NationStates Jolt Archive

A former US schoolteacher has married an ex-pupil 10 years after she raped him when he was just 12.

Mary Kay Letourneau, 43, and Vili Fualaau married in a secret ceremony on Friday near Seattle.

Ms Letourneau was arrested in 1997 when pregnant with the couple's first child and admitted second-degree child rape.

She was sentenced to seven-and-a-half years' jail, most of it suspended. She had to serve the full term after she was caught having sex with Mr Fualaau.

She was released last August after having given birth to the couple's second daughter in jail.

Full article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569259.stm

Not sure what to say about this one...

It seems to me they wouldn't be getting married if he didn't wanna do "it" all those years ago. Rape? Pffff.

Wow. I suspect that the 'rape' wasn't against his will, seeing as they got married in the end.

That is truly sick. I feel sorry for their children.

There is nothing the authorities can do now, though, because Fualaau is an adult. They could keep her away from him when he was a child, but not anymore.

It seems like people aren't very disgusted about the relationship, though. I bet the wedding would have been a bigger story if an older *man* who raped a younger *girl* was marrying her years later.

Wow. I suspect that the 'rape' wasn't against his will, seeing as they got married in the end.

Consent doesn't mean shit in cases of statuatory rape.

The fact that anyone gives this sick woman media coverage is disgusting. Obviously, they don't understand the concept of statuatory rape.

It seems to me they wouldn't be getting married if he didn't wanna do "it" all those years ago. Rape? Pffff.

With the age of consent laws, having sex with someone who consents, but is underage counts as rape.

Consent doesn't mean shit in cases of statuatory rape.

The fact that anyone gives this sick woman media coverage is disgusting. Obviously, they don't understand the concept of statuatory rape.

Obviously the law doesn't understand the insanity of 'Love at First Sight'. Which isn't surprising, because people in general don't.

It seems to me they wouldn't be getting married if he didn't wanna do "it" all those years ago. Rape? Pffff.


Rape isn't about "wanting to do it."

If an adult has sex with a child (especially someone they are in authority over, such as a student), it is rape, bottom line. It doesn't matter if the child did not protest over it.

Ah who cares? Not me.

They are now consenting adults. She served her time. Let it go, people. It's obvious he didn't get any of those "emotional/mental problems" that those morality police like to talk about. He was 13 and it was consentual. Would have been legal in Spain, Slovenia, and most of Mexico, plus many other countries.... Japan....

As a victim, myself, of child sexual abuse, I am totally against all the publicity this wedding is getting. Mary Kay is a child rapist. A child does not have the ability to consent in the eyes of the law. PERIOD!

Obviously the law doesn't understand the insanity of 'Love at First Sight'. Which isn't surprising, because people in general don't.

Would it have been "Love at first sight" if it had been a man and a 12 year old girl?

Statutory rape is statutory rape. That woman is a pedophile.

Statutory rape is statutory rape. That woman is a pedophile.

Actually, to be technically correct, if he was going through puberty at the time and was not prepubescent, she is an ephebophile.

It seems to me they wouldn't be getting married if he didn't wanna do "it" all those years ago. Rape? Pffff.

I agree. The only reason she was charged in the first place was because people found out. If nobody ever knew, we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place.

Would it have been "Love at first sight" if it had been a man and a 12 year old girl?

Statutory rape is statutory rape. That woman is a pedophile.

The 'Love at First Sight' rule is INSANE. I said this earlier. It strikes without warning or precedent. If you can find a 12 year old girl who's TRUTHFULLY fallen in love with a 18-? year old bloke, and ask her about it, then she'll say that the law's wrong, should be changed, blah blah blah. Perhaps she was a paedophile, perhaps she had tricked him into it. What matters now is that they both believe they are in love. She's served her time, so the law is happy. They're both happy because they're married. Their children will be happy because their mother is back for good. So fuck it, and let's get on with our meaningless lives.

A few points to consider (I'm not taking a stance, just provoking thought):

1. Most people are in agreement that the initial act was wrong, however, eight years later, he is an adult, thus it is (legally) a normal marriage. If the law is wrong here, what is wrong about it?

2. I expect that quite a few 12/13 year old boys would have loved the idea of being able to "do it" with a teacher that they found attractive.

The only reason she was charged in the first place was because people found out. If nobody ever knew, we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place.

What does that have to do with whether or not the kid was raped?

Would this conversation be going on if it was a 22 year old English teacher and a 15 year old student?

I agree. The only reason she was charged in the first place was because people found out. If nobody ever knew, we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place.

