36 year old female teacher had sex with 14 year old student

Post Reply New Topic

Oh? Yet, I'm not the one who made an extremely bad attempt at an appeal to emotion, like when you asked me what I'd think if someone close to me was involved in a similar scandal as the story in the OP. That's not a rational argument, it's a logical fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Also, now you are not even addressing my arguments anymore. Instead, you just say that I'm succumbing to groupthink. So tell me, what is so irrational about the argument that if one knowingly breaks the law, one should expect to penalised for breaking the law? Are you trying to argue that an adult is "immature" and is "seduced" by an underage teen then they just can't help themselves even though they know that they are breaking the law? Also, just because a view is held by the majority, it does not mean it's "groupthink" as sometimes the majority hold that view because it's right.



I'm pretty sure that those dynamics are already understood extremely well, since there have been hundreds psychiatric papers written about them (which by the way, isn't just based on clients going for therapy, they are based on actual surveys and research that are supposed adhere to scientific standards).



I wasn't talking about the John Strossel, the reporter, I was talking about Jan Kruska, the woman, he was sympathetic towards. She actually advocates abolishing age of consent laws altogether in order to legalise child molestation and sex between adults and children. She is a pro-peadophile advocate and I know this because I have actually done a google search after watching that video. Incidentally though, that video was of a trailer for an ABC 20/20 episode about age of consent laws that was actually criticised for being too overly sympathetic towards sex offender advocacy groups rather than just talking about "Romeo and Juliet" violations like what it was supposed to be about. And I'm not justifying anything, some of those online groups that targeted her have actually been criticised for their tactics and don't think this issue is remotely trivial.



You are really being naive, this Jan Kruska is a pseudo-advocate that only pretends to care about child rights, yet she uses the same kind of arguments as pro-peadophile groups like NAMBLA, and they won't openly admit to being pro-abuse either. It's quite scary, actually. By the way, did you even click on those links that I provided in my previous post. They show you the actual advocacy that Petra Luna is doing (who is presented as an antagonist in that video of yours).

So if the law forbids you to drive a car because, for example, you have black skin and are overweight, does this mean one should not make a rational argument against such absurdity?



If an adult is intellectually/emotionally immature and was seduced into by an underage teenager, then they shouldn't be treated as sex predators worthy of condemnation and punished in such a harsh manner.

By the way, the fact that you put "immature" and "seduced" in quotes shows that you are subtly appealing to emotion by expressing disbelief, even though you have made no rational argument as to why this couldn't be possible/probable.



In this case, it has yet to be argued rationally that it's wrong if the teenager initiated it and both sides enjoyed it.

It is groupthink because you are being led by the ideals of the group rather than sitting down and considering why you believe this to be wrong. As of now, all you are showing me is you are arguing your side because it's the socially acceptable thing to do and not necessarily because it's morally right.



Really? So you have evidence that those who actually enjoy the experience end up eventually being traumatized by these exact experiences? Let's see those links please.



Care to back up that claim? Or are you going by rumors about what she said?



You really need to look up pedophilia because, it seems, you have no idea what it really means. Also, look up the phrase "child molestation".

She is trying to argue for the law to focus on the actual child abuses going on and not waste unnecessary time and energy on dynamics that don't involve any feelings of abuse. Teenagers can enjoy sex as much as adults do. And while I do not agree with encouraging adults to have sex with underage teenagers, it should not be up to the law to punish them if it's consensual on both sides and it shouldn't be the public's business to condemn if both sides are happy.



Let's see you back up those claims first.

EDIT: I just researched NAMBLA. They are too extreme and, while they don't condone, any form of coercion with minors assume that even children as young as 5 can consent to sex, implying pedophilia encouragement.

So, yes, you are right about NAMBLA, but either way, not the main point here in our discussion.

Found this topic through the moderation board. For once I find myself in agreement with you, League_Girl.

Sure, many of us lads would have liked to have been seduced by a female teacher in our youth.. does that make it any more acceptable than a male teacher doing the same thing with an underage female student? NO it does not. Southpark parodied such an issue and I'm going to go with their notion that attractive women get off the hook too easy with such deplorable acts. Frankly I'm surprised a lot of the men in this thread are even supporting this double standard.

Yes, they did, in the epiisode "Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy".

Jono, do you really want to censor free speech by suggesting the mods do something about the last video I posted? Why did you do that? Trying to impress?

Here's another video for you (I dare you to report it):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw8GKJ5buHk[/youtube]

Well, Jono, looks like the rumors about her are untrue. So who's lying? Them or her?

Watch the whole video and tell me if she's saying anything inappropriate. She states she is not advocating preying on children, and that the things they say about her are lies.

But now, of more concern for me personally, is why you reported the last video when it did not contain any inappropriate speech advocating anything to do with pedophilia? And why even suggest at the probability that I be warned by the mods for posting it?

Do you really want to go that far just to be a goody-two-shoes, Jono?

Sorry MCalavera but I agree with Jono. You are lacking logic in this argument and you are using an appeal towards emotion to win it.
Fair enough, you think what happened in the report was okay for your own reasons but there are obviously laws in place. You may not agree with those laws but that particular law is very similar across the civilized world. If you consider that to be groupthink, however, I'm sure there are plenty of men that visit Cambodia or Thailand every year that will gladly side with you on it.

You didn't pay attention at all to my argument, so no surprise you resorted to a cheap shot there about Cambodia and Thailand.

Also, aren't you appealing to emotion as well? Look at your last two posts. You have made no rational case for why it's unacceptable for a person capable of enjoying and desiring sex to have consensual sex with an older person. If it's ok for a 40 year old to have sex with a 19 year old or an 18 year, why is it a problem when it's 17?

We are not talking about little prepubescent children, nor are we talking about actual abuse, so your cheap shot was unwarranted.

Come at me with logic and reason rather than snide remarks.

EDIT: This is the problem with groupthink. It makes you go against your usual standards of judgement and forego rational thinking when it comes to matters you know the group as a whole would disapprove of if you go against its ideals. In other words, "sucking up".

My case was it's law. Much like to me it makes no sense to have cannabis laws as I personally find it harmless, I too have to accept the laws and customs of each nation or go somewhere with laws and customs I accept. I understand you feel differently about this but personal opinion cannot override law. That is my logic.

And trust me, you don't need groupthink to lose rationalization of thought.

I was wanting to probe into why it's morally unacceptable and why the legal punishment must be too harsh. There wouldn't be an argument if the punishment fit the deed in this "civilized" world.

The reason ages of consent exist is to protect children, I'm sure you know this but simply disagree with it. Physical and emotional maturity are not one and the same. Adults are or should be in a responsible position to say "No" when they are being seduced or in a situation to press on or do the right thing. If an adult is vulnerable there have been exceptions made such as in rape cases when children have raped adults but that's another story. Needless to say, putting your own view ahead of a wellbeing system in law that has been established over a long time simply because it's what you agree with is not sufficient enough argument to challenge something like the case in this thread if you ask me.

No, I don't disagree with setting ages. What I disagree with is the black or white thinking that is often exhibited by the public or by law enforcers. As I said before, it should be a case by case scenario. And a lot more empathy should be displayed for those cases where no abuse occurred.

Anyway, if the woman mentioned in the OP is not being punished by the law, then the law apparently supports it. But the problem then is more with the public in such case.

All that said, just because something may be quite bizarre to you or me or anyone else here, as long as no abuse happened, it does not make it morally wrong. If neither side is a victim, why force one of them to become one and waste years in prison for one trivial mistake?

A 40 year old having sex with 15 or 16 year old may not be normal, but so is a 40 year old having sex with an 18 year old.

By the way, the law seems to also assume free will as well. That's the biggest problem I have with current renditions of the law.

Law has to exist in black and white context as to be absolute.


So you don't agree with setting ages? Or is it the ages that have been set?

I agree with setting ages (even if it has to be 18 ) but only as guidelines, allowing for flexibility for cases that don't warrant such harsh penalties. Some adults can be vulnerable enough to fall into them without being predators or even trying to prey on underage teenagers. They may be mentally ill or not cognitively aware enough to and the teenager might be manipulative and know how to get what he wants, it should not equal doom for the adult in such a case.

One other thing, why then must you think in terms of black or white? If it's the law's nature to be that way, what's your own reason?

So, where do we draw the line?

Last time I checked, the age of consent (AOC) in the "civilized world" (Go home, Saudi Arabian age of consent law. You are drunk... and evil) varies between 13 and 18 years of age.

To make things even more complicated, several countries have:

- "Romeo and Juliet" clauses which eliminate or reduce penalties when the age difference of participants is low, and
- "Power differential" clauses with increase the age of consent (or the penalties) when one participant is in a position of power.
- Different ages of consent depending on the sexual activity (although - in general - these countries are less likely to be in the "civilized category")

How do we resolve this? Well...

1. We could focus purely on the "physical maturity" aspect, in which case most contemporary age of consent thresholds would likely be too high.
2. We could focus purely on the "mental maturity" aspect, in which case - given the rule of thumb about the brain only being fully developed at the age of 25 - most people would be guilty of child molestation.
3. We could design a legal system with the necessary legal tools to appropriately punish true offenders and appropriately protect true victims (=an age of consent), and the necessary flexibility to avoid rigidly applying these tools in unwarranted cases (=judicial discretion)

We also need to realize that the legal age of consent likely has a limited impact on the actual age of first intercourse. Other factors might be more important.

Here is part of a graph from a study made by Durex in their 2005 "Global Sex Survey", reporting the average age of first sex in a number of countries. Total N = 317,000+:


Source (see page 5 for the full ranking): http://www.durex.com/en-jp/sexualwellbe ... result.pdf

My chosen cut-off point (Spain) has a lower age of consent (13) than every country in the study having a lower age of first sex than it.

Oh, and Portugal (AOC=14] had the same age of first sexual intercourse as the US (AOC=16-18) in the study.

No, I'm not going to report it. Also no, believe it or not, I was not trying to censor you or even get you into trouble. If you did, then I apologise. I also did not even do it out any moral convictions either. In fact, I do not want to censor anyone who disagrees with me, whether it's in moral convictions or otherwise. The truth is that I was spooked when I googled her name and discovered several websites directly accusing her of being a child molester and pro-peadophilia. Something, which I didn't know then but I do now, is apparently she was convicted of a misdemeanour and not a felony, in which case I actually with her position to some degree that being put on the sex offender registry with people who actually do commit felonies is quite stupid. Now, I wasn't so much worried about that particular video than I was about future information being posted on this forum arguing for pro-paedophilia, which I thought was potentially harmful, not only because it has children on it but because it's an autistic community forum where some could be naive and literal-minded enough to take such arguments at face value. I thought that trying to prevent such future would also be protecting other members. Now, you don't have to accept my apology, but there it is, take it or leave it.