A man is involved with what appartly was a consentual sexual relationship
with a 14 year old girl.
He gets caught and is sentenced to 10 - 15 years in state prison.
Another case, a teacher does the same thing with a student, gets two years
probation.
The last line says it all.
There are two more female teachers in the process of going to trial for the
same thing. I bet neither of them gets jail time.
Let's see, can't trust the priest or the teacher with your children, who can
you trust?
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
In article <>,
"Ed" <> wrote:
> There are two more female teachers in the process of going to trial for the
> same thing. I bet neither of them gets jail time.
>
> Let's see, can't trust the priest or the teacher with your children, who can
> you trust?
if a male teacher, coach, bus driver does a little girl(they were
wearing hot pants and a little tube top before the crime, show up in
court wearing a "sound of music" dress and the little black shoes,
w/white socks) he goes to jail forever! and a day!
the female teacher------might get off a little easier, eh.....?
little boys(11-15) have radically changed since I was that age? and
fucking lusted after any sort of warm female, let alone a good looking
teacher, geez! hell, I'm 60 and still have fantasies about getting over
on my 6th grade art teacher(God!, see was HOT!!!!). took me all the way
to college to finally fuck my way into academia. hey, if your wearing a
rubber and everybody is happy, what's the big deal about fucking?
Those poor, poor guys. I will bet none of those "abusing" teachers were
lacking in looks.
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>A man is involved with what appartly was a consentual sexual relationship
>with a 14 year old girl.
> He gets caught and is sentenced to 10 - 15 years in state prison.
>
> Another case, a teacher does the same thing with a student, gets two years
> probation.
>
> The last line says it all.
>
"PeterL" <> wrote
> OK one was for sexual battery and the other was for sending
> pornographic material, kind of different don't you think? Also the
> first case the guy had a "history of assault." That would play into
> the sentence.
Peter, you're doing it again, not reading the story.
"The other one" states that Amber Jennings sent this material to a student
"with whom she was having a sexual relationship". It also said that "more
serious charges were dropped".
It was a plea bargain deal. One of the charges that were dropped was rape of
a minor.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
"PeterL" <> wrote
> The other case involved an assault, where the sex was not consensual.
It was consentual, it turned out that the girl contracted an undisclosed std
and said she got it from him. Him having a record has nothing to do with
this case.
> Besides if you are trying to set up an argument where men and women
> receive unequal justice, these two cases just don't wash as there was
> another case involving a female teacher in Washington where she was
> given a pretty long jail term.
No argument, it is a fact that women get off easier in these situations.
There will always be exceptions but it won't change the majority of the
outcomes.
In article <>,
"Ed" <> wrote:
> There are two more female teachers in the process of going to trial for the
> same thing. I bet neither of them gets jail time.
>
> Let's see, can't trust the priest or the teacher with your children, who can
> you trust?
Vatacan detectives came to STL to look for queers in the churches and
seminary. quess they'd kick them out if found. not to sure that being a
gay guy means that the guy can be a pedophile. but, I guess it makes
them look like they're trying. what about priest that are straight and
have affairs with babes in the church? hell, around STL there were a
couple of "DonJuan" priest that were almost legends. there was one who
got shot by the husband, made the paper.
"father, I have sinned, been a nympho for years"
"say a hail mary and leave your phone number"
good work if you can get it.
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> There are two more female teachers in the process of going to trial for
> the same thing. I bet neither of them gets jail time.
>
> Let's see, can't trust the priest or the teacher with your children, who
> can you trust?
I'll bet my bottom dollar that by far the greatest abusers of children are
dads and brothers, more than all the teachers, priests, and people outside
families put together.
"Don" <> wrote
> I'll bet my bottom dollar that by far the greatest abusers of children are
> dads and brothers, more than all the teachers, priests, and people outside
> families put together.
Bad people get married and have children. You would expect sexual abuse to
happen in families. You wouldn't expect to see sexual abuse so widespread
among teachers and men of the cloth. Many of these female teachers are
married and have families of their own so the don't qualify as people
outside of families but I do understand what you mean.
Ed wrote:
> A man is involved with what appartly was a consentual sexual relationship
> with a 14 year old girl.
> He gets caught and is sentenced to 10 - 15 years in state prison.
>
> Another case, a teacher does the same thing with a student, gets two years
> probation.
>
> The last line says it all.
But there's a reason for that, even though in this politically correct
age we're supposed to pretend that males and females are somehow
biologically equal.
All the laws on rape--both statutory and forcible rape--are based on the
fact that a female can have sex with a male without her being fully
aroused. She can be tricked into it, she can be forced, she can be
drugged and pass out, the man can achieve orgasm so quickly she doesn't
have a chance to say no, etc.
A male cannot achieve penetration unless he's fully aroused or nearly
so. To that extent, every boy who has sex is conscious and knows full
well what's happening to him.
In the Debra LeFave case, the boy's mom had overheard him boasting to
his schoolmates that he had gotten laid by his "hot" teacher. Ms.
LeFave had first gotten him aroused by fellatio before engaging in
intercourse with him. So how can we equate what LeFave did with this
boy, to a man who gets a girl drunk or drugged and then has sex with her
while she's passed out?
Now there is an issue of emotional maturity--is the girl or boy ready
for a consensual sexual relationship of any kind? But that has to be
decided on a case by case basis.
One more point: The whole concept of "statutory rape," for both boys
and girls, is based on a pile of sand--the arbitrary laws governing the
legal "age of consent," which varies all over the place. In some states
the age of consent is as low as 14 and in other states it's higher.
These age limits are set without any rhyme or reason. In early 19th
century New England, the age of consent was as low as 12! And yet our
Republic didn't collapse, did it?
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
"Steven L." <> wrote
> In the Debra LeFave case, the boy's mom had overheard him boasting to his
> schoolmates that he had gotten laid by his "hot" teacher. Ms. LeFave had
> first gotten him aroused by fellatio before engaging in intercourse with
> him.
Even a president said that being engaged in fellatio doesn't represent a
sexual relationship.
Looks like you're right.