Another Teacher Sex Scandal

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

And again, I get that. But I'm asking you the question. Do you believe someone who says a legitimate relationship can occur between a middle aged teacher and his underage student is a sick perverted person?

I think that a legitimate romantic/sexual relationship between a middle aged teacher and an underage student is not possible. I think it is reprehensible, inappropriate and wrong. I'm not going to join you on your hill of name calling.

I'm not going to condone demonizing someone who may be not quite up to date with their views. I can think someone is wrong, tell them they are wrong, and tell them why without making them out to be a horrible monster that requires a mob with torches and pitchforks to rectify the situation.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Sometimes calling a spade a spade is okay. If Cecil thinks a "legitimate relationship" can occur between a middle-aged man and his 15 year old student, I'm not really looking at changing his attitude, I'm looking at calling him out.

As I suspected, this was way more about you pouncing on an opportunity to put someone on blast rather than any sort of meaningful discussion.

You strike me as one of those people who subscribe to a philosophy of brutal truth yet are way more concerned with being brutal rather than bringing truth. You're not interested in discussion. You're concerned with winning and being "right" more so than conversation. I'm done trying to make my point as you are clearly missing it.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

We also don't need to go very far back to find people pooping in outhouses, or dying during childbirth.

We have progresses as a society, which I think we can agree with a good thing.

Yesterday, unfortunately

[agulati]

Originally Posted by hah

I thought Mr. *** was an English teacher. My locker was beside his class room.

I went to Wise Wood too. Which year was this?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by hah

I thought Mr. *** was an English teacher. My locker was beside his class room.

Now that you mention it, you're right. Seems everyone in the school knew about his shenanigans.

Originally Posted by agulati

I went to Wise Wood too. Which year was this?

Mid to late 80s.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

We also don't need to go very far back to find people pooping in outhouses, or dying during childbirth.

We have progresses as a society, which I think we can agree with a good thing.

I'm not suggesting it isn't a good thing. But it is about social norms. Unless you think most men before about 1920 were pedophiles or some other kind of pathological monster.

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

We also don't need to go very far back to find people pooping in outhouses, or dying during childbirth.

We have progresses as a society, which I think we can agree with a good thing.

We have progressed as a society but I do not believe we have progressed in all aspects of life. My grandmother was 16 when she married my grandfather when he was 40. They were married nearly 50 years before my grandfather passed. Someone already brought up the marriage of the President of France, who married his teacher who was 20+ years older. And I remember once watching the Woody Allen documentary "Wild Man Blues" and it was pretty clear that Woody and Soon-Yi were very fond of one another, and she continually fussed over him in the documentary. There are likely countless of other examples. Some of these unions clearly work. In the western world, divorce rates are over 50%, approaching 60% in many countries. Is this progress?

Before people get outraged, I'm no apologist for rape or for teachers who do not respect boundaries or men in power positions (Clinton, Ailes, O'Reilly) who clearly use their power to prey on women for short-term gratification. I just do not believe you can call every one of these instances a predator-prey relationship.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Reaper

You strike me as one of those people who subscribe to a philosophy of brutal truth yet are way more concerned with being brutal rather than bringing truth. You're not interested in discussion. You're concerned with winning and being "right" more so than conversation. I'm done trying to make my point as you are clearly missing it.

And again, I would pretty much agree with you. I'm down for discussion in most instances, and would be willing to debate and try to understand the argument of the other side usually... but not when it comes to underage rape.

I don't know how many people ended up on CP because they were searching for something different when they typed it into Google, but I mean my position is not a controversial one. Teacher rapists are despicable, and people who think that it's perfectly "legitimate" for a 16 year old and her teacher to have a relationship are too. Canadian law agrees. You more or less agree, so I guess we can leave it at that.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by hah

I thought Mr. *** was an English teacher. My locker was beside his class room.

He may not have been an English teacher but by all accounts he was a cunning linguist.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

And again, I would pretty much agree with you. I'm down for discussion in most instances, and would be willing to debate and try to understand the argument of the other side usually... but not when it comes to underage rape.

