What's new
By:

Giggity

Why is there so much sympathy for this woman who abused her authoritative position? 22yo man and 17yo boy, no sympathy. 22yo man and 17yo girl, no sympathy. 22yo woman and 17yo girl, abundant sympathy.

that's wrong.
 
scootsy said:
Why is there so much sympathy for this woman who abused her authoritative position? 22yo man and 17yo boy, no sympathy. 22yo man and 17yo girl, no sympathy. 22yo woman and 17yo girl, abundant sympathy.

that's wrong.
Click to expand...

So we must ensure the insanity is applied with consistency.
 
Siro said:
So we must ensure the insanity is applied with consistency.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it is insane (based strictly on the age difference) but if you are going to apply that metric, which society has, apply it consistently.

When one person is in a position of autority over the other that is different.
 
Stoked said:
I agree with you that it is insane but if you are going to apply that metric, which society has, apply it consistently.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we're applying it in the wrong direction. The gender of the two is irrelevant. It's no big deal regardless.
 
Siro said:
Yes, but we're applying it in the wrong direction. The gender of the two is irrelevant. It's no big deal regardless.
Click to expand...

I agree and think it should be done away with but until it is than it needs to be applied equally regardless of gender of victim or perpetrator.
 
Guilty until proven innocent by the media. Her teacher career is over guilty or not. Seems a bit unfair to be able to post a picture of the accused but not of the accuser.
 
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept regarding who has the burden of proof. It doesn't mean everyone should assume the person is innocent in day to day life except for the police/prosecutors.

I love that the state has the burden to prove a citizen did something and that we don't instead require the accused to prove they DIDN'T do it. But it is irrelevant whether I as a private citizen should think someone's a slimeball/guilty even though a jury hasn't convicted them yet.

As for the media, there's a reason they post the accuser and not the accused. I think it's a good idea to consider not naming the accused in sex crimes until they are proven guilty because of the way mere criminal allegations can ruin lives and careers even without a conviction. But to say it's unfair that a victim isn't publicized comes off quite ignorant. Victims of violent crimes and especially sexual crimes have a much lower reporting rate than other crimes for a number of reasons. Often it may involve embarrassment and risk of retaliation from the accuseds' friends/family.

Are innocent people harmed by false accusations, of course! And the false accusers should be shamed and punished! But until that time arrives that an accusation is proven false, an accuser's identity should not be thrown about publicly for everyone to attack.

Does anybody remember case from around 2008 involving the seminary principal in Utah? Did anybody see the things said about that girl by her peers? Did anyone see the young teenagers show up to court in support of the accused while trashing the victim on facebook, blogs, and other social media? Publishing her information would not have done any good for her or the situation. If it would have turned out that she made it up then yes she should be publicly shamed, but not at first. It's hard enough for victims to come forward in the first place. Requiring them to give up any sense of privacy in addition to publicly facing their rapist places too much of a burden on a person.
 
One Brow said:
The teacher was 22. In Utah, consensual sex between people of ages 22 and 17 is legal, AFAICT.
Click to expand...

legal ramifications aren't the only thing that can "ruin a person's life". I'm sure the public shaming currently taking place is doing a fine enough job at that.
 
Mr. McGibblets said:
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept regarding who has the burden of proof. It doesn't mean everyone should assume the person is innocent in day to day life except for the police/prosecutors.

I love that the state has the burden to prove a citizen did something and that we don't instead require the accused to prove they DIDN'T do it. But it is irrelevant whether I as a private citizen should think someone's a slimeball/guilty even though a jury hasn't convicted them yet.

As for the media, there's a reason they post the accuser and not the accused. I think it's a good idea to consider not naming the accused in sex crimes until they are proven guilty because of the way mere criminal allegations can ruin lives and careers even without a conviction. But to say it's unfair that a victim isn't publicized comes off quite ignorant. Victims of violent crimes and especially sexual crimes have a much lower reporting rate than other crimes for a number of reasons. Often it may involve embarrassment and risk of retaliation from the accuseds' friends/family.

