If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TurnTo23)   Teacher charged with banging 15-year-old at Highland High. Uh huh huh huh huh huh   (turnto23.com) divider line 146
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

43903 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jun 2006 at 9:34 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-06-26 01:48:41 PM  
Skin him alive! Oh, wait, the teacher is a woman? It's okay, then. Oh, wait, she isn't teh hawt? Skin her alive!
 
2006-06-26 01:59:17 PM  
Eye bleach for everyone that needs a shot...

img373.imageshack.us
 
2006-06-26 02:13:30 PM  
Thank you netmand. May your name be praised.
 
2006-06-26 02:21:11 PM  
I wouldn't fark her with a St. Paul hooker's dick.
 
2006-06-26 02:22:34 PM  
Holy fark...Deb LaFave was a damn sight hotter than that double-bagger.

Someone owes me a new keyboard...and monitor...and tower...and upholstery...and paint...

And, netmand, may Buster smile favorably upon you
 
2006-06-26 02:24:01 PM  
netmand, while I can appreciate the dose of eye/brain bleach, I wonder if some mod might consider that to be on the edge of NSFW.
 
2006-06-26 02:35:42 PM  
treesloth

Neither of those could possibly be called serious accusations.

You asked if anyone said it. You'll forgive me if I don't do a "How many of you are honestly ignorant of what pedophilia means, and how many of you are just making poor jokes?" poll at the beginning of every thread dealing with a teacher banging his/her student.

How many? Is there any reason to believe it's not all in your head?

Comments from most of the greenlit threads that involve a "teacher boinking a student" headline do go that way yes. Sloth_DC and some others could probably verify that those comments tend to be made often which is why I was assuming you were new to these sorts of threads (not new to fark). Typically the comments are made often enough that you can normally predict their occurence. Just as it is a pretty good assumption a thread refering to {insert random group of women here} will result in barely SFW pics of scantily clad women, and it used to be a pretty good assumption that you'll see the mission accomplished pic in a thread regarding Iraq, or the Ha Ha guy in damn near anything. It was a prediction based on the topic and the usual responses it gets. Considering that someone had already made the comment I expected more of the same. This thread was surprisingly low on ignorance in regards to what pedophilia is, but the day is still young (for me at least).

Knowing the reason would have required being under the same illusion as you. I'm not, so your reasoning fails.

So you were picking a fight with me, lovely.

Well, let's see... the charge she would be brought up on is rape. Specifically, it would be statuatory rape. So, if she's found guilty, she's a rapist. Like it or not, the law disagrees with your implication that one must be an unwilling participant. Just because you decide to arbitrarily discard one of the qualifying conditions for rape doesn't make it so.

Statutory rape is different from rape since the "victim" is a consenting participant, but the law says they are not allowed to consent. If someone forces themselves on an underaged person they are charged with full rape, not statutory. I guess that would mean the law is also of the opinion that full on rape is different from statutory.

TheSignPost

No it isn't, it's statutory rape. Ergo, she is a rapist.

Except statutory falls under different statutes and (generally) garners lighter sentences than actual rape because the participants are consenting partners.

It's so simple, really, that I don't know what else to say besides that, so I won't say anything, except:

Carry on being ignorant of the English language.


Oh that's amusing. An American calling me ignorant of the English language when it's legal definitions that are being wrangled over. Lack of consent is the key to defining rape, if you have consent it can not be rape per the definition of the word. Legally they determine if you can consent by using age and frame of mind at the time of the act as references. This is problematic since this can and does lead to a 'weakening' of the word rape, much like how the sex offender lists are used into obscurity for everything from pissing on a bush and 18 year old Joe Schmoe sleeping with his slightly younger GF, to serial rapists and real pedophiles.

Only truly Special Olympians get pwn3d by the filter.

Damnedable filter.
 
2006-06-26 02:41:21 PM  
For an admittedly rough analogy of what I mean:

Statutory Rape:Rape::Copyright Infringement:Theft
 
2006-06-26 02:41:55 PM  
Someone call Ancient.Mariner in to save the thread PLZ.

/needs his MILF action.
 
2006-06-26 02:50:35 PM  
Murkanen

You asked if anyone said it.


Here's the exchange in question:


Cue the morons who think farking a 15 year old makes you a pedophile.

Did anyone say that?


So, please find me someone that says that farking a 15-year old makes one a pedophile.

Comments from most of the greenlit threads that involve a "teacher boinking a student" headline do go that way yes.

How many? In this thread, there are only 2 comedic references. Keep in mind that your original statement was:

There is also a disturbingly high number of people in the media and on fark that think statutory and pedophilia are synonymous... Sloth_DC and some others could probably verify that those comments tend to be made often...

