussing here) occurred. A young married female teacher in a relationship with one of her (yr 10) students. Same thing ... text messages, a sexual relationship, secret relationship ...
It reached the stage where the student felt out of his depth & wanted out, but the teacher continued contacting the student with endless text messages.
He had become quite frightened of the situation he was in & didn't know how to extricate himself. What had started out as fun to him had become pretty scary, believe it or not.
So what did he do?
He eventually confided in some classmates about his concerns. Who advised him on what to do. Together they all approached the school councilor about the predicament he was in. They fully understood the situation & why it was "wrong" in the school context & took the most effective & responsible course they could think of to the resolve the situation. (And it was resolved as a result.)

btw I don't think it would make all that much difference if the student in this situation was technically an 18 old "adult". In the student/teacher context, I think an older student would most likely have eventually found a similar predicament just as uncomfortable & frightening.
I'd also like to add, in case anyone is wondering, that most of the student/teacher relationships of this sort I know of have involved male teachers & female students. Not that either type is less significant, or serious ...

.

Oh for god's sake, Frank!

I was referring solely to what I wrote, nothing else!

I even reposted my initial post for you.

I have said nothing at all about jail terms! Still haven't.


No, you don't have to do anything you don't want.
But seeing as you made that statement I thought it perfectly reasonable to ask you why you held that view. To elaborate.
Oh well ...
So much for discussion.


Rubbish.
If asking you a question about a statement you made in discussion means not "respecting" you, then so be it.

.

Sorry all those students could join the military without a parent permission, get married, sign binding contracts and in every other way except drinking are full adults.

There is nothing technically about it they have full adult rights and responsibilities and for damn sure they are not ten years old boys!!!!!!

Three of them testify in court that they did not consider themselves victims in any manner and took part in the sex of their own free will.

Bill, I was talking about teacher/student relationships & power imbalances.
I really don't wish (nor do I have to time right now) to go over & over the same things.
If you wish to change laws under which teachers are employed to educate young people, plus question the ethics of the teaching profession, then I suggest you start campaigning in the area you live in.

with sex the imbalance between teachers and students favors the student, as we love our victims and in such cases always make the youth the victim no matter the facts. "Do what I say or else I will claim that you abused me" is a winning trump card every time. Spend 5 minutes examining any of the sex hating feminists arguments and you are likely to find holes big enough to drive a Mack Truck trough, to include this one on why we need to sic the "justice" system on educators.

So the power imbalances between adults repeat adults who form sexual relationship only happen in schools?

The law should get involved in punishing people like Bill Gate for forming sexual relationships with his mid level employee as the power imbalance between Bill Gate and a mid level employee at Microsoft is a great deal greater then the power imbalance between a mid twenty something teacher and a few 18 years old students.

Is that the kind of world you wish to live in where every sexual relationship between adults need to be approve by the state ahead of time to make such the power imbalance is not too great?

Those young men testify that they had sex of their own free will with her and motivated because of their own desires just as the now Mrs. Bill Gate enter into a relationship with Bill Gates power imbalance and all of her own free will.

Yes Hawkeye she was placing her future as a teacher at best and it would seems now her very freedoms for years in theses young men hands and in fact they did try to protect her from the state even those they fail in that task from the news stories.

Damn shame that the state feel that if had the right to enter into an adult sexual arrangement that all the parties are happy with and send one of them to prison for years.

This law should not stand for the reasons I had already given but if it does what other sexual relationships between adults is the state going to go after next?

As a nice loyal husband in an non open married I think I am safe but you my friend in the S&M scene is not in a good position as after all no woman in her 'right' mind would take part in it of her 'real' free will so no matter what your partners are willing to state even in open court otherwise.

Welcome to the future of the sex police.................

not sure but I am sure that there will be a "next", and then another "next",and then another "next",and then another "next",and then another "next",.....until we yell "ENOUGH!"

The state needs to get out of our sex lives and out of our relationships in general, except for in extreme situations.



the wrong mind being of course caused by abusive men who need to be locked up, it is claimed. Women only have free will if they will what the state wants them to will. Gee, where have we heard that from before now?? Oh ya, all the abusive generations and societies that our kids read about in their history books. Oh well, there is nothing new about hypocrisy.

Yes the men locked up for their evil deeds and the poor women taken somewhere and reprogram to see the light of reason.

Just like those poor 'kids' was abused by the evil teacher even if they feel otherwise.

this is where you end up when you make sex a treacherous minefield:



we were better off when social status was gained by banging the best of the opposite sex. sure we used to drink at university during the 80's, but the goal was always to bag the chicks.

The feminists, driving most everyone to drink. How ******* predictable is that!

What juicy details? Is your best guess one at once in the missionary while the other three waited their turn watching TV or spit roasting with two hands on the spares in circulating sequence or the three ring circus plus cameraman?

You just can't stop talking about premiership football can you?