So having sex with an UNDERAGE person is okay to you as long as no one finds out?! That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! It is just that attitude that allows child sexual abuse to spread and allows groups like NAMBLA to grow. Having sex with someone who is UNDERAGE is WRONG no matter who knows or doesn't know.

Would this conversation be going on if it was a 22 year old English teacher and a 15 year old student?

HELL YES!

Would this conversation be going on if it was a 22 year old English teacher and a 15 year old student?


Nope, because the age gap is smaller.
Sure a 22-year-old with a 15-year-old is creepy, but not half as creepy as a 30-year-old with a 12-year-old.

I also think people would look at it differently if it were an older man with a younger girl.

Some people are just put off by the concept that a female can rape a male, and always think of rape with the usual "male agressors attack female victims" attitude.

Not taking a stance, let me just mention the relativity of this. At one time, it was perfectly normal for teens to marry. Many times a 17 or 18 year old male would marry a 12 to 13 year old girl. From a purely biological standpoint, the boy WAS an adult, because the biological state of adulthood is when one is able to reproduce. Since he could "do it" with the woman, he was not legally, but technically an adult. I'm just provoking dicussion, in actuality, I couldn't care less.

Actually Bauhas, the convo would still be going on because the teacher is in a position of authority over the kid. Besides, 15 is still below the age of consent for most states. My state says that 16 is the age of consent however, it is still statutory rape if the partner is more than 4 years older and one is under 18.

HELL YES!

Okay, so with that logic, Colorado's secondary age of consent, which is 15, would be horrid in your POV. You do realize that not all states say you have to be 18, right? Most states it's 16 actually.

Did she break the law? Yes. Seems people don't care if you served your time anymore. Why don't we just lock all criminals, no matter what, up for life with that frame of mind, huh?

Not taking a stance, let me just mention the relativity of this. At one time, it was perfectly normal for teens to marry. Many times a 17 or 18 year old male would marry a 12 to 13 year old girl. From a purely biological standpoint, the boy WAS an adult, because the biological state of adulthood is when one is able to reproduce. Since he could "do it" with the woman, he was not legally, but technically an adult. I'm just provoking dicussion, in actuality, I couldn't care less.


Just because someone is physically able does not mean that they should. This case is not about the biological aspects anyway, but the legal.

Okay, so with that logic, Colorado's secondary age of consent, which is 15, would be horrid in your POV. You do realize that not all states say you have to be 18, right? Most states it's 16 actually.

Did she break the law? Yes. Seems people don't care if you served your time anymore. Why don't we just lock all criminals, no matter what, up for life with that frame of mind, huh?


My state is also 16. My point was (as you can see in my next post) that the teacher is in a position of power and is still not legally allowed to use that to have sex with anyone under his/her influence.

I am not advocating locking up all criminals for life. For one thing, it's just not practical. However, when it comes to child sexual abuse, I have somewhat of a unique perspective on it as a victim myself. My position is that anyone who has sex with someone under their immediate control/power and is underage, needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Also, may I just bring up the words "Victim culture" here. It's gone out of control, IMO. If the guy doesn't regret it later in life, then why bother now. He wants all those victim activists to stay away from him, they should do so.

It's sorta like the whole thing with Roman Polanski. The girl he commited statutory rape with keeps telling the people who are calling her a victim and stuff to give it up and that she doesn't see herself as one. To leave Polanski alone. I think he should come back to the USA to serve his time, but still...

My point is victim culture is definately going too far when even the victims are saying "get the fuck away from me."

So having sex with an UNDERAGE person is okay to you as long as no one finds out?! That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! It is just that attitude that allows child sexual abuse to spread and allows groups like NAMBLA to grow. Having sex with someone who is UNDERAGE is WRONG no matter who knows or doesn't know.

No, that's not what I said at all, you're taking a concept out of the view of the situation at hand. What I simply said was that if nobody ever would've found out, we wouldn't be talking about whether or not the media should be covering this marriage event, this is directly in question as to why we're sitting here and debating about this. To construe that I condone rape is sick.

Do I think statatory rape is wrong? Yes, I do. Did I say otherwise? No.

My state is also 16. My point was (as you can see in my next post) that the teacher is in a position of power and is still not legally allowed to use that to have sex with anyone under his/her influence.

I am not advocating locking up all criminals for life. For one thing, it's just not practical. However, when it comes to child sexual abuse, I have somewhat of a unique perspective on it as a victim myself. My position is that anyone who has sex with someone under their immediate control/power and is underage, needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But my point is that she served her time already! He wanted to marry her, and it's not anyone else's business to say he shouldn't or can't. He's not you.