I have spent some time in these threads. I haven't seen all that many comments of that sort.

Just as it is a pretty good assumption a thread refering to {insert random group of women here} will result in barely SFW pics of scantily clad women, and it used to be a pretty good assumption that you'll see the mission accomplished pic in a thread regarding Iraq, or the Ha Ha guy in damn near anything.

Sure, that seems reasonable. I do see those. I don't see the pedophile comments, at least not in anything approaching "a disturbingly high number".

So you were picking a fight with me, lovely.

I'm not sure where you get that. Whatever you like, though. I will not address this point any longer.

Statutory rape is different from rape since the "victim" is a consenting participant, but the law says they are not allowed to consent.

I't still rape. If she's convicted, she's a rapist. IMHO, she deserves the name. By the law, she deserves the name. Again, the fact that you choose to discard one of the sufficient conditions to be charged with rape doesn't change the law. If convicted, she's a rapist.
 
2006-06-26 03:07:21 PM  
Murkanen: Just as it is a pretty good assumption a thread refering to {insert random group of women here} will result in barely SFW pics of scantily clad women, and it used to be a pretty good assumption that you'll see the mission accomplished pic in a thread regarding Iraq, or the Ha Ha guy in damn near anything

This thread needs more Owl
 
2006-06-26 03:12:00 PM  
static.flickr.com
 
2006-06-26 03:26:08 PM  
treesloth

My comment was one of prediction, so far that prediction has not been as accurate as it usually would be. There are two comments which either flat out call her a pedophile or insinuate that she is, but you are assuming they are jokes instead of actual opinions. I can accept that, but this thread is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to the greenlit threads of this nature that I have read and/or participated in.

I't still rape. If she's convicted, she's a rapist. IMHO, she deserves the name. By the law, she deserves the name. Again, the fact that you choose to discard one of the sufficient conditions to be charged with rape doesn't change the law. If convicted, she's a rapist.

Except the law views rape and statutory rape as being different. Otherwise she'd be charged with, you know, rape instead of statutory. The difference is that while the person involved gave consent, they lacked the legal power to do so. That is why calling her a rapist is inaccurate.

IdBeCrazyIf

This thread needs more Owl

O rly?
 
2006-06-26 03:42:07 PM  
Murkanen

My comment was one of prediction, so far that prediction has not been as accurate as it usually would be.


You keep insisting on some usual response. Do you have backing for your assertion that a disturbing number of people believe as you claim?

Except the law views rape and statutory rape as being different. Otherwise she'd be charged with, you know, rape instead of statutory.

So why did you drop the "rape" and instead just call it "statuatory"? Is the fact that "statuatory" is followed by the word "rape" inconvenient for your argument?

The difference is that while the person involved gave consent, they lacked the legal power to do so. That is why calling her a rapist is inaccurate.

So, in other words, if the accusations are correct, she met the legal standard for rape; the particular form of rape is statuatory rape; hence. if she is convicted, she is a rapist. Calling her a rapist is exactly correct. If not rape, what crime is she guilty of? Sorry, but that word "rape" just keep popping up. She isn't a "statuatorist". She's a "rapist". You could call her a "statuatory rapist". That would be correct. That's just a particular form of... you guessed it-- rapist!
 
2006-06-26 03:51:23 PM  
 
2006-06-26 03:59:55 PM  
that's a SheBeast®
 
2006-06-26 04:11:20 PM  
15 year olds have to be so annoying, who the heck would want to bang a 15 year old? As a sunday school teacher, I got asked by a 15 year old if he can take me out to see a movie, I declined and told him he cant even drive he then said "You can ride my big wheel", I was stunned then told the child "Im sorry I`m into grown men not little boys, you can speak to me when you learn how to speak to a lady till then you shall not be in my class". I`m telling you, I wanted to QUIT because teenage boys have horomones raging and they have NO morals and would tap anything...This teacher is INSANE!
 
2006-06-26 04:25:04 PM  
cowsspinach: who the heck would want to bang a 15 year old?

Well other 15 year olds for one.
 
2006-06-26 04:37:42 PM  
treesloth

You keep insisting on some usual response. Do you have backing for your assertion that a disturbing number of people believe as you claim?

Well to me 1 is disturbing considering the nature of pedophilia, you may have higher standards than that. If you want some demonstrations of why I think there are a fair number of people that make the statutory=pedophilia argument check the larger threads from the farkives that dealt with the priest from Florida or the month (might be 2) old threads that dealt with the 5 or so female teacher -> male student couplings. There were (depending on size) 10-20 people per thread that would make the connection.

