# Student-Teacher relations



## TRG

In the past couple of years in the U.S. there has been a spate of stories in the news and especially on TV about teachers becoming sexually involved with their underaged students. In the most sensational cases, the adult teacher has been female and the student male. In one case they had a child, the teacher went to prison, and when she got out of prison they resumed the relationship and eventually got married and had more children or something like that. These stories get played up on national news, primarily cable news programs like Fox and CNN. My question is: Isn't it irresponsible to broadcast these types of stories because it can only encourage others to engage in similar behavior? What could be done about it? I ask the question now because I just now heard a fragment of another such story.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> Isn't it irresponsible to broadcast these types of stories because it can only encourage others to engage in similar behavior?


Yes it is irresponsible to broadcast such stories on the internet.

.,,


----------



## TRG

If I post something inappropriate here, people can delete it before very many people have had a chance to see it, so this is a relatively risk free zone with respect to public safety. If an article is published in USA Today, it's out there for everyone for all time. There are times when freedom to speak needs some self restraint. Don't you think?


----------



## faranji

Any scientific evidence that these types of stories 'can only encourage others to engage in similar behavior'?

If so, by the same token, let's also ban any news on drunk-driving car accidents, succesful bank heists, and horrid boob jobs, the engagement on which activities would, in my humble opinion, be far more harmful than the elopement of a teacher with a teenage student.


----------



## danielfranco

The cynic in me tells me that those kind of inappropriate liasons have been going on as long as there has been sexual divergence in the human species. Without any encouragement from the media. But I think the media exposure (or over-exposure, depending on your stance) of these regretable incidents does desensitize many people from the morality issues and turns such a breach of the parent's trust in a teacher into a freak sideshow.
But who is to control these instances of media frenzy-feeding? Who is to tell you and me what we should or shouldn't watch for our own good?
I mean, we are adults, after all.
Difficult to say if the media blitz makes this ugly situation worse...


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> There are times when freedom to speak needs some self restraint. Don't you think?


Utterly.

It may surprise you to find that many many people either do not have access to or do not wish to have access to American News. Some people subscribe to the every magazine that has subscription or the subscription department would not exist. This does not mean that _ipso facto_ anyone else is even remotely interested in the contents of the a magazine dedicated to the proliferation of a lifestyle based upon consumption and it most certainly does not make subjects discussed in such publications any more valid simply because they have been published.

You asked whether it is irresponsible to broadcast these types of stories because it can only encourage others to engage in similar behavior? 

Is it not possible that some of these baby flippers are on line now somewhere on the web?

As I type this there are 2,266 people visiting this site. There have been as many as 10,066, a magnificent cartel, at any one time. Do you not think that there could be a baby flipper among them. 
There would be thousand upon thousand anonymous visitor to this forum. Do you not think that perhaps a baby flipper is among those visitors from the dark?

Word Reference is not a chat room. WR is trying to generate an atmosphere of serious academic study and with the success of this comes a certain gravitas.
The interactive nature of this communication is such that it is far more personal than the glossy white, utterly rectangular, extremely thin slices of a sterile opinion that has been plasticly enhanced beyond any recognisable humanity.

My response is still the same.

Your question answers your question for you in the publication of the question and therefore promulgation of a story that many of your readers would not have been aware of other than by the publication of your story.

I could well be a baby flipper absolutely preening at this potential justification of my lifestyle. How could you possibly know?

This specific possible justification of such a lifestlye would not have been possible without the existence of this specific thread so the answer to your question is again a resounding yes.

Even if the intention of this thread was to discourage it was doomed to failure because such creatures are not swayed by fuzzy logic. All it could possibly do is lay an ugly and intractable social issue at our feet and smile, "what do you reckon about this stinking carcase I read about".

So yet again we have a heartfelt and emphatic, "yes, Yes, YEs YES!"


.,,


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> In the past couple of years in the U.S. there has been a spate of stories in the news and especially on TV about teachers becoming sexually involved with their underaged students. In the most sensational cases, the adult teacher has been female and the student male. In one case they had a child, the teacher went to prison, and when she got out of prison they resumed the relationship and eventually got married and had more children or something like that.


What could 'something like that" be in regard to getting married and having more children? 




> These stories get played up on national news, primarily cable news programs like Fox and CNN. My question is: Isn't it irresponsible to broadcast these types of stories because it can only encourage others to engage in similar behavior? What could be done about it? I ask the question now because I just now heard a fragment of another such story.