I was groped when I was 8 by my babysitter. I don't see it as a big deal. I mean, if I was raped forcibly, yeah, it'd be a big deal and I'd want to see some fuckin' punishment.

However this was not forced, she served her time, he undoubtably still wants her... Not our decision, and I say congratulations to them.

What does that have to do with whether or not the kid was raped?
he was not raped

he was not raped

Well, people are splitting hairs here. You are gonna get slammed probably for that comment.

TECHNICALLY, he was.

OFFICIALLY, he was.

LITERALLY, he was not.

But my point is that she served her time already! He wanted to marry her, and it's not anyone else's business to say he shouldn't or can't. He's not you.

I was groped when I was 8 by my babysitter. I don't see it as a big deal. I mean, if I was raped forcibly, yeah, it'd be a big deal and I'd want to see some fuckin' punishment.

However this was not forced, she served her time, he undoubtably still wants her... Not our decision, and I say congratulations to them.


I am not saying that they should not be allowed to get married. As you said, she served her time and he is now of legal age. What I am against is all the publicity it is getting. I mean, the wedding was being filmed by Entertainment Tonight for crying out loud! That is not entertainment.

You see, I was not just groped by an adult as you were. I was molested and raped multiple times between the ages of 5-14. My abuser was jailed and is now out and listed as a level 3 sex offender (high risk to reoffend) in the state of Washington. I am not in contact with him (even though he is my uncle) and plan to keep it that way. However, that is my choice. Just as Villi marrying his abuser is his.

so.... how many people wish them luck in their marriage?

I do.

You are gonna get slammed probably for that comment.
i can face the music...

like I said...

he-was-not-raped.

so.... how many people wish them luck in their marriage?

I do.


I wish them luck. They are gonna need it since their lives are going to be under a public microscope for quite some time.

I agree. The only reason she was charged in the first place was because people found out. If nobody ever knew, we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place.
Are you seriously implying that if someone commits a crime, but no one finds out, it's OK with you?

I am not saying that they should not be allowed to get married. As you said, she served her time and he is now of legal age. What I am against is all the publicity it is getting. I mean, the wedding was being filmed by Entertainment Tonight for crying out loud! That is not entertainment.

You see, I was not just groped by an adult as you were. I was molested and raped multiple times between the ages of 5-14. My abuser was jailed and is now out and listed as a level 3 sex offender (high risk to reoffend) in the state of Washington. I am not in contact with him (even though he is my uncle) and plan to keep it that way. However, that is my choice. Just as Villi marrying his abuser is his.


Yeah, it's definately exploitation by the media. I think the media should just butt out of peoples' lives. Ya know, just put the camera on the anchors, not out on the people they are talking about.

I'm sorry for what happened to you and am glad he is on the list, as he definately should be. Legally, my former babysitter should be too, but I don't really think she should be.

So what exactly are we arguing for.... Seems like we agree, basically.

Just because someone is physically able does not mean that they should. This case is not about the biological aspects anyway, but the legal.

Of course, the legal age of consent is completely arbitrary. It differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from culture to culture.

The problem with statutory rape laws is that they are both arbitrary and inflexible. This combination ensures institutionalized atrocities and injustices.

Are you seriously implying that if someone commits a crime, but no one finds out, it's OK with you?

He already answered that a few posts back... Y'all misunderstood the poster.

Okay, this is a sensitive topic. Let's try to keep this civil, people.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I think the point is, she agreed to the 2nd degree rape to spare the student the trial. she went to jail and served her time, even giving birth. the fact that he and his mother raised the children showed that he did indeed love her and the fact that after she got out, they got married.

She was charged with rape because he was a minor, under the age of concent and she accepted it willingly.

Statutory rape is idiotic. If there is consent, then it should be fine. People shouldn't have their rights taken away, just because they are kids. As far as I can tell, its usually because "children are not developed enough" to know whats right and wrong. If this is the case, then why not make everyone be tested for everything? Voting? Make them take a test to see if they are intelligent enough to vote. Having sex? Test their IQ before they can have it. Just because parts of a sample of the population arent as smart as other samples, their rights should still not be infringed.