I don't know how many people ended up on CP because they were searching for something different when they typed it into Google, but I mean my position is not a controversial one. Teacher rapists are despicable, and people who think that it's perfectly "legitimate" for a 16 year old and her teacher to have a relationship are too. Canadian law agrees. You more or less agree, so I guess we can leave it at that.

There does exist a philosophical discussion of whether a 16 year old is emotionally capable of entering a relationship as an equal with a 35 yr old in a position of power. And that conversation should be had when creating consent laws. The outcome of that discussion is that in the vast majority of circumstances this is not possible and therefore the law as written is correct and being morally outraged is generally correct. However it is intellectually dishonest to say that it is not possible for such a relationship to exist.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

However it is intellectually dishonest to say that it is not possible for such a relationship to exist.

Why is it impossible? You can't enter into a sexual relationship with an underage child if you're in a position of power. I mean, that seems pretty easy for me to say.

Here's the thing, there's not a single teacher in the province who doesn't recognize what Mr. Arias allegedly did was rape. Or technically sexual assault as Canadian law doesn't recognize rape anymore.

It doesn't matter if a student were to come to a completely oblivious teacher's house at 3 a.m. stark naked with a sign saying "#### me." The second that teacher makes any sexual contact with one of his/her students, it's rape. Consent can not be given when a person is in a position of authority.

Canadian laws, and I would hope the vast citizens of Canada, do not recognize any form of sexual relationship between a 16 year old student and their teacher as "legitimate." If the allegations are true, the teacher knew what he was doing was rape, the student may not have at the time. She may have felt she was in love and this was bliss, she may have felt threaten and forced into it. It's still rape. By the very definition. Consent could not be obtained.

Essentially Cecil's argument is the archaic "she was asking for it" or worse, "it's okay, she didn't know she was being raped." Gross, despicable, ignorant and literally trying to justify the rape.

He doubles up on it by essentially suggesting a scenario that she may not have even wanted to report her rape to the police as though that is somehow better?

I'm not really interested that in some places in Europe a rape (sorry, "relationship") between a 14 year old and their teacher would be funny, or if a rape of a 9 year old isn't recognized if the assaulter agrees to marriage in some other cultures. In Canada, if the allegations are true, what occurred in this situation was rape. Cecil recognizes what the teacher did was legally wrong and stupid, but he doesn't want us to call him a predator. I guess if semantics are that big of a concern, maybe he was just a "scavenger." In any case (again, if true), maybe we can all just agree to call him what he really is, a rapist?

[hah]

Originally Posted by agulati

I went to Wise Wood too. Which year was this?

Mid 80's

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Why is it impossible? You can't enter into a sexual relationship with an underage child if you're in a position of power. I mean, that seems pretty easy for me to say.

Here's the thing, there's not a single teacher in the province who doesn't recognize what Mr. Arias allegedly did was rape. Or technically sexual assault as Canadian law doesn't recognize rape anymore.

It doesn't matter if a student were to come to a completely oblivious teacher's house at 3 a.m. stark naked with a sign saying "#### me." The second that teacher makes any sexual contact with one of his/her students, it's rape. Consent can not be given when a person is in a position of authority.

Canadian laws, and I would hope the vast citizens of Canada, do not recognize any form of sexual relationship between a 16 year old student and their teacher as "legitimate." If the allegations are true, the teacher knew what he was doing was rape, the student may not have at the time. She may have felt she was in love and this was bliss, she may have felt threaten and forced into it. It's still rape. By the very definition. Consent could not be obtained.

Essentially Cecil's argument is the archaic "she was asking for it" or worse, "it's okay, she didn't know she was being raped." Gross, despicable, ignorant and literally trying to justify the rape.

He doubles up on it by essentially suggesting a scenario that she may not have even wanted to report her rape to the police as though that is somehow better?

I'm not really interested that in some places in Europe a rape (sorry, "relationship") between a 14 year old and their teacher would be funny, or if a rape of a 9 year old isn't recognized if the assaulter agrees to marriage in some other cultures. In Canada, if the allegations are true, what occurred in this situation was rape. Cecil recognizes what the teacher did was legally wrong and stupid, but he doesn't want us to call him a predator. I guess if semantics are that big of a concern, maybe he was just a "scavenger." In any case (again, if true), maybe we can all just agree to call him what he really is, a rapist?

Forget the law for a second. You seem to be getting hung up on the law in a discussion of ethics. No one disagrees that under Canadian law this was rape. So is an 18 year old sleeping with a 15 year old but sleeping with a 16 year old who is a day older is not. The laws are designed to protect people in the vast majority of cases

My point is that for you to say that this relationship could not have been one of equals is false.

[Yamer]

Once you start to see the rainbow of critical thought, it becomes incredibly frustrating to speak with someone who can only communicate in black and white.

This particular case may or may not apply, but in almost all situations in life there is far more to the story and context than numbers. Things like psychology, chemistry, personal and interpersonal dynamics, personal and interpersonal ethics, education, subjective maturity, etc. all contribute to what can be described as a consenting relationship.

I think the words rape, pervert, and to a small extent legitimate are being thrown around rather heavily and with some measure of miscommunication. I would caution anyone using those terms here be very careful about labeling and accusing. That is dangerous ground to walk on.

There are also certain arguments being manufactured and placed in the mouth's of certain posters. Oling_Roachinen I understand your position and opinion, although I strongly disagree with its oversimplification and rigidness, and the method you are going about arguing it. Cecil has not made many of the statements or even implied arguments you are suggesting. From what the poster has said I would never think to so aggressively convict him as a perverted, sicko, rape apologist.

All Cecil has suggested is that in any case, there is far more to consider than just a disparity in numbers. And I agree.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Another beautiful loving relationship between a 45 year old teacher and his 16 year old student:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3506853/br...tudent-police/

Damn cops, just must hate love charging him with sexual exploitation like that.

Originally Posted by GGG

My point is that for you to say that this relationship could not have been one of equals is false.

How is it false? One was in a position of authority, the other was not. That, by the very definition of the world "equals," makes it impossible.

Let's not also overlook that the student came forward to police a decade later looking for justice, or maybe trying to protect other young girls being taught by this sicko. Let's please try not to victim blame and accuse her of being an "equally guilty" party in this rape. That's just going to discourage other sexual assault victims from coming forward.

Originally Posted by Yamer

I think the words rape, pervert, and to a small extent legitimate are being thrown around rather heavily and with some measure of miscommunication. I would caution anyone using those terms here be very careful about labeling and accusing. That is dangerous ground to walk on.

When you rape someone, it's rape. It's a heavy word, but we shouldn't shy away from it.

I mean, you could consider which one is worse, taking advantage of a heavily drunk woman who doesn't have the capacity to consent or forcibly sexually assaulting someone in the back alley with a knife, but at the end of the day they are both rape. Just as ####ing your underage student is. I would far more heavily caution those that don't want to call this rape a rape. Trying to downplay the severity, or worse, argue that the student was not raped only hurts the victims and potential future victims. When some of the first posts made by certain posters in this thread were to argue that the victim may have consented (which is impossible by law, but I digress) is really victim blaming and going to scare away other victims from coming forward.

Originally Posted by Yamer

All Cecil has suggested is that in any case, there is far more to consider than just a disparity in numbers. And I agree.

Like, for an example, whether one person was in the position of authority?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

So is an 18 year old sleeping with a 15 year old but sleeping with a 16 year old who is a day older is not.

Both are legal in Canada actually.

You'd need to change it to an "18 year old sleeping with a 13 year old but sleeping with a 14 year old who is a day older is not."

In any case, not going to feel sorry for that 18 year old ####ing the 13 year old if they got charged with sexual assault.