I don't see it that way. The way I see it is that these reports serve as a warning to those charged with responsibility for minors to be aware that these things happen - parents, guardians, school boards of management, and even teachers themselves.
There are road signs at the borders of every county in this country which alert drivers to how many people were killed in that county road accidents in the last four years. They are there as warnings - not inducements to reckless behaviour.
The only part of the reporting of the story which I see as possibly being prurient is the resumption of the affair after the sentence had been served - and even then I have doubts. Perhaps the reporting of their continued relationship serves to show that the court might have misjudged what was a truly loving couple.

Were such reportage to be banned, why should reporting of bank robberies not also be banned, and from that on to reports of killings and other offences against society?

Frankly, I'd rather hear of such real-life activities of everyday people than listen to / watch the reporting of the social and sexual and dietary doings of the rich and famous.


----------



## badgrammar

I have to agree with Maxi that I don't think the reporting of negative news encourages others to repeat or emulate the behavior.

However, as Daniel says, and he is surely correct, that kind of behavior is certainly nothing new.  The teacher-student affair is a classic.  

What is a pity is that "news stories" like this (or coverage of "Brangelina" or the best and worst dressed at the Oscars, or...) get more press than the state of affairs in Darfour, the plight of Iraqi civilians, or the critical state of the environment.  It is fodder, and it pales in comparison to real news stories.

I hardly even log onto CNN anymore, because it has become 95% coverage off shock stories (note, i just checked it today, and as if to prove me wrong, that is not the case this morning  ).  This is probably not by editorial choice, but because people click only on news stories with titles like "Father stabs baby and throws him from car" "Britney enters rehab" and "Sex and Murder"".


----------



## maxiogee

badgrammar said:


> I hardly even log onto CNN anymore, because it has become 95% coverage off shock stories (note, i just checked it today, and as if to prove me wrong, that is not the case this morning  ).  This is probably not by editorial choice, but because people click only on news stories with titles like "Father stabs baby and throws him from car" "Britney enters rehab" and "Sex and Murder"".



You could well be right.

I have long felt that what the British refer to as tabloids never really knew quite what sort of stories sold their papers. They were such a mix of items that it sould have been difficult to accurately say that the readers wanted X - all that could be said was that a certain mix of stories seemed to do the trick. As a result, editors who said they were only giving the public what they wanted were not being quite accurate. They were really only giving the public what the editors thought they wanted.

But, with the advent of websites there is an ability to be very precise in what they offer the public. They can count the hits on any type of story and log the variations across a wide range of tittle-tattle. I fear this may well bring down the reporting of 'real events' to an all-time low. But, of course, one doesn't have to frequent such places.


----------



## Kajjo

TRG said:


> Isn't it irresponsible to broadcast these types of stories because it can only encourage others to engage in similar behavior?


Not at all, from my point of view. How can reporting crimes, convictions and punishments be encouraging? I believe that most people will despise the reported behaviour. Raised awareness is not a bad thing and potential perpetrators might be warned, too.

To the contrary, just being silent and trying to to as such things never happened, would be probably much more encouraging.

Kajjo


----------



## Etcetera

TRG said:


> up on national news, primarily cable news programs like Fox and CNN. My question is: Isn't it irresponsible to broadcast these types of stories because it can only encourage others to engage in similar behavior?


Seems that they broadcast such stories in order to prevent others from doing that. But... as we know, bad example is the easiest to follow. 
I can't remember if I've ever heard such a story before, but it's quite possible. 
One of the rules of the school I'm currently working in is that teachers shouldn't be involved in any relationships with their students outside the school. Well, I think it's right. Why mixing up one's professional life with one's private life?


----------



## maxiogee

Etcetera said:


> One of the rules of the school I'm currently working in is that teachers shouldn't be involved in any relationships with their students outside the school. Well, I think it's right. Why mixing up one's professional life with one's private life?




What sort of relationship would be right and proper anyway?

A teacher is what, a minimum of about 23-25 and a student is up to 18 - they wouldn't normally be moving in the same social circles.

I can't see why a teacher would wish to get involved with a student - I can see the attraction of a teacher for a student… older & more worldly; role model; teenage hormones; the tremendous kick it must be to be able to attract an older person at that age; and all sorts of other things for a teenager of either sex.

I cannot but feel that a teacher being attracted to someone so much younger is in some way not within the norms of sexual development. Why are they not smitten by someone of their own age-range?


----------



## badgrammar

Ah yes, but attraction works in the strangest ways.  And if for example, a  teacher is 23 and a student is 17-18, I can see where a real, and perhaps not completely twisted attraction might exist.  But of course, a teacher is expected to be older, wiser, and more professional than to succomb to that kind of thing - but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that some couples have formed that way and stayed happily together for a life time.