Daddy, daddy, how did you and momma meet? :D

Consider this:

An 18 year old guy and his 17(Turning 18 the next day) decide to "celebrate" the girlfriend's birthday by having sex for the first time(ever, btw) in the back of the guy's Chevy, in a "secluded" spot generally used for this type of thing(Yes, "Lover's Lookout" places do infact exist). Anywho, they wait until after midnight, thinking that it's all well and good, and start "celebrating". Low and behold, along comes a Smokey(Cop, for those uninitiated into trucker talk), interupts, and brings the guy in for statutory rape, because technically and legally you don't turn of age until 6 a.m.(Or something of the sort). The guy didn't get in any real trouble, but was given a stern "keep in your pants" talk by the judge.

Now, I know you think it is unlikely that this would happen, but it did. To a friend of mine. This is more of a cop having a bad day, and over-exerting his power type of thing, but still it gets the point across.

Not trying to prove a point, just wanted to share a little anectdote.

Consider this:

An 18 year old guy and his 17(Turning 18 the next day) decide to "celebrate" the girlfriend's birthday by having sex for the first time(ever, btw) in the back of the guy's Chevy, in a "secluded" spot generally used for this type of thing(Yes, "Lover's Lookout" places do infact exist). Anywho, they wait until after midnight, thinking that it's all well and good, and start "celebrating". Low and behold, along comes a Smokey(Cop, for those uninitiated into trucker talk), interupts, and brings the guy in for statutory rape, because technically and legally you don't turn of age until 6 a.m.(Or something of the sort). The guy didn't get in any real trouble, but was given a stern "keep in your pants" talk by the judge.

Now, I know you think it is unlikely that this would happen, but it did. To a friend of mine. This is more of a cop having a bad day, and over-exerting his power type of thing, but still it gets the point across.

Not trying to prove a point, just wanted to share a little anectdote.


That guy was very lucky. If not for the friendly judge he probably would have spent many years in jail. Things like this happen more often than people imagine. Usualy it is just because the girls parents don't like the boyfriend.

Statutory rape is idiotic. If there is consent, then it should be fine.

I would like to have sex with your 6 year old sister. Or maybe she's even 3 years old. She likes me and says yes. So according to you this is ok ?

People shouldn't have their rights taken away, just because they are kids. As far as I can tell, its usually because "children are not developed enough" to know whats right and wrong.

No, it is mostly done because they cannot stand up against an adult, especially if they respect that adult. One can never be certain if they say yes because they really wanted to and understood the concepts, or that they were manipulated. This is of course also true for adults - but the manipulating there requires significantly more skill.
Right and wrong do not come into it.

If this is the case, then why not make everyone be tested for everything? Voting? Make them take a test to see if they are intelligent enough to vote.

IQ is not a prerequisite to vote. *insert completely irrelevant comment about Bush/Kerry here*. Nor is testing everyone practical. An agelimit was chosen because one has to draw the line somewhere.
Of course, testing everyone would probably be better, if it were possible.

I would like to have sex with your 6 year old sister. Or maybe she's even 3 years old. She likes me and says yes. So according to you this is ok ?



No, it is mostly done because they cannot stand up against an adult, especially if they respect that adult. One can never be certain if they say yes because they really wanted to and understood the concepts, or that they were manipulated. This is of course also true for adults - but the manipulating there requires significantly more skill.
Right and wrong do not come into it.



IQ is not a prerequisite to vote. *insert completely irrelevant comment about Bush/Kerry here*. Nor is testing everyone practical. An agelimit was chosen because one has to draw the line somewhere.
Of course, testing everyone would probably be better, if it were possible.

1. I would be fine with it, except for the fact that it would be literally harmful for her to have sex at that age. You would rip something, at the minimum. With say a 14-15 year old girl or so, you most likely wouldnt. As for guys, that risk isnt there, so they should have no limit.

2. Reasons for consent dont matter. If they say yes, they should be allowed to. Again, anyone can be manipulated. Its not fair, nor right, to discriminate because of increased likelyhood to be manipulated. As long as you are old enough to say you consent, and are able to say what would happen by your doing your actions, it should be allowed.

3. No, you dont need to draw a line. You just have to be more watchful of those that arent adults, to see if they are actually consenting.

Obviously the law doesn't understand the insanity of 'Love at First Sight'. Which isn't surprising, because people in general don't.

"Love at First Sight" between a 33-year-old teacher (married, mother of four) and her 12-year-old student?

How about when they first met when he was a second-grader? Do you think they fell in "love" then?

"Insanity," maybe. Criminal, yes.

