Teen Feels Bad His Bragging Over Teacher-Threesome Got Them Arrested

Flasche

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

The lad was hardly traumatised about the event. He was bragging about it to his pals. His only regret seems to be that they got in trouble.

The teachers broke the law, whether the boy is traumatised or not is incidental.

Boskowski

Mantis1234 wrote: »

Well a 16 year old girl having sex with 2 male teachers may not be traumatised by it either, but people's reactions would be completely different.
Rape is rape, and it has consequences. The teachers are at fault here, they should have known better.

Rape? Did I miss something in that article?

anncoates

Boskowski wrote: »

Rape? Did I miss something in that article?

Statutory rape.

L.Jenkins

I know the lives of 3 people have been affected by this, but why is it, that every time I hear something like this, all I can think about is the South Park episode where ike had an affair with his teacher.

Buona Fortuna

Flasche wrote: »

The teachers broke the law, whether the boy is traumatised or not is incidental.

Yeah but they were hot

The law is only for ugly fat people messing with kids.

sammy37

recylingbin wrote: »

Hopefully her dad left his rock hammer in the cell.

Very good 10 out of 10 for you for that.

Egginacup

Mantis1234 wrote: »

Well the teachers shouldn't have ****ed a kid. Just imagine if the genders were reversed.

"She feels really bad. These men have families and she knows how terrible it is for them. She knows they will never be able to teach again and could very well go to prison." Can you imagine the reaction to that statement from the feminists?

No they should have shagged a kid. But 17 years in the slammer for this? That's just typical American bullsh!t sadistic revenge and cruelty cloaked with a big fat dose of prudishness.
If this occurred in some society like The Netherlands, or Sweden or Germany...you know ...where SANITY prevails, there would no doubt be a more progressive approach to the issue such as a bit of discipline and counselling and some kind of fair punishment. But no! Not in the USA where an intelligent approach to problem solving is for pussies. There they have to wreck people's lives because they like it.

Amazing how fucking backward the place is

Egginacup

salamanca22 wrote: »

If convicted (why does the article say they did have sex with him, have they already been convicted?) the teachers by definition of law raped them statutorily. They are in a position of trust and abused that trust if found guilty. The boy has nothing to feel sorry for and the teachers deserve what they get should they be found guilty.


When something horrible happens like what is being alleged here then there needs to be action taken. People who abuse trust like that need to be dealt with.

Abuse trust? What are you talking about?

Faktuu

WTF is wrong with you ppl if that would be a girl there would be no question what happens next
those women should be punished to the full extend of the law.
since women ware fighting for equal rights they should take the burden of it.

Egginacup

Mantis1234 wrote: »

Well a 16 year old girl having sex with 2 male teachers may not be traumatised by it either, but people's reactions would be completely different.
Rape is rape, and it has consequences. The teachers are at fault here, they should have known better.

Rape is NOT rape, FFS. This kid was not raped no matter how you want to hide behind semantics.
Classifying consensual sex with someone below the age of consent as "statutory rape" is retarded and is only for effect on public attitudes. There's nothing "rape" about it.

Rape is an act of sexual violence perpetrated against a helpless and unwilling victim.

Egginacup

salamanca22 wrote: »

In the end of the day even if the boy wanted it and is not traumatised they still broke the law if convicted.

Think of it this way. A drug dealer breaks the law by selling drugs to someone. Now that person who they sold the drugs to may not be affected negatively by it but the dealer still broke the law and needs to be dealt with.

Things don't need to be that black and white. A bit of adult thinking is required in a situation like this, not the knee-jerk desire to wreck people's live just because you can.

RobYourBuilder

anncoates wrote: »

Aye, it would be great if two adult women in a position of responsibility had sex with your 16 year old kid.

High fives all around.

Absolutely. All joking aside, I'd rather he wait until he was 18 but fat chance of that happening in todays world. The lad in question was 16, the schools quarter back and was openly bragging about his conquests. I think he will be alright. His only regret seems to be that he opened his big mouth.

As for the two teachers; they should be banned from ever working with minors again. But jail time? Up to 17.5 years? Nah. That's madness. Their careers and lifes are ruined. That's enough.

tritium

Egginacup wrote: »

Things don't need to be that black and white. A bit of adult thinking is required in a situation like this, not the knee-jerk desire to wreck people's live just because you can.

Can we presume from your posts that you also think that male teachers having consensual sex with their (underage) pupils shouldn't lose their career and their liberty? What about the numerous sports coaches who have been convicted over the years?

Tell me also: at what point does grooming an impressionable child for sex morph into their consent? And how can you tell?