But that is not an attempt at justifying or encouraging that kind of behavior in schools.  Just playing devil's advocate .


----------



## Veggy

maxiogee said:


> What sort of relationship would be right and proper anyway?
> 
> A teacher is what, a minimum of about 23-25 and a student is up to 18 - they wouldn't normally be moving in the same social circles.
> 
> I can't see why a teacher would wish to get involved with a student - I can see the attraction of a teacher for a student… older & more worldly; role model; teenage hormones; the tremendous kick it must be to be able to attract an older person at that age; and all sorts of other things for a teenager of either sex.
> 
> I cannot but feel that a teacher being attracted to someone so much younger is in some way not within the norms of sexual development. Why are they not smitten by someone of their own age-range?


 
Probably because age is not the only important parameter in a relashionship. Many years ago there was a french film called, if I remember well, "mourir d'amour" in which a teacher (woman) falls in love with a young student (a boy). It brought great scandal in those years. I wonder, if it has been the opposite (man teacher, girl student) it would probably not provoke such scandal (not even at that time, in those years)


----------



## Etcetera

Veggy said:


> I wonder, if it has been the opposite (man teacher, girl student) it would probably not provoke such scandal (not even at that time, in those years)


It seems to me that the scandal was equal. 
Weære quite used to marriages between people of different ages, but a teacher falling in love with a student is still something unique. To say the truth, I hope it'll remain unique.


----------



## TRG

Before I address your comments, I would just like to say that the only reason I brought this up is that whenever I hear or see such a story I ask myself, why do they have to print or say that? So, I simply wondered if others had the same thought or not. It seems the answer is no. I have also wondered if this is a uniquely American problem and hoped that I might get some feedback on that point. As for the comments, I’ll try to answer them all without quoting directly. Here are my responses:

I am a hypocrite because I’m guilty of committing the act about which I’m complaining. On some level this is no doubt true. I suppose I could use the same excuse publishers use when they find themselves in this situation. It’s already out, so I’m only reporting on something that has already been reported on so it’s fair to publish. However, I’m not a reporter and not in the publishing business so my interest is not of a professional nature and I do not stand to gain by talking about it. I view this more as a private conversation than a publishing exercise.
There is no such thing as a copycat crime. I believe there is, but I can’t prove it and I doubt that it has ever been proven. It’s hard to imagine that in certain situations such as teen suicide and mass murder that some people exposed to accounts of these events do not go on to do something that they might otherwise never have done. That’s just IMO.
Publication of the crimes will discourage others. This is a good argument, which must be balanced against 2 above. First, I’m not making a moral judgement about relationships between adults and adolescents, but in the U.S., society has made this judgement and it is considered a crime on the part of the adult. Part of my interest in bring this up was to find out if other countries treat this problem the same and if there are the same types of sensational news stories and whether or not anyone cares.
"What could ‘something like that’ be in regard to getting married and having more children? This was simply my attempt to say that my retelling of the story was an approximation and that it could be wrong in some of the details.
Banning. It had not occurred to me that publication of such incidents or crime stories in general should be outlawed. I don’t think that is a good idea. It could, however, become part of journalist ethics to avoid publication of some crime stories if the best evidence suggests it could lead to more of the same.
Finally, just this morning I read this opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal which is about the harm that can be done by publication of what amounts to rumors and gossip. It touches on the subject at hand in that it asks the question, "should there be limits to free speech?" Check it out.


----------



## maxiogee

A few thoughts:



TRG said:


> I am a hypocrite because I’m guilty of committing the act about which I’m complaining.


Rubbish. Were that to be true no-one would ever be able to condemn any activity they found repugnant. You mentioned the event, you didn't make the announcement, nor did you give the personal details of those involved.




> There is no such thing as a copycat crime. I believe there is, but I can’t prove it and I doubt that it has ever been proven.


Of course there is copycat crime, but the potential copycat is probably going to get to hear about the crime one way or another. Stories about people spread without ever appearing in the media. Word of mouth can be a surefire way to spread a story - often people know the details of these stories long before the newsmedia have published anything.




> Publication of the crimes will discourage others. This is a good argument, which must be balanced against 2 above. First, I’m not making a moral judgement about relationships between adults and adolescents, but in the U.S., society has made this judgement and it is considered a crime on the part of the adult. Part of my interest in bring this up was to find out if other countries treat this problem the same and if there are the same types of sensational news stories and whether or not anyone cares.


Oh yes. Here in Ireland the 'sensational' tends to revolve around the misdeeds of Roman Catholic clergy and the financial, sexual and other assorted misdeeds of politicians. Anything even remotely sexual regarding children also gets banner headlines. Does it discourage - not that sort of stuff, but I can't help but believe that there are some who stick to the straight and narrow out of fear of being caught and exposed and/or punished by the courts.
People don't, as far as I know, die of shame - but there are plenty of people who think that they would if they were caught doing something they shouldn't, and that thought must stop some of them. As Voltaire said _"dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres"_ ('in England, it is good, from time to time, to kill an admiral, to encourage the others'). This is why executions and other punishments in the past were done in public - as a deterrent.




> "What could ‘something like that’ be in regard to getting married and having more children?


That was an attempt at humour. My apologies if it went amiss.




> Banning. It had not occurred to me that publication of such incidents or crime stories in general should be outlawed. I don’t think that is a good idea. It could, however, become part of journalist ethics to avoid publication of some crime stories if the best evidence suggests it could lead to more of the same.


A) there is part of a motto about justice not being 'justice' unless it is both done and seen to be done. I don't like the sense of creeping censorship which I get with the idea that journalists should not publish certain types of story 'for the common good'.
B) I realise I wasn't the only one who say this as a suggestion of a 'ban', but when I used the notion I was thinking more of an in-house embargo by the editor or owner of any media - I wasn't thinking of a legal ban as I think that most countries would find that the populace were against such an idea.


----------



## Poetic Device

faranji said:


> Any scientific evidence that these types of stories 'can only encourage others to engage in similar behavior'?
> 
> If so, by the same token, let's also ban any news on drunk-driving car accidents, succesful bank heists, and horrid boob jobs, the engagement on which activities would, in my humble opinion, be far more harmful than the elopement of a teacher with a teenage student.


 

No, drunk driving and the lke are different cases and scenarios.  YOu cannot compare the two.  With drunk driving you see that it kills or severely hurts people.  With a student-teacher affair, that is up to you whether it is sick and disgusting or a tragic romance (because of the age difference).  *No one* likes to see anyone hurt or die, but not everyone minds seeing child porn and such.  (I'm sorry, but in my mind these relationships and that are in the same category.)


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> I don't see it that way. The way I see it is that these reports serve as a warning to those charged with responsibility for minors to be aware that these things happen - parents, guardians, school boards of management, and even teachers themselves...


 
Yeah, No offense, Maxi (because you know I heart you   ) but if these people continue the relationship after the one gets out then how do they learn their lesson and teach the rest of the public one?  

Another thing, it takes two to tango and I am sorry but if the kid is at least 15 or 16 then they have every chance to say no or whatever.  If they are showing no remorse for their actions (of course) then they should be repremanded as well.  Why is it I never hear about that?


----------



## viera

Veggy said:


> Probably because age is not the only important parameter in a relashionship. Many years ago there was a french film called, if I remember well, "mourir d'amour" in which a teacher (woman) falls in love with a young student (a boy). It brought great scandal in those years. I wonder, if it has been the opposite (man teacher, girl student) it would probably not provoke such scandal (not even at that time, in those years)


This 1970's film was "Mourir d'aimer" and starred Annie Girardot. It was based on a true story and was generally considered most tragic. The age difference was not considerable, since 21 was the age of majority at the time (it's 18 today). She was brought to court for corrupting a minor and eventually committed suicide. So sad!


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> Yeah, No offense, Maxi (because you know I heart you   ) but if these people continue the relationship after the one gets out then how do they learn their lesson and teach the rest of the public one?



Because one of them will have thrown away a career, served a jail term and the both will have been held up to public ridicule.
Can you imagine the teacher in such a relationship returning to their small town? Every time they are seen in public tongues will wag, heads will nod and eyes will be raised.
How long do you think the average person would be able to tolerate that without it affecting their relationship?




> Another thing, it takes two to tango and I am sorry but if the kid is at least 15 or 16 then they have every chance to say no or whatever.


Of course they could say 'no', but what teenager with a crush on a teacher would be mentally able to say no?




> If they are showing no remorse for their actions (of course) then they should be repremanded as well. Why is it I never hear about that?


