Teacher who seduced 13-year-old student with saucy yoga selfies facing jail time

[Deleted]

I can understand many different sexual orientations and fetishes, but pedophily makes me cringe, even more when it's about boys than girls. How can a grown woman find mini penises attractive?

How can you not? Some kinda homo eh?

[vondevon]

Did you fail to read your own definition? Pre-pubescent? Hello?

Puberty: the process of physical changes through which a child's body matures into an adult body capable of sexual reproduction. [...] The major landmark of puberty for males is the first ejaculation, which occurs on average at age 13.

He was 13, she gave him a blowjob, pretty easy to deduce he was not prepubescent anymore. You can argue the "trauma" and the letter of the law as much as you want, but by the very definition you provided she clearly can't be called a pedophile (not in light of this case, anyway).

On average, girls begin puberty around ages 10–11 and end puberty around 15-17; boys begin around ages 11–12 and end around 16-17. (link)

Way to deliberately cut out the part that undermines your argument. Someone who has not completed the process of puberty is still not an adult, ergo a child. Thanks for further proving my point.

Haha, rekt Thank you, sir.
But either way I was going to say - doesn't matter. The definition of phedophilia aside. If I were in that boys shoes and I wanted (merely an example)to have sex with a 43yo and she actually agreed to it, I wouldn't agree with anyone charging her anything. It would have been my fucking choice. Yes, 13yo's can make choices, if you couldn't, then as already said, that speaks very very very bad about you.

See above ^^
And your argument is pointless because a) no one is blaming or charging the child with anything, so b) it really doesn't matter what the child felt or wanted in the case of statutory rape. The crime is committed by the adult, who is old enough to know that sexually preying on minors is wrong.

*Seems to think saying, "the boy probably enjoyed it" equates to "defending" it while ironically and erroneously accusing them of supporting something that's not even applicable in this case*

Not supporting. Defending. Claiming that the child's enjoyment or desire to participate somehow mitigates the criminality of an adult misusing her status to engage in sexual acts with a minor is defending pedophilia.

[Mistame]

On average, girls begin puberty around ages 10–11 and end puberty around 15-17; boys begin around ages 11–12 and end around 16-17. (link)

That's right. And "pedophilia" refers specifically to prepubescent (note the bold) children.

Way to deliberately cut out the part that undermines your argument. Someone who has not completed the process of puberty is still not an adult, ergo a child. Thanks for further proving my point.

Actually, only the law the classifies those under the age of consent/majority as "children". "Child" literally (as in, per the actual definition) refers primarily to prepubescent humans, with exceptions when using a relative reference. Thus the phrase "prepubescent children" is inherently redundant. Those going through puberty are what most people call "teenagers".

Not supporting. Defending. Claiming that the child's enjoyment or desire to participate somehow mitigates the criminality of an adult misusing her status to engage in sexual acts with a minor is defending pedophilia.

Stating that he "probably enjoyed it" is neither, nor is it "mitigating" anything. It's merely an observation and in all likelihood, a fact. Also, he was 13 and thus, by definition it would not be "defending pedophilia".

[Shinrael]

so if a 13 year old girl wants to have sex with a 40 year old man thats her choice and the man should't be charged?

Never been a girl so I have no idea what a 13yo girl is thinking/feeling. I can only talk from my experience as a boy. If I had a 13yo daughter I certainly wouldn't be pleased if she had sex with some 43yo guy, but the same way I might not be pleased if she had sex at all at that age or I might not be pleased with whatever boyfriend she brings home and so on. Point being, the guy's age wouldn't have been my main concern, it would have been the fact that she is engaging in such activities. But that's a totally different topic. When I have a daughter, I will see what kind of a person she grows to be and act accordingly. If I have a boy, I will already know what kind of experiences he is going to go through so I can consider things in advance. And yes, if his 43yo teacher asks him to have sex and he actually wants to - I will allow it (if we live in a society where that wouldn't cause a problem for either side, if it does, then I will have to think of some other solution, but my point here is that I don't agree with all these rules and judgments that society is enforcing in the first place).

On average, girls begin puberty around ages 10–11 and end puberty around 15-17; boys begin around ages 11–12 and end around 16-17. (link)

Way to deliberately cut out the part that undermines your argument. Someone who has not completed the process of puberty is still not an adult, ergo a child. Thanks for further proving my point.



See above ^^
And your argument is pointless because a) no one is blaming or charging the child with anything, so b) it really doesn't matter what the child felt or wanted in the case of statutory rape. The crime is committed by the adult, who is old enough to know that sexually preying on minors is wrong.



Not supporting. Defending. Claiming that the child's enjoyment or desire to participate somehow mitigates the criminality of an adult misusing her status to engage in sexual acts with a minor is defending pedophilia.

Okay then, let's have it your way. Why is it considered a crime in the first place? Why isn't gay sex considered a crime? Neither are natural, right? But we humans aren't always "natural". We are all different and have different tastes. Some are into gay sex, others are into teen sex, third are into being strong/independant women. Who are you to judge? How can you possibly say something is wrong or right? Do you have any idea how small and insignificant you (and not just you, this entire world that you live in, this entire planet) are in this entire universe (and whatever there is beyond it)? Whose sake was this rule created for? Children? But if the child itself wants it (don't say things like "children" don't understand, etc. Children are too smart to believe such stupid delusions)? Who are you to say it is wrong? Or is it for the sake of the adults' sanity? Selfish much? Or is it for the sake of pretending that you are some heavenly person with no "evil" intentions? Some quality roleplaying! The child's enjoyment or desire to participate doesn't matter? An idiot might believe that, an average child will not. It does matter. Now, if the child was doing something that could hurt him or someone else, then parental intervention is necessary. But how exactly does the current situation hurt anyone? The boy had a nice time and got some gifts. The teacher apparently enjoyed herself. The only people potentially unhappy with the situation are the parents. But then I guess they didn't do their job well upbringing their child? This isn't a rape story, mind you. If it were, I'd be on the attacking side. But it is not. If the boy didn't like it, he shouldn't have participated willingly. Yes, sometimes it is hard to run away/hide/share with others about such things, but I don't see anyone speaking about the boy's reaction/thoughts/opinion on the whole subject, so I guess it was simply ignored. Which is the main problem for me here. If after his parents found out, he said he was forced to (with threats about school grades, physical abuse, etc), then that'd be a different case. But it's not, is it?

[Coconut]

On average, girls begin puberty around ages 10–11 and end puberty around 15-17; boys begin around ages 11–12 and end around 16-17. (link)

Way to deliberately cut out the part that undermines your argument. Someone who has not completed the process of puberty is still not an adult, ergo a child. Thanks for further proving my point.

Why do you insist on being wrong? Like I said a few pages ago, the cutoff for pedophilia is the beginning of puberty, not the end. Don't confuse it with age of consent, which is arbitrarily chosen by lawmakers and differs from country to country.

From wikipedia: Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

so if a 13 year old girl wants to have sex with a 40 year old man thats her choice and the man should't be charged?

A girl is exposed to bigger risks than a boy from sex. If she remains pregnant or even has a pregnancy scare, she's the one who has to go through that, not the adult partner. At the same time, a girl isn't necessarily going to enjoy penetration, it can even be painful to her, and the trauma can affect her ability to enjoy sex in the future; a boy has to be aroused to have sex, so he will pretty much implicitly enjoy it, at least on a physical level. This is why the two situations have to be treated differently.

[vondevon]

Never been a girl so I have no idea what a 13yo girl is thinking/feeling. I can only talk from my experience as a boy. If I had a 13yo daughter I certainly wouldn't be pleased if she had sex with some 43yo guy, but the same way I might not be pleased if she had sex at all at that age or I might not be pleased with whatever boyfriend she brings home and so on. Point being, the guy's age wouldn't have been my main concern, it would have been the fact that she is engaging in such activities. But that's a totally different topic. When I have a daughter, I will see what kind of a person she grows to be and act accordingly. If I have a boy, I will already know what kind of experiences he is going to go through so I can consider things in advance. And yes, if his 43yo teacher asks him to have sex and he actually wants to - I will allow it (if we live in a society where that wouldn't cause a problem for either side, if it does, then I will have to think of some other solution, but my point here is that I don't agree with all these rules and judgments that society is enforcing in the first place).

In which @Shinrael admits to the double-standard re: gender & the sexual activity of minors, which he has been denying for days. All I'm advocating for is protecting little boys the same way you would protect little girls.

Okay then, let's have it your way. Why is it considered a crime in the first place? Why isn't gay sex considered a crime? Neither are natural, right?

Yeah this is the point where I stop engaging. Homosexuality =/= sex with minors. Contrary to your rather ignorant statement, all of these things actually do occur in nature. In fact, rape occurs in nature frequently, and humans are among the few species that are known for it. Death, starvation and suffering also occur in nature regularly. Systems of law, order and governance are man-made, in accordance with our own nature, and enforced collectively in order to protect ourselves individually.

Why do you insist on being wrong? Like I said a few pages ago, the cutoff for pedophilia is the beginning of puberty, not the end. Don't confuse it with age of consent, which is arbitrarily chosen by lawmakers and differs from country to country.

From wikipedia: Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

Oh gee, sounds like your 13-year-old hero doesn't quite clear the cut-off. Oh that must feel bad Close but no cigar, as they say.

A girl is exposed to bigger risks than a boy from sex. If she remains pregnant or even has a pregnancy scare, she's the one who has to go through that, not the adult partner. At the same time, a girl isn't necessarily going to enjoy penetration, it can even be painful to her, and the trauma can affect her ability to enjoy sex in the future; a boy has to be aroused to have sex, so he will pretty much implicitly enjoy it, at least on a physical level. This is why the two situations have to be treated differently.

In which @Coconut attempts to explain the double-standard re: gender & the sexual activity of minors, and in so doing, reveals his own ignorance about the realities of sexual relationships across genders. An engorged penis is a physical response to stimulation, not a guarantee of sexual arousal, and can happen under distress such as in the case of rape.

But the larger concern is this: a 13-year-old child is not equipped with enough maturity or experience to fully understand either the consequences of their actions, nor the circumstances in which a 43-year-old adult would be sexually attracted to them, nor be able to distinguish between real affection and coercion.

[Coconut]

Oh gee, sounds like your 13-year-old hero doesn't quite clear the cut-off. Oh that must feel bad Close but no cigar, as they say.

You really are mathematically challenged, aren't you? 13 is the cut-off point, meaning that anyone younger than 13 qualifies for criteria of pedophilia, while anyone older does not. Once someone turns 13 he will effectively enter the second category.

Stop projecting your feelings about being wrong on me, own up to your mistake, and we can have a discussion.

In which @Coconut attempts to explain the double-standard re: gender & the sexual activity of minors, and in so doing, reveals his own ignorance about the realities of sexual relationships across genders. An engorged penis is a physical response to stimulation, not a guarantee of sexual arousal, and can happen under distress such as in the case of rape.

But the larger concern is this: a 13-year-old child is not equipped with enough maturity or experience to fully understand either the consequences of their actions, nor the circumstances in which a 43-year-old adult would be sexually attracted to them, nor be able to distinguish between real affection and coercion.

Since when has avoiding double-standards become more important than actual human experiences? Double-standards don't have to be negative, you know? This is not about discrimination, this is about doing your best to protect those who need protecting while avoiding to villainize those who aren't doing anything wrong.

I am perfectly willing to condemn this woman if it is proven that she negatively influenced the life of this boy, or that young boys are generally affected negatively by having sex with an older woman that they find attractive at a young age. Conversely, I am willing to take it into consideration if women say they were also really into 40 year old men when they were 13, and my argument is needlessly painting them as victims. I never asked a woman what her fantasies were at 13, maybe they were closer to my own than I thought at first, and they would be offended that I consider them too young to understand the risks.

Perhaps the law should have more provisions about the nature of the relationship, the degree of manipulation (or lack thereof) involved, the actual consequences and the presumed victim's willingness to press charges rather than operate with a randomly chosen age under which your choices are meaningless and people who have sex with you are monsters.

[Docturphil]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/345792...-on-his-phone/

Wow. These people really need to understand their roles in society. You're there as a teacher not a temptress who takes advantage of your position.

Oh boy. Another one of these...

Kid gets laid and it's a horrible case of the kid "being taken advantage of". Nah, it's just a kid getting laid. If that was my son I'd probably give him a high five if my wife wasn't looking.

Now if it was a male teacher with a female student, well that's different. No, seriously. It's different. Call it a double standard all you want, but that's just the way of things. It's just all part of the generic differences between men and women and their sexuality.

That said, the law should be maintained and she should probably be sentenced appropriately. But let's not pretend the kid is a victim.

[Shinrael]

In which @Shinrael admits to the double-standard re: gender & the sexual activity of minors, which he has been denying for days. All I'm advocating for is protecting little boys the same way you would protect little girls.



Yeah this is the point where I stop engaging. Homosexuality =/= sex with minors. Contrary to your rather ignorant statement, all of these things actually do occur in nature. In fact, rape occurs in nature frequently, and humans are among the few species that are known for it. Death, starvation and suffering also occur in nature regularly. Systems of law, order and governance are man-made, in accordance with our own nature, and enforced collectively in order to protect ourselves individually.

This topic was never about double standards, but yes, I absolutely believe that double standards are necessary. Why? Because we are different people and the same rules can't apply to everything. You know how many posts on the internet there are about girls regretting their first time having sex in their teens? And do you know how many similar posts there are from boys? Whelp, there you go. Simple example, adamant results. And as I said, I am a man and remember my experience as a boy. Maybe when I get to know my daughter I would let her have sex even at a young age. All I was saying is, I can't know that yet, because I haven't met her yet. Haven't had that experience yet.

Not saying homosexuality is the same as having sex with minors, but tell me, how are they different? (I don't judge gays, but I just want to give an example) Why is one of the two okay, and the other isn't? What are you protecting exactly? Who is enforcing double standards now?