ManofStraw

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Yeah but they were hot

The law is only for ugly fat people messing with kids.

ugly fat male messing with kids, no one takes statutory rape as seriously when the male is underage because "he probably wanted it".

jill_valentine

Faktuu wrote: »

WTF is wrong with you ppl if that would be a girl there would be no question what happens next
those women should be punished to the full extend of the law.
since women ware fighting for equal rights they should take the burden of it.

It wasn't women who were arguing otherwise?

Statutory rape, by an authority figure, against one of their underage charges, is a nasty, nasty crime regardless of whether the child is male, female or martian.

jill_valentine

Egginacup wrote: »

Rape is NOT rape, FFS. This kid was not raped no matter how you want to hide behind semantics.
Classifying consensual sex with someone below the age of consent as "statutory rape" is retarded and is only for effect on public attitudes. There's nothing "rape" about it.

Rape is an act of sexual violence perpetrated against a helpless and unwilling victim.

The lynchpin is "consent". A child is not in a position to give meaningful consent to an adult who's in charge of them. It's rape because they've no consent to give. The fact that the perpetrator wasn't standing over the victim with a knife doesn't change that - plenty of sex offenders coerce children without force.

Buona Fortuna

Faktuu wrote: »

WTF is wrong with you ppl if that would be a girl there would be no question what happens next
those women should be punished to the full extend of the law.

They should be punished yes.

since women ware fighting for equal rights they should take the burden of it.

By combining the two issues though, are you suggesting that if these cheeky women had not demanded equael rights they could have carried on having sex with their pupils?

Egginacup

Billy86 wrote: »

Male teacher consensually sleeps with 15 year old female student. Female teachers consensually sleep with 16 year old male student. Yep. Completely different...

He got five and a half years, four and a half of which were for sexual activity with the 15 year old. So would you have preferred him to go free like with the women in this story?

35% of all women in prison worldwide are in prison in America.
80% of women in prison are there for non-violent offences.
Many of the women who are imprisoned are pregnant when they are sent away
And the majority of them are the primary carers of one or more children.

These children are then slung into the abyss that is the foster care system and usually separated indefinitely from their siblings, many to never see each other again and these blameless children who are deprived of their mothers are themselves 6 times more likely to enter criminality than children who have a mother.

There is absolutely NO good reason why the majority of women should be in prison. It solves nothing. It causes infinitely more problems than it solves ...which is none.
Instead of looking for excuses to jail these too women over what is, let's face it, more of a scandal and an episode of sexually heated stupidity than some kind of "heinous crime" it would be more productive to step back, calm-the-fcuk down and approach the matter with clear headed maturity.

Egginacup

jill_valentine wrote: »

The lynchpin is "consent". A child is not in a position to give meaningful consent to an adult who's in charge of them. It's rape because they've no consent to give. The fact that the perpetrator wasn't standing over the victim with a knife doesn't change that - plenty of sex offenders coerce children without force.

Then how do you classify two minors engaging in sexual activity? Are they unable to consent to each other?

DarkyHughes

I remember in school when i was 14 I wanted to f*ck my French teacher really bad, I didn't & fingered a girl at a disco instead.

Precious flower

Egginacup wrote: »

Rape is NOT rape, FFS. This kid was not raped no matter how you want to hide behind semantics.
Classifying consensual sex with someone below the age of consent as "statutory rape" is retarded and is only for effect on public attitudes. There's nothing "rape" about it.

Rape is an act of sexual violence perpetrated against a helpless and unwilling victim.

Actually, if a person is under age it's called statutory rape', that's the legal term: ''committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition. [....] Statutory rape is different from other types of rape in that force and lack of consent are not necessary for conviction. A defendant may be convicted of statutory rape even if the complainant explicitly consented to the sexual contact and no force was used by the actor. ''

What those women did was horribly wrong and they deserve the all jail time they get for it. I just feel sorry for their families. They knew what they were doing and they took advantage of that young lad, at 16 I doubt he took serious amount of time to think of the consequences of what he was doing.

RobYourBuilder

Egginacup wrote: »

Then how do you classify two minors engaging in sexual activity? Are they unable to consent to each other?

As it stands, a 17 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend can be charged with statutory rape and end up on the sex offenders' register. A boy younger than 17 can be charged if the girl is under 17. There doesn't seem to be any notice taken of whether the girl is older or younger than the boy.

Check out this case;

THE Supreme Court has been urged to overturn as unconstitutional the so-called “Romeo and Juliet” laws which allow the prosecution of teenage boys for having sex with teenage girls but prevent prosecution of the girls.

The court is hearing an appeal arising from a 15-year-old boy being charged under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 with having sex with a 14-year-old girl in the Donegal Gaeltacht.

The boy is also charged with buggery and his trial is on hold pending the outcome of the appeal, which opened yesterday and will resume on a future date.

Section 3 of the 2006 act created an offence of defilement of a child under 17 and provided for a sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. Section 5 of the act stated a girl under 17 cannot be guilty of such an offence.