Why should they be reprimanded? They've done nothing illegal, or (probably) even wrong. It's not illegal in most places to have sexual relations with an adult - even a teacher. What is illegal is sex with someone who is underage. And there is a betrayal of the trust which parents place in teachers when they - through the school board of management - employ them to teach their child.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> Because one of them will have thrown away a career, served a jail term and the both will have been held up to public ridicule.  You got me there.
> Can you imagine the teacher in such a relationship returning to their small town? Every time they are seen in public tongues will wag, heads will nod and eyes will be raised.  You got me again.
> How long do you think the average person would be able to tolerate that without it affecting their relationship?  Not that long, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they could say 'no', but what teenager with a crush on a teacher would be mentally able to say no?  I guess I am not a guy so I don't understand a boy's line of thinking.  When I was that age, I had this shameful crush in my history teacher, but I knew that was all it was and that is all that I would let if be.  I figured that the guy is old enough to be my dad and that's gross to get involed or pursue involvement with him.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they be reprimanded? They've done nothing illegal, or (probably) even wrong. It's not illegal in most places to have sexual relations with an adult - even a teacher. What is illegal is sex with someone who is underage. And there is a betrayal of the trust which parents place in teachers when they - through the school board of management - employ them to teach their child.  Oh, come on!  LOL  YOu can't tell me that at least one of these little brats knew better.  That's just common sense not to mess with a person twice your age.  A crush, yes, okay.  I had them as well.  (See above)  For a crude comparison, that is like the movie *American Pie.* (BTW, I hate the movie and I hope no one considers what goes on in that movie to be typical American stupidity or anything.  I swear there are people here that are WAY smarter than that.)


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> I figured that the guy is old enough to be my dad and that's gross to get involed or pursue involvement with him.


But what if the student were 16 and the teacher was a 22/24 year old? That's a lot younger than a 16 year old's parent would likely be.



Poetic Device said:


> Oh, come on! LOL YOu can't tell me that at least one of these little brats knew better.


I didn't say that.   I said that they hadn't actually done anything wrong for which they could legitimately be reprimanded. I'm not saying that they wouldn't be aware that they shouldn't be doing it - but for a lot of them (of either sex) it might be a feather in their cap in the eyes of their friends.


----------



## Veggy

viera said:


> This 1970's film was "Mourir d'aimer" and starred Annie Girardot. It was based on a true story and was generally considered most tragic. The age difference was not considerable, since 21 was the age of majority at the time (it's 18 today). She was brought to court for corrupting a minor and eventually committed suicide. So sad!


 
Thank you Viera, you are right it was mourir d'aimer; the music was very beautiful too.
The film showed what a dramatic and scadalous event it is -at least for countries like Italy and the U.S.- and this is why events like these end up on newpapers. I also think that it would have been different if the teacher was a man.


----------



## Poetic Device

Veggy said:


> I also think that it would have been different if the teacher was a man.


 
I agree with you, but may I ask why/how?


----------



## faranji

Poetic Device said:


> *No one* likes to see anyone hurt or die, but not everyone minds seeing child porn and such. (I'm sorry, but in my mind these relationships and that are in the same category.)


 
I'm sorry too, as I fail to see the connection between the love affair of a teenager and his teacher and child porn.


----------



## caballoschica

Some points...

Some of these relationships are a type of pedophilia.  Pedophiles are a different sort of human being.

Sometimes the age difference is not considerable.

The only reason things would be different if the teacher were a man is because this society is sexist is some ways.  

Sometimes younger students can't say no.  Let's look at the relationship of a teacher and student a little closer.  The teacher tells the student what to do (homework, study, read, etc) and the student does it to please the teacher to get a good grade.  The teacher is obviously the dominant figure and the student, before getting into a personal relationship is already submissive....how are they going to stand up to their teacher if they haven't before and they don't have a strong will?  I know I have a strong enough will.  I haven't been in that type of situation, but I do know I have a very strong will if I really don't want to do something.

Sometimes teachers and students are also very close.  You can be close and still have a professional relationship, of course, though. But some teachers or professors invite students over to their houses.  There's nothing wrong with it.  There's nothing sexual with it either.  However, I could see how a student would get close with their teacher, depending on the teacher/professor.  

Also there are some students that are exceptionally vulnerable to this.  Say a parent of the opposite gender died, they could look at the teacher as a parental figure.  And if the teacher is attracted, they could get the student  to do anything they wanted.  That's just one example, though.


----------



## faranji

> Do you think that people that have sexual relations with a person that young are sick?


 
I don't know the ages involved in this case so I don't know what qualifies as 'that young' for you. When I was 17 I had a relationship with a 26 year-old person. She wasn't sick. My grandmother was 16 when she started her relationship with my grandfather. He was 20. They're not sick (a bit rheumatic and gaga these days, yes, but not sick.)




> Do you think that people that are looking at child porn are sick?


 
Utterly.


----------



## Kajjo

faranji said:


> I don't know the ages involved in this case so I don't know what qualifies as 'that young' for you.