Are innocent people harmed by false accusations, of course! And the false accusers should be shamed and punished! But until that time arrives that an accusation is proven false, an accuser's identity should not be thrown about publicly for everyone to attack.

Does anybody remember case from around 2008 involving the seminary principal in Utah? Did anybody see the things said about that girl by her peers? Did anyone see the young teenagers show up to court in support of the accused while trashing the victim on facebook, blogs, and other social media? Publishing her information would not have done any good for her or the situation. If it would have turned out that she made it up then yes she should be publicly shamed, but not at first. It's hard enough for victims to come forward in the first place. Requiring them to give up any sense of privacy in addition to publicly facing their rapist places too much of a burden on a person.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's unfair to post one and not the other. All the damage is done to the accused the minute they have their face and name plastered on the news. If they are proven innocent there is the perception (fair or not) that they got through a technicality or worked the system some how. Either way their teaching career is over.
 
HipHopAnonymous said:
I'm saying it's unfair to post one and not the other. All the damage is done to the accused the minute they have their face and name plastered on the news. If they are proven innocent there is the perception (fair or not) that they got through a technicality or worked the system some how. Either way their teaching career is over.
Click to expand...

If an accuser makes a blatant false claim they should be subjected to the punishment the accused would have faced if convicted. Obviously would be impossible to regulate but in theory it would be nice.
 
HipHopAnonymous said:
Guilty until proven innocent by the media. Her teacher career is over guilty or not. Seems a bit unfair to be able to post a picture of the accused but not of the accuser.
Click to expand...

If guilty it should be over. I see the point you are making though. You can take that with any crime (yes, some moreso than others).
 
I'm not planning to look into this very closely, but plastering the teacher's face all over the news is wrong before it's been proven that she did something without consent of the other person. If the student consented, then the teacher should still be fired, but even then there should be plenty of other considerations before broadcasting consentual sex over the (stupid) local news.

Also, I find it funny that they go "on-site" to report breaking news that everybody should know.......... but then feel really uncomfortable reporting that it was sex between two women. Hilarious. I ****ing hate televised news.
 
Last edited:
Siro said:
I never understood the logic of ruining someone's life for having consensual sex with a 17 year old.
Click to expand...
I think the situation is somewhat different because it involves a teacher and student - i.e. the adult is in a position of authority. It would be different if the two were neighbors, or had met in some other social situation. I'm not saying I approve of that. If it were MY 17-yr old daughter I'd not want her having sex with a 22-yr old woman - OR man.

I think the police and DA's are only going to prosecute these cases if there is forced sex or if it was "consensual" but could have been under duress - i.e. the adult is a teacher, leader, supervisor, etc. who has direct authority over the younger person. In this case, prosecution should probably hinge on that factor. At the very least, the woman loses her teaching credentials and has to expalin that away for many, many years as she seeks other employment.
 
MoTown16 said:
I think the situation is somewhat different because it involves a teacher and student - i.e. the adult is in a position of authority. It would be different if the two were neighbors, or had met in some other social situation. I'm not saying I approve of that. If it were MY 17-yr old daughter I'd not want her having sex with a 22-yr old woman - OR man.

I think the police and DA's are only going to prosecute these cases if there is forced sex or if it was "consensual" but could have been under duress - i.e. the adult is a teacher, leader, supervisor, etc. who has direct authority over the younger person. In this case, prosecution should probably hinge on that factor. At the very least, the woman loses her teaching credentials and has to expalin that away for many, many years as she seeks other employment.
Click to expand...

I can see how this counts as professional misconduct. I'm not even comfortable with a college professor having a relationship with one of his/her students. But serious criminal charges and a hysterical public response of life-long humiliation and ostracization over an act of pleasure with another consenting person? That isn't that far removed from witch burning. Keep in mind that I'm talking about the situation in general, and not about this case in particular.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top