In the High Court in March 2010, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled, while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not invidious, capricious or disproportionate.

As the risk of pregnancy as a result of underage sex was borne by girls only, not boys, society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those “who bear the least adverse consequences” of it, she said.

Outlining the boy’s appeal against that decision, John O’Kelly SC said the kernel of the appeal was that both parties involved in this sexual act were children in law aged under 17, with only about a year between the two of them.

The boy’s case was they engaged consensually in an act of sexual intercourse but under the act, one of them was liable to be convicted and possibly jailed for up to five years while the other was guilty of no criminal offence at all.

Mr Justice Nial Fennelly noted the 2006 act is neutral as to whether the act of sexual intercourse is consensual or not and the court was not getting involved in that issue in the appeal.

John Finlay SC, for the state, opposed the appeal and argued the High Court decision should stand. The disputed provision was a proportionate measure on grounds of pregnancy, he submitted.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/court-hears-romeo-and-juliet-laws-appeal-151504.html

Billy86

Egginacup wrote: »

35% of all women in prison worldwide are in prison in America.
80% of women in prison are there for non-violent offences.
Many of the women who are imprisoned are pregnant when they are sent away
And the majority of them are the primary carers of one or more children.

These children are then slung into the abyss that is the foster care system and usually separated indefinitely from their siblings, many to never see each other again and these blameless children who are deprived of their mothers are themselves 6 times more likely to enter criminality than children who have a mother.

There is absolutely NO good reason why the majority of women should be in prison. It solves nothing. It causes infinitely more problems than it solves ...which is none.
Instead of looking for excuses to jail these too women over what is, let's face it, more of a scandal and an episode of sexually heated stupidity than some kind of "heinous crime" it would be more productive to step back, calm-the-fcuk down and approach the matter with clear headed maturity.

First off I do agree that the American prison system (prison complex is probably more apt at this stage) is draconian and insane, and that 17.5 years is a very harsh sentence for a case like this. However, that does not change the fact that they broke the law by committing statutory rape, and as teachers of a student they were supposed to be playing an important role in the development of. While these two women, if either have children, would be taken out of a position to positively impact the development of their own children, they would be there as a result of negatively impacting the development of other people's children.

And to be honest, being pregnant or having children is no excuse for avoiding jail time. It is a deep shame because of course it has a detrimental effective on the child's upbringing in the vast majority of cases, but again that is the fault of the parent who committed the crime and took that risk in the first place. It can strongly be argued that somebody with a lack of morals or respect for the law bringing up a child and forming their perspective on the world around then is also likely to have a negative effect and lead to that child being more likely to grow up with less respect for the law than they would otherwise have. Not to mention that if someone who has a temptation to do something illegal knows they will not face any jail time for it because they are pregnant or have children, they are far more likely to act on that impulse with very little deterrent, knowing that the consequences are minimal.

And again in the reverse, I don't think a single father who commits a non violent crime, say for example tax evasion, insider trading, fraud, embezzlement, arson, drug distribution, or indeed statutory rape should be allowed avoid prison time just in the basis of having children.

demanufactured

Niiiicee

Galwayguy35

It is looked on more seriously when it's a male teacher having sex with a female student, that attitude won't change any time soon.

As fas I know he was just a few days away from turning 17 which is the age of consent there but obviously he was still a student.

No denying they are 2 fine looking women though.

Vomit

Typical overly PC attitudes, "Imagine the genders were reversed!!"..Bla bla.. well guess what, they weren't reversed! So......niiiiiice!

jill_valentine

Egginacup wrote: »

Then how do you classify two minors engaging in sexual activity? Are they unable to consent to each other?

It gets hazier then - and there should be age proximity mechanisms, IMHO - but there's no comparison.

There's a serious imbalance between a teacher and a student, many jurisdictions consider it a crime regardless of whether or not the student is above the AoC because the teacher is in a privileged position.

DoYouEvenLift

ITT people actually arguing to allow adults to fuk our children without being punished. And someone even believes having kids should make you exempt from the law lmao.


Unbelievable. You heard them ladies. Get pregnant as soon as possible for your free pass to be above the law and everybody else in society!

retroactive

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I remember in school when i was 14 I wanted to f*ck my French teacher really bad, I didn't & fingered a girl at a disco instead.

Everyone seems to be just repeating the same points at each other but this really was a gem.

whupdedo

It seems that the use of the word child is the stickler here, he was 16 years of age and well capable of making up his own mind as to what to do in the situation he was in, the same goes for a 16 year old girl if the roles were reversed, we're not talking about children we're talking about young adults

The teachers were 100 per cent wrong and should be punished, but don't deserve jail time IMO, the damage is already done, their lives are in ruins and their livelihoods taken away,that's enough of punishment in my eyes