I agree with your point. Teacher-student relationships are taboo because they break several rules. The student is dependent on the teacher with regards to marks, the parents trust the teacher to behave properly, the classmates are dependent on fair and equal ground. Whether all young students are really able to say no to such relations if offered by teachers is also questionable. Some teachers maybe do not seek relations, but only cheap affairs? Who knows?

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Poetic Device said:


> Do you think that people that have sexual relations with a person that young are sick?
> 
> Do you think that people that are looking at child porn are sick?
> 
> There is only one difference between the two:  The former is actually committing the act, while the latter is wishing they could or would perform.


No, the comparison is absolutely wrong here, from my point of view.

People being aroused by young women after puberty is normal. We might (and I do!) consider it in our times to be _immoral_, but surely not _sick_. It's normal and biological and during existence of humankind the _huge _majority of time 15-17 year old females were considered _women_ not _girls._ That's a fact. 

What is really pathological about child pornography is that some men appear to be aroused by _pre-puberty_ girls. That is not biologically normal, but is harmful and sick. And it is the exception. The vast majority of men is not to the slightest degree aroused by per-puberty girls. Child pornography is not about teenagers, it is about cruel and violating sex practices with pre-puberty, young children.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> Do you think that people that have sexual relations with a person that young are sick?



No, they have a person-to-person relationship with a real person.





Poetic Device said:


> Do you think that people that are looking at child porn are sick?



Yes, they are fantasising about having sex with _any_ child, and irrespective of whether the child is willing or not. They don't have a relation ship with the object of their fantasy. Plus those who collect this sort of stuff are getting their jollies in a solitary fashion and that is slightly off-centre for most people. Not for nothing is the term w-anchor a term of derision for most people who use it.


----------



## Poetic Device

OKay.  I see your point, and I apologise.


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:


> Why should they be reprimanded? They've done nothing illegal, or (probably) even wrong. It's not illegal in most places to have sexual relations with an adult - even a teacher. What is illegal is sex with someone who is underage. And there is a betrayal of the trust which parents place in teachers when they - through the school board of management - employ them to teach their child.



This is the legal situation in South Australia:
A person who, being the guardian, schoolmaster, schoolmistress or teacher of a person under the age of eighteen years, has sexual intercourse with that person is guilty of an offence. 
Criminal Law Consolidation Act.


----------



## Vagabond

Brioche said:


> This is the legal situation in South Australia:
> A person who, being the guardian, schoolmaster, schoolmistress or teacher of a person under the age of eighteen years, has sexual intercourse with that person is guilty of an offence.
> Criminal Law Consolidation Act.


I think what maxiogee was saying (apologies if I am wrong) is that, having paid for that offense, having got out of prison, she is no longer his teacher and he is no longer underaged; so, if at that point they get married and have kids, there is nothing illegal there.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

I have some points here that I'm sure will put most of you if not all of you against me, but I want to know what you think about it:

1) I know that law prohibits sexual intercourse before 18 years of age, but don't you think that it is a bit ridiculous that a 17 year old girl with her 18 year old boyfirend are in illegality, and that the girl's parents or the girl hereself could sue him if for instance they wanted to take revenge because he left her?

2) The age limit of 18 is quite unrealistic, because we all know that on average, the first sexual intercourse occurs at 15 or 16.

3) I suppose that the teenager was not raped, and was rather happy to have this relation, therefore, since we are talking about someone who is 16 or 17, and not a child, and chosed to get into this relationship of his/her own will, why should it be considered immoral?
Why should the adult be condemned since there was no abuse, violence or rape?

4) If the relation occurs between a student and a teacher, the student would just need to change school, so that it's not a student-teacher relation anymore.

5) the only moral problem in my opinion occurs if one of the two is deceiving or taking advantage of the other, but this remains a moral issue at any age, not only in a teenager-adult relationship.


----------



## maxiogee

Lavinia.dNP said:


> I have some points here that I'm sure will put most of you if not all of you against me, but I want to know what you think about it:
> 
> 1) I know that law prohibits sexual intercourse before 18 years of age, but don't you think that it is a bit ridiculous......
> 
> 2) The age limit of 18 is quite unrealistic,......
> 
> 3) I suppose that the teenager was not raped,....
> 
> 4) If the relation occurs between a student and a teacher, the student would just need to change school, so that it's not a student-teacher relation anymore.
> 
> 5) the only moral problem in my opinion occurs if one of the two is deceiving or taking advantage of the other, but this remains a moral issue at any age, not only in a teenager-adult relationship.


 
I'm not *against* you, but I have a few points to raise.

1, 2) I agree that 18 is probably ridiculous, but in this case - as children are generally under 18 before they leave school - I see no problem with it remaining at 18.
1, 2) It is not 18 everywhere. It's 16 here in Ireland as far as I know.
3) The teenager might feel under pressure to say it wasn't rape.
4) Why should the parents have to go to that trouble just to accommodate a randy teacher?
5) At least in Ireland, teachers are required to be of exemplary morals. This is rarely invoked, but as nearly all primary, and many secondary, schools are under the direct patronage of a local bishop (Roman Catholic - or Church of Ireland) there have been cases when a teacher's domestic arrangements have resulted in them losing their job.


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> In one case they had a child, the teacher went to prison, and when she got out of prison they resumed the relationship and eventually got married and had more children or something like that.
> 
> .


 
Does anyone know of the actual case involved here?

Something was niggling at the back of my mind about this tale and I finally managed to pin a finger on it! What happend their child while she was inside? How long was she away for? Did they get/keep custody of their first-born after the marriage?

I ask because I wonder how the authorities which saw to it that she was chardged viewed the welfare of the children involved - the lover and the baby. I presume the baby was placed in a 'place of safety' of some description, and that the lover's parents would not be deemed morally acceptable to raise a child not theirs in view of what they let their own get into.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

maxiogee said:


> I'm not *against* you, but I have a few points to raise.
> 
> 1, 2) I agree that 18 is probably ridiculous, but in this case - as children are generally under 18 before they leave school - I see no problem with it remaining at 18.
> 1, 2) It is not 18 everywhere. It's 16 here in Ireland as far as I know.
> 3) The teenager might feel under pressure to say it wasn't rape.
> 4) Why should the parents have to go to that trouble just to accommodate a randy teacher?
> 5) At least in Ireland, teachers are required to be of exemplary morals. This is rarely invoked, but as nearly all primary, and many secondary, schools are under the direct patronage of a local bishop (Roman Catholic - or Church of Ireland) there have been cases when a teacher's domestic arrangements have resulted in them losing their job.


 
In answer to your points :
1, 2) Do you consider that teenagers are children?
3) you are right : proper investigation must be done in order to determine that it wasn't rape
4) It's not a matter of a randy teacher if they feel attracted to each other, then the student is randy too.
5) I agree with you that a teacher should be an example for the students, and that normally a student-teacher relation shouldn't occur. And anyway such things shouldn't be encouraged. But if it happens and it's based on honesty and respect, then, maybe it shouldn't be considered as such an immorality.


----------



## Poetic Device

Vagabond said:


> I think what maxiogee was saying (apologies if I am wrong) is that, having paid for that offense, having got out of prison, she is no longer his teacher and he is no longer underaged; so, if at that point they get married and have kids, there is nothing illegal there.


 
Right, but if the parents of the minor had any common sense they would make sure that not only did the offender never see their child again but that the child realised what happened to the full extent and sought psychological help as soon as possible.


----------



## Poetic Device

Lavinia.dNP said:


> I have some points here that I'm sure will put most of you if not all of you against me, but I want to know what you think about it:
> 
> 1) I know that law prohibits sexual intercourse before 18 years of age, but don't you think that it is a bit ridiculous that a 17 year old girl with her 18 year old boyfirend are in illegality, and that the girl's parents or the girl hereself could sue him if for instance they wanted to take revenge because he left her?
> 
> 2) The age limit of 18 is quite unrealistic, because we all know that on average, the first sexual intercourse occurs at 15 or 16.
> 
> 3) I suppose that the teenager was not raped, and was rather happy to have this relation, therefore, since we are talking about someone who is 16 or 17, and not a child, and chosed to get into this relationship of his/her own will, why should it be considered immoral?
> Why should the adult be condemned since there was no abuse, violence or rape?
> 
> 4) If the relation occurs between a student and a teacher, the student would just need to change school, so that it's not a student-teacher relation anymore.
> 
> 5) the only moral problem in my opinion occurs if one of the two is deceiving or taking advantage of the other, but this remains a moral issue at any age, not only in a teenager-adult relationship.


 
See, i agree with you and I don't.  You are right.  The child, or adolecent, should know by know.  But think about how kids are raised this day and age.  MTV, BET...  It's all sex, drugs and rock and roll (or nowadays rap) and none of it is within the proper limits.  Parents have no time for their kids nowadays and kids don't want to be bothered with their parents and ony want Grandma and grandpa around for the benjamins.  It's sad but it is true.

In the psychiatric hospital that I worked at before I had Savvy, there was a person that had relations with their teacher.  At the time it was willing and they couldn't wait to brag about it.  They had the relations a few times, and as time went on the student realised what was going on and how sick it was.  They just snapped and bad enough to end up there.  The student has now been a resident for three years and I don't think they will ever get out.  That is how bad an event like this could effect a person.


----------



## Kajjo

Lavinia.dNP said:


> I have some points here that I'm sure will put most of you if not all of you against me


Not at all. Raising points of interest in a well pronounced manner is nothing bad!



> 1) I know that law prohibits sexual intercourse before 18 years of age, but don't you think that it is a bit ridiculous that a 17 year old girl with her 18 year old boyfirend are in illegality, and that the girl's parents or the girl hereself could sue him if for instance they wanted to take revenge because he left her?


That is not true for Germany. The age limit for voluntary sexual relations is 14 years. Further, couples are not prosecuted if the age difference is 3 years or less, even if one of the partners is younger than 14 (e.g. 16/13). If both partners are younger than 14, they cannot not be prosecuted anyway. All this applies only as long as the intercourse occurs in mutual consent and both partners are realistically able to consent. 

I agree that an arbitrarily age limit of 18 is highly unrealistic. However, I regard it as important that the age difference is little, because otherwise the power and influence gradient between both partners is too high in case of teenagers.



> 3) I suppose that the teenager was not raped, and was rather happy to have this relation, therefore, since we are talking about someone who is 16 or 17, and not a child, and chosed to get into this relationship of his/her own will, why should it be considered immoral?
> Why should the adult be condemned since there was no abuse, violence or rape?


Because you never know whether a girl (or boy) really is happy about the relation or whether he is actually exploited, either by school marks, by sexual service or anything else. Further, guardians shall guard and educate -- a sexual relation is contrary to such goals. Imagine two girls competing about one male teacher -- easy to imagine that marks play an important role as payment for sexual services.



> 4) If the relation occurs between a student and a teacher, the student would just need to change school, so that it's not a student-teacher relation anymore.


Yes, that would be a formal possibility. Still the issue remains which minimum age we require to accept an equal relationship to be possible between both partners.



> 5) the only moral problem in my opinion occurs if one of the two is deceiving or taking advantage of the other, but this remains a moral issue at any age, not only in a teenager-adult relationship.


Again, do not forget about the guardian relationship and the trust and care involved.

Kajjo


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

maxiogee said:


> Does anyone know of the actual case involved here?



Yes.  The teacher in question was Mary Kay Letourneau, I believe.  She was married with four children when she started the relationship with the thirteen year old.  She had two children by him, who were raised by their paternal grandmother while their mother did her prison time.  After she was released and the boy reached the age of majority, they started seeing each other again.  When he was in his early twenties, they married.


----------



## maxiogee

Lavinia.dNP said:


> In answer to your points :
> 1, 2) Do you consider that teenagers are children?
> 
> .


It doesn't really matter what I think in this matter - the laws of the state say that one is a minor (for sexual purposes, at least) until you are over the age of X - and I consider that to qualify for the use of the word 'child'.

A point I meant to include in the last post bust didn't as I was pressed for time when I was draughting it is - there has to be a cut off point at some age, in most legal systems. 

The only way around a cut off point that I can see, without giving license to all, would be to legalise sexual relationships which had a maximum age-gap involved - say something like three years either way, as Kajjo says. 
That way a 13 year old and a 10 year old could safely play "doctors 'n' nurses", and a 17 year old and a 14 year old could progress to the intensive care ward.
But an 18 year old would be in trouble for dabbling with an 11 year old.




> 3) you are right : proper investigation must be done in order to determine that it wasn't rape
> 4) It's not a matter of a randy teacher if they feel attracted to each other, then the student is randy too
> 
> .


I'm treating these points together because I think that they are linked. An infatuated child is going to assert that they are "in love" with the object of their 'crush' - be it a popstar, a filmstar or whoever. If that "love" is returned they will be immoveably convinced that this is the true love of which poets, singers and novelists speak. It may not be rape in every case, but it might well be a case of a teacher abusing their position.




> 5) I agree with you that a teacher should be an example for the students, and that normally a student-teacher relation shouldn't occur. And anyway such things shouldn't be encouraged. But if it happens and it's based on honesty and respect, then, maybe it shouldn't be considered as such an immorality
> 
> .


Many marriages appear to the outside world to be based on honesty and respect - until the physical or psychological bruises begin to show. How could we who are not involved with a teacher/pupil relationship even begin to assess what it is based on? Fortunately or unfortunately we need to set a standard. In the absence of overwhelming evidence that such relationships are generally beneficial to both parties, society has deemed them unwise, to say the very least.


----------