Maybe the cell phone video is on the net for that matter and as all of them was 18 or more at the time so it would be legal to look at.

If not on the net maybe the good teacher will sell it to pay for her lawyers and her future appeals.

After all the good citizens should know the currents standards of education being taught to our young people:lol:

Will you explain Olga how any male students being actually involved could possibly not view the situation as a jolly romp, orgasmic or otherwise?



You have not allowed for it being positively reinforcing to take these things seriously. I presume, as a teacher, you are familiar with the term positively reinforcing.

With many previous antecedents, which would be positively reinforcing as a logical necessity, an obsession can arise which easily gets to the point of slavering but usually of the sort of slavering not immediately in view, The money for example. The superior sanctimony, the jobs. Anything which positively reinforces. Possibly one that dare not speak its name in case any dramatic flouncing occurs. (how's that for discretion Frank?). It's quite positively reinforcing for young girls, even at 4 or 5, to be organising the games.

I had occasion to witness fairly recently four 6 year old girls playing. In my house. I had someone staying with me, and quite a bloody nuisance it was, who had a 6 year old daughter. They stayed with me long enough for this little monster to go to the local school and she had friends both from school and from nearby breeding hutches. (they describe them differently in estate agent literature as Found Soul will explain.). They played in my house, in my garden, in my truck, in the fields and in other breeding hutches in order to share out days of rest fairly evenly.

I arrived home one evening and all my bedding had been stripped off and turned into tents, dotted around my lounge, and beds in which little dolls were fast asleep. Bedside cupboards made from my rare hard-backed books. Reconstructions, essentially, of the style of bedrooms their mothers (bless 'em) had accustomed them to with various positive reinforcers. They were fascinating. Wearing make up and other face paint. Transfers like tattoos. Getting onto to my sofa so that I could see the telly required a few instructions to be given out. My heaviest ashtray, and never use a lightweight, was holding one corner of a tent in position. One dressed as a fairy princess.

The hierarchy was soon apparent to my sociological mind. I tested it. I brought home a tube of Smarties and emptied it on the carpet and told them to share them out. Which they did. They played Spud-fist" over the odd two out. But only one organised the share out. She organised most things. She knew how Spud-fist worked so got one of them. And it was obvious that she enjoyed organising and was thereby positively reinforced to seek further opportunities for an ever and upward spiral which, unchecked, ends up with being led away like Mrs Thatcher was. There was a definite pecking order and being able to turn my house upside down was what decided things. I've had twenty daisy chains round my neck more than once. And the skin under my chin is quite yellow when looked at with a buttercup.

The lady has become the excuse for a range of enjoyable experiences. Not quite "gloating". It's less conscious than that in most cases. The superior sanctity is the easiest. The clever ones are making money. And the really clever ones are making jobs involving federal funding partly on behalf of their constituents. Or some of them. 51% being sufficient.

One only need look at a breeding hutch in any MOR setting on Google Earth and then slowly zoom out, accelerating as you get to the satellite, to see how insignificant each one is and particularly at one fairly short period within the frame of Darwin's unimaginable vistas of time, to be unable to avoid noticing that the event herein being considered is so insignificant that significance can only be laid on it for the purpose of twitting up one, or more, of the positive reinforcers in play under the circumstances appertaining. Materialist theories can come to no other conclusion.

A bunch of seekers of more positive reinforcements with a sweet lady teacher, self-evidently quite popular, as a football. 300 years ago burned at the stake.

It's a poor do when I have to stand in for the absent feminists and pro-choicers who are coyly evading the case. No sign of it on our news and comment programmes which is so surprising that it is impossible to believe it is being overlooked. Placed on Ignore one might conjecture.

The courtroom scenes I saw on the first page involved a cast which didn't need to be whipped to do their job.

Come on Spendius just look at her no normal 18 years old male would like to have a group go at her.

Msolga is right there is something very clearly wrong with these young men as most 18 years olds would not take her offer up.

At least the young men that Msolga have in her classroom or could them being willing to tell her such nonsense be proof of the power that a teacher have over her or his students to get them to say or do whatever will please her?

How long a post do you think I would need to write in order to give a rough outline of the money aspect? The superior sanctity aspect is rather cliched now that so many actors and actresses have performed the trick for us very convincingly. Not Barbara Stanwyck though. She never sold out. The acting of superior sanctity is a constant theme on Coronation Street.

I don't think even a Proust would have tackled the money. It has more tendrils than a sea anemone.

The lady's only defence was that she didn't know it was illegal as her innocence hadn't led her to study such matters and because she was busy with lesson notes and marking homework and she would never have done it had she known it was illegal and that she sincerely hoped that the football players were not as shocked and outraged as some in the courtroom and outside appeared to be and if any of them were she was very, very sorry and hoped they would not be traumatised for very long.

Where can you get that done Bill? Is it expensive?