What's new
By:

Giggity

Yeah, I'm confused where the crime here is. I think she should be fired (she resigned, so it's a non-issue) but I'm not understanding why criminal charges are being filed unless she forcefully raped the girl or used some form of coercion to get the girl to participate.
 
MoreFeasts said:
You guys realize that once a girl is legal, sex with guys pushing 30 (or more...) is commonplace, right?
So why are 17/22 matchups horrible, and 19/29 matchups normal?
Click to expand...

You do realize that most of the posters in here have agreed with you right? The main problem the majority of posters in this thread have had is the position of authority the teacher had.
 
My gut tells me that whatever happened was a grey area, and there would not be such a big deal if the girl was a little older. I could be totally wrong about that, it is just a hunch, based on a tiny bit of details.
 
MoreFeasts said:
My gut tells me that the so called rape was a grey area, and there would not be a case if the girl was a little older. I could be totally wrong about that, it is just a hunch, based on a tiny bit of details.
Click to expand...

The age here really shouldn't matter since the girl is above the age of consent and not more than 10 years younger than her partner.
 
So in the court of social media we are guilty until proven innocent?
Click to expand...

Yep. There is no middle ground. Life is as simple as the dichotomy you propose. Or, just maybe, people can look at the publicly available facts and judge for themselves - it isn't necessarily always presumed guilty nor always presumed innocent.

Yeah, I'm confused where the crime here is. I think she should be fired (she resigned, so it's a non-issue) but I'm not understanding why criminal charges are being filed unless she forcefully raped the girl or used some form of coercion to get the girl to participate.
Click to expand...

You're probably confused because the police haven't publicized many of the facts. Here is what the law requires to be found guilty of rape and forcable sexual abuse like she is here:

Forcible sexual abuse:
76-5-404. Forcible sexual abuse.
(1) A person commits forcible sexual abuse if the victim is 14 years of age or older and, under circumstances not amounting to rape, object rape, sodomy, or attempted rape or sodomy, the actor touches the ****, buttocks, or any part of the genitals of another, or touches the breast of a female, or otherwise takes indecent liberties with another, or causes another to take indecent liberties with the actor or another, with intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any person or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, without the consent of the other, regardless of the sex of any participant.
Click to expand...

Rape:
76-5-402. Rape.
(1) A person commits rape when the actor has sexual intercourse with another person without the victim's consent.
Click to expand...

So again, the charge indicates that the teacher never had the girl's consent. Is the consent based on the teacher being her teacher or did the girl actually resist and not want to do it?

Other news reports detail that the teacher touched the victim's breasts and genitals which is the basis for the forcible sexual abuse charge. The fact that she's being charged with these counts says that the 17 year old did NOT consent. We do not know if the 17 year old actually resisted and did not consent or whether police are basing the lack of consent on the teacher being the teacher and holding a position of "special trust." If an accused holds a position of "special trust" such as a teacher then the law presumes that the victim did not consent if under 18. https://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_040600.htm
 
Last edited:
Her age does matter. If you are under 18 then it is presumed that a person cannot consent to sexual acts with parents, guardians, or others in a special position of trust over the person. The law has to draw a line somewhere and they've decided to choose 18 years old for when people can choose to have sex with teachers or guardians.

But we don't even know if the 17 year old did consent. She might have resisted. I haven't seen any reports saying the 17 year old wanted to go along with it. Why is everyone presuming it was consensual? Does anyone have a link to other news stories about that?
 
MoreFeasts said:
You guys realize that once a girl is legal, sex with guys pushing 30 (or more...) is commonplace, right?
So why are 17/22 matchups horrible, and 19/29 matchups normal?
Click to expand...
Keep dropping the ages and where do you draw the line: 16/21...15/20...14/19...13/18?
Society has to set a legal limit at in most states in the US that is 18. In some other countries it can be much younger. I'm more concerned with the question over whether it was consensual or not and the issue of the adult being in a position of trust. And the consensual question may not be as simple and straightforward as we think. The young woman could have consented but is now changing her story to rape to avoid being punished by her parents, ridiculed/ostracized by friends, etc. We have no basis to form an opinion on that as we are not privy to medical information or other facts such as whether there were physical marks, torn clothing, etc.
 
Mr. McGibblets said:
Her age does matter. If you are under 18 then it is presumed that a person cannot consent to sexual acts with parents, guardians, or others in a special position of trust over the person. The law has to draw a line somewhere and they've decided to choose 18 years old for when people can choose to have sex with teachers or guardians.

But we don't even know if the 17 year old did consent. She might have resisted. I haven't seen any reports saying the 17 year old wanted to go along with it. Why is everyone presuming it was consensual? Does anyone have a link to other news stories about that?
Click to expand...

It does but in many cases it shouldn't.

For example an 18 year old and his 16 year old gf and the parents just don't like him. Ruins his life.
 
This says it all to me, if this applies to Utah,
Click to expand...

This does apply in Utah which you can see in the link I provided. It is the same way in most states.

It does but in many cases it shouldn't.

For example an 18 year old and his 16 year old gf and the parents just don't like him. Ruins his life.
Click to expand...

It doesn't ruin his life. Plus, that's apples and oranges. I am not speaking about in general, but about this particular situation where one of the parties holds a position of special trust (teacher, religious leader, etc.). Also, an 18 yo having sex with a 16 yo is legal in Utah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Utah
 
Mr. McGibblets said:
This does apply in Utah which you can see in the link I provided. It is the same way in most states.



It doesn't ruin his life. Plus, that's apples and oranges. I am not speaking about in general, but about this particular situation where one of the parties holds a position of special trust (teacher, religious leader, etc.). Also, an 18 yo having sex with a 16 yo is legal in Utah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Utah
Click to expand...

When you have to register as a sex offender you bet your butt it does. Restrictions on where he could live, employers look at that, colleges...

Also most of us in here have been talking generally.
 
Debatable
Click to expand...

When you have to register as a sex offender you bet your butt it does. Restrictions on where he could live, employers look at that, colleges...

Also most of us in here have been talking generally.
Click to expand...

WTF are you two talking about? If an 18 year old senior in high school has sex with a 16 year old sophomore girlfriend he is not guilty of a crime. He wouldn't register as a sex offender. So no, it doesn't ruin his life. How is that debatable? It's not a crime. Even if you're talking generally then generally, an 18 year old sexxing a 16 year old is not a crime. So your hypothetical is not even likely to occur precisely because most states and people find it as ridiculous as you do which is why they make it legal.
 
"Her age does matter." I was speaking specifically to a situation involving a person having sex with a teacher. Under Utah law, the age of the student does matter. A college student having sex with a professor isn't a crime. But a 17 year old or 16 year old H.S. student having sex with a teacher is a crime. So yes, age does matter.

It was clear that this is what I was talking about by reading the very next sentence. But instead you start in with some situation of an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old girlfriend.

Again, that's irrelevant to the current thing I was discussing. But in any case, even if you are "speaking generally," then it's a stupid point because 18 year olds having sex with a 16 year old girlfriend is legal in most states. So why would an 18 year old legally having sex with a 16 year old girlfriend "ruin his life?"
 
Mr. McGibblets said:
WTF are you two talking about? If an 18 year old senior in high school has sex with a 16 year old sophomore girlfriend he is not guilty of a crime. He wouldn't register as a sex offender. So no, it doesn't ruin his life. How is that debatable? It's not a crime. Even if you're talking generally then generally, an 18 year old sexxing a 16 year old is not a crime. So your hypothetical is not even likely to occur precisely because most states and people find it as ridiculous as you do which is why they make it legal.
Click to expand...

Statutory.

Edit: yes the deffinitions and sentences vary from state to state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top