It even made it to the newspapers in Hong Kong! *shock*

They are now consenting adults. She served her time. Let it go, people. It's obvious he didn't get any of those "emotional/mental problems" that those morality police like to talk about. He was 13 and it was consentual. Would have been legal in Spain, Slovenia, and most of Mexico, plus many other countries.... Japan....

Actually, he was 12 when they first started having sex.

So it would still be rape in Japan, Spain, and Slovenia. Mexico's laws are rather unclear.

In very few places in the world, can you legally have sex with a 12 year old -- particularly if you are over 18.

I'm glad that after your extensive testing and interviews, you have formed the professional opinion that Vili Fualaau suffered no harm. I'm glad to hear it.

His parents disagree. But what do they know.

Consider this:

An 18 year old guy and his 17(Turning 18 the next day) decide to "celebrate" the girlfriend's birthday by having sex for the first time(ever, btw) in the back of the guy's Chevy, in a "secluded" spot generally used for this type of thing(Yes, "Lover's Lookout" places do infact exist). Anywho, they wait until after midnight, thinking that it's all well and good, and start "celebrating". Low and behold, along comes a Smokey(Cop, for those uninitiated into trucker talk), interupts, and brings the guy in for statutory rape, because technically and legally you don't turn of age until 6 a.m.(Or something of the sort). The guy didn't get in any real trouble, but was given a stern "keep in your pants" talk by the judge.

Now, I know you think it is unlikely that this would happen, but it did. To a friend of mine. This is more of a cop having a bad day, and over-exerting his power type of thing, but still it gets the point across.

Not trying to prove a point, just wanted to share a little anectdote.

With all due respect, I question the accuracy of this anecdote.

In what state and year (roughly) do you allege this occurred?

Of course, the legal age of consent is completely arbitrary. It differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from culture to culture.

The problem with statutory rape laws is that they are both arbitrary and inflexible. This combination ensures institutionalized atrocities and injustices.

Meh.

The laws are generally not as inflexible as you may think. Many states have an age gap requirement. For example, if two teens of similar ages have sex, it is not a crime, but if a 19 year-old has sex with a 15-year-old it is.

More importantly, enforcement of the laws are very flexible.

Very, very few cases of statutory rape are prosecuted where the alleged victim agrees the sex was consensual. In those cases, there is almost always an enormous age gap and the rapist had a position of power or influence over the victim.

Most statutory rape prosecutions are simply rape cases where the defendant cannot claim the normal defense of "consent" because the victim is underage. The victim does not agree the sex was consensual. It is often violent, forcible rape.

I'd love to see someone document significant numbers of "institutionalized atrocities and injustices" due to statutory rape laws in the US.

and if rape is sexual relations against one's will - this was hardly against his will... unlike in the case of women, a man's sex organ doesn't have to go up if he doesn't want it to.

There's another interesting case, in Norway I believe. This lady boss sat on this drunken guy's face and he charged rape.

Cathenia

and if rape is sexual relations against one's will - this was hardly against his will... unlike in the case of women, a man's sex organ doesn't have to go up if he doesn't want it to.


Not entirely true, especially at that age but I get your point.

Meh.

The laws are generally not as inflexible as you may think. Many states have an age gap requirement. For example, if two teens of similar ages have sex, it is not a crime, but if a 19 year-old has sex with a 15-year-old it is.

More importantly, enforcement of the laws are very flexible.

Very, very few cases of statutory rape are prosecuted where the alleged victim agrees the sex was consensual. In those cases, there is almost always an enormous age gap and the rapist had a position of power or influence over the victim.

Most statutory rape prosecutions are simply rape cases where the defendant cannot claim the normal defense of "consent" because the victim is underage. The victim does not agree the sex was consensual. It is often violent, forcible rape.

I'd love to see someone document significant numbers of "institutionalized atrocities and injustices" due to statutory rape laws in the US.


It depends on what you would define as significant. I would submit that even one is significant.

I had a few links and a decent rebutal before my browser crashed but it can all be summed up fairly simply.

Your argument is that most police officers, judges, and prosecutors are reasonable people. This is true. However, some of them are assholes. More importantly, some parents are assholes. When asshole parants complain that their daughter was "raped" by her teenage boyfriend even the most reasonable officials have to do something.

Many states have age gaps requirement. Many don't
In some states the only thing that protects minors who have consential sex with each other is the fact that most people are not assholes.

When people are assholes minors are arrested for consentual sex.
When people are arrested minors are arrested for taking naked pictures of themselves.
When people are assholes bad things happen.

The most important document in United States Law, the Constitution, was written with the full knowledge that there are many assholes in the world. It guarentes certain rights. When these rights are infinged the judicary doesn't just take a boys-will-be-boys attitude. Laws are struck down. Evidence is suppressed. The government has its hands tied.

The founders knew that the fact that most people are reasonable isn't a defence assholes.

I simply believe that laws should be asshole-proof whenever possible. Anything else invites institutionalized injustice because the first time an asshole goes unquestioned that asshole sets a precident that other people will follow.

Actually, he was 12 when they first started having sex.

So it would still be rape in Japan, Spain, and Slovenia. Mexico's laws are rather unclear.

In very few places in the world, can you legally have sex with a 12 year old -- particularly if you are over 18.

I'm glad that after your extensive testing and interviews, you have formed the professional opinion that Vili Fualaau suffered no harm. I'm glad to hear it.

His parents disagree. But what do they know.

Actually, until 3 years ago, Spain's age of consent was 12.... It would have been legal for them, had she not been his teacher. You are right, Mexico's laws are unclear. Because every region has it's own age of consent just like America does. But for some reason people think that being a minor (under 18) means you can't have sex in America, which is untrue. Most age of consents are 16 here.

And by the way, I don't appreciate the use of the word "you" in stating who can have sex with a 12 year old. That sounds like you think I want to. Sorry, but my cut-off age is 15. I'm 19, so I think that's reasonable. Even then, sex is illegal in my state til 16, so it'd be no sex. Not that I think sex is that important anyway.

Oh, and I really don't care for the sarcasm. That comment about a professional opinion. Who pissed in your tea this morning? I never said I was a professional. Personally, I think most psychologists and psychiatrists are quacks. They decide what is normal and what isn't by what a majority does. This in itself shows they aren't perfect. Neither am I. I can think what I want, and your exaggerated words won't change my mind.

It depends on what you would define as significant. I would submit that even one is significant.

I had a few links and a decent rebutal before my browser crashed but it can all be summed up fairly simply.

Your argument is that most police officers, judges, and prosecutors are reasonable people. This is true. However, some of them are assholes. More importantly, some parents are assholes. When asshole parants complain that their daughter was "raped" by her teenage boyfriend even the most reasonable officials have to do something.

Many states have age gaps requirement. Many don't
In some states the only thing that protects minors who have consential sex with each other is the fact that most people are not assholes.

When people are assholes minors are arrested for consentual sex.
When people are arrested minors are arrested for taking naked pictures of themselves.
When people are assholes bad things happen.

The most important document in United States Law, the Constitution, was written with the full knowledge that there are many assholes in the world. It guarentes certain rights. When these rights are infinged the judicary doesn't just take a boys-will-be-boys attitude. Laws are struck down. Evidence is suppressed. The government has its hands tied.

The founders knew that the fact that most people are reasonable isn't a defence assholes.

I simply believe that laws should be asshole-proof whenever possible. Anything else invites institutionalized injustice because the first time an asshole goes unquestioned that asshole sets a precident that other people will follow.

1. As the laws in question comply with the Constitution and their enforcement must also comply with the Constitution, your reference to it rather undermines your argument.

2. The laws are fairly asshole proof. Don't have sex with minors. Then you don't have to worry about it.

3. The laws against statutory rape serve valid purposes. They protect minors from exploitation. They discourage underage sex. Most importantly, they are an effective tool in prosecuting violent rape of children.

4. I repeat my challenge: document significant numbers of "institutionalized atrocities and injustices" due to statutory rape laws in the US. Most complaints I have seen are hypothetical.

I would be curious to see if they would be married 10 years or even 10 months from now. She cheated on her husband once. She may do it again.

Actually, until 3 years ago, Spain's age of consent was 12.... It would have been legal for them, had she not been his teacher. You are right, Mexico's laws are unclear. Because every region has it's own age of consent just like America does. But for some reason people think that being a minor (under 18) means you can't have sex in America, which is untrue. Most age of consents are 16 here.

You are correct that the age of consent in generally not 18. I'm not sure I agree that most people think it is.

But the vast majority of the US -- and the world -- agree that it is wrong for someone that is an adult to sex with someone who is 12. Particularly when that adult has a position of responsibility for and power over the child.

Why on earth would you argue otherwise?

And by the way, I don't appreciate the use of the word "you" in stating who can have sex with a 12 year old. That sounds like you think I want to. Sorry, but my cut-off age is 15. I'm 19, so I think that's reasonable. Even then, sex is illegal in my state til 16, so it'd be no sex. Not that I think sex is that important anyway.

Tough. