[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.