So why did you drop the "rape" and instead just call it "statuatory"? Is the fact that "statuatory" is followed by the word "rape" inconvenient for your argument?

Calling a donkey a horse won't make it a horse. Statutory involves consent from the partner so it can not be rape. If she had commited rape she'd be charged with rape, she isn't.

If not rape, what crime is she guilty of?

Statutory. You do realise we're just arguing semantics at this point right? It doesn't help that you sound as if you feel that statutory and rape are equivalent in the eyes of the law and deserve the same title which is an obvious error. You are also aware that the colloquial names given to crimes are done so for the purpose of elliciting as much of a negative emotional response as possible, whether the name is accurate or not right?
 
2006-06-26 04:42:01 PM  
Holy crap, cowsspinach, I can't imagine talking to a woman like that, and certainly not when I was 15. That's absolutely insane. I don't know what my parents would have done. I never pushed them to anything like that kind of point, so I have no idea. I'd speculate that I would have been groveling for forgiveness from the teacher and doing a lot of yard work for the entire neighborhood for a long time. I wonder if 49 lashes is an acceptable punishment in church...
 
2006-06-26 04:42:11 PM  
And with that I'm going to head to bed. It's been fun debating treesloth, hope your day goes well.
 
2006-06-26 04:56:21 PM  
Well to me 1 is disturbing considering the nature of pedophilia, you may have higher standards than that.

Ok, as long as we're clear that you have no intention of provide foundation beyond telling me to go prove your assertion.

Statutory...

Statutory what? Statutory is an adjective. It's not a noun. Here, look. So, statutory what? So, if I commit armed robbery, it's not robbery, and I'm not a robber. It's "armed" and I'm a... umm... armedist? Forget the fact that I fully meet the qualifiers for the robbery-- specifically, armed robbery. It's not a robbery, I'm an armed.

...involves consent from the partner so it can not be rape.

Oh, rape! Sorry, just because a particular form of the crime has been specifically identified doesn't mean the person doesn't belong in the general category.


If she had commited rape she'd be charged with rape, she isn't.

Yes, she is.

Look, you're having to fall back on rhetorical crap like calling it "statutory" instead of "statutory rape" and telling me to go prove your points. Unless you have some pretty damn persuasive answers, I see no reason to respond to you any more. I will check back, but if I don't bother replying you may assume your argnument is the same tired semantic crap. If she's convicted, she's a rapist, and your refusal to acknowledge the existence of the word "rape" in the charge against her or the fact that she meets the standards for the crime doesn't change it.
 
2006-06-26 04:57:00 PM  
fugly
 
2006-06-26 05:18:39 PM  
I would say that the need to qualify the kind of rape by putting the word "statutory" in front of it would indicate that those who penned these laws were fully aware that they were writing a law making something "rape, because of statutes" but that in and of itself, it does not fit the dictionary definition of "rape" which is "forcing another person to have sexual intercourse without their consent and against their will."

The term "statutory rape" could be compared to other things.

For the sake of argument, let us say that they write a statute saying it's illegal to lay hands on anyone under 16 years of age- AT ALL- and that doing so (for instance, slapping them on the back, or even shaking hands with them) is considered ASSAULT under this new law.

So it's called "Statutory Assault".

Clearly, if you hold hands with a willing 15-year-old, you haven't assaulted them. But then the police arrive, and they lock you up and put you on a list of felons, and sign you up to an offender's list (basically giving you a scarlet letter), and then put you on trial for assaulting a minor.

Your reputation is trashed. You can't get a job. People think of you as a violent beast who can't control yourself... All because you held hands with the wrong person.

It's not assault. It's statutory assault. It's normal behavior that has been criminalized by statutes. That doesn't make it ethically wrong-- It makes it legally prohibited.
 
2006-06-26 05:39:39 PM  
From the looks of the photo, maybe she was trying not to embarrass the boy.
 
2006-06-26 05:56:40 PM  
ZeroCorpse

It's not assault. It's statutory assault. It's normal behavior that has been criminalized by statutes. That doesn't make it ethically wrong-- It makes it legally prohibited.


It's also assault, but it's such a poorly defined form of it that there would be an uproar and such a thing would be fought and defeated. That's not the case with statutory rape. Somehow most people don't have a problem with using the word "rape" to refer to the taking advantage of the mentally handicapped, underaged and similar categories. An adult and a 15-year old is such a situation.
 
2006-06-26 06:07:35 PM  
pics.livejournal.com
 
2006-06-26 06:10:12 PM  
What seems to be missing from this debate is the fact that the teacher has pled not guilty, and from another report I heard the defense is maintaining that the student made up the story because he had been discliplined by the teacher in question.

"You're failing my class."

"I'll tell the police you touched me!"

Welcome to the new millenium... please take a number and wait for common sense to arrive.
 
2006-06-26 06:16:44 PM  
vanity: Later I noticed more fat girls buying expensive clothes. It's retarded. They'll look like shiat whether they spend $10 or $1000. You'd think they'd realize this and stop trying to be trendy and high fashion.


I think the same thing when I see fat people out tanning. Tan and fat is uglier than skinny and pale!
 
2006-06-26 06:19:17 PM  
treesloth

The kid never did apologize but the other boys in class were making fun of him telling him "you got rejected by the hot teacher!". He later tried to make it up and asked me after church if I wanted a candlelight picnic under the stars.

/Loves straight tall men over 25.
//Yes, who cares Im 20 I LOVE older men!
///This teacher is sick for banging a 15 year old who isnt even old enough to piss on his own.
 
2006-06-26 06:25:35 PM  
I think people who complain about 15-year-olds having sex with people over 18 are the same people who couldn't get 18-year-olds to fark them when they were 15.

I lost my virginity on my 16th birthday to a 20-year-old. No problems here. I didn't feel exploited. She had been asking all the time we were dating- when I was fifteen and she was nineteen- but I was under a personal vow not to lose my virginity until I was sixteen (it had to do with mourning someone. It wasn't a "moral" issue. It was a respect issue), and when I turned sixteen, I willingly gave myself to her. It was- by no stretch of the word- a "rape".

I have been forced into sex by a woman who was much stronger than I am (she was a machine-smith, and quite the brute), and that feeling- the feeling of being forced into sex by a crazy stalker- can not be compared to willingly having sex with someone a few years old than I was when I was a teenager.

Statutory rape is just that: It's rape only because of statutes. The government needs to keep its paws off of the bodies of people who are well past puberty and can make their own decisions regarding their sexuality.

Now, if we're talking about retarded - er- "mentally disabled" people, then yes- There should be laws, because these people can't tie their own shoes without help, so making a decision about sex might be considered out of their realm of understanding. A normal, healthy, mentally-balanced fifteen-year-old, however, is not the same as a retarded person, and it's insulting that the same law "protects" them from themselves.
 
2006-06-26 06:30:12 PM  
ZeroCorpse

"I think people who complain about 15-year-olds having sex with people over 18 are the same people who couldn't get 18-year-olds to fark them when they were 15. "

Please, when I was 15 I had older men after me like a fat kid in a candy store but you see I also had 2 older brothers who were always in my business(One punched a guy for just whistleing at me) so I didnt date anyone much older.

I hope you would still feel the same way if the 15 year old was your daughter because you know...you dont believe in double standards.



Let me tell you something
 
2006-06-26 06:46:32 PM  
When you post stories like these to Fark please include whether the teacher is hot or ugly. It makes a difference. Thank-you.
 
2006-06-26 06:49:35 PM  
oh and the "let me tell you something" was a BIG TYPO! I forgot to delete that...my bad.

/Sorry!
 
2006-06-26 07:52:11 PM  
The sad part? That's probably the best that Bakersfield has to offer.

/Yikes!
 
2006-06-26 09:29:59 PM  
::hands smitty the shiny::
 
2006-06-26 09:30:11 PM  
cowsspinach, how was the picnic? ;-)
 
2006-06-26 09:36:31 PM  
Let's do the smell test!
If you farked this would you tell anyone?
Of course not. Therefore, the claim is a lie because the 15 year old boy has a mental problem and can not be trusted.
 
2006-06-26 09:54:20 PM  
I graduated from Highland two years ago. She wasn't a teacher while I was there, but the last time a teacher was accused there, all girls recanted save for the original accuser. At one point her ex-boyfriend took the stand.

He was asked "If she told you it was 3'15 right know (it was in fact 3'15), would you believe her?"

His response: "Yes, but only if I checked my watch first."

Needless to say he was acquitted of all charges.
/God bless you Mr. Chattaway
 
2006-06-26 10:08:28 PM  
Nevermind, different Highland High in the same area.
 
2006-06-26 10:15:57 PM  
Woof.
 
2006-06-26 10:56:58 PM  
netmand:

Thank you sir, may I have another?
 
2006-06-26 11:05:45 PM  
It could be worse...

img54.imageshack.us
 
2006-06-27 12:01:36 AM  
Eww, FUGLY!
 
2006-06-27 12:46:40 AM  
TFA doesn't say much, but seems to suggest she was feeling a little cocky!
 
2006-07-03 07:10:19 AM  
www.sfolife.net
Are you kiddin'??? I'd hit it wif my teef.
 
Displayed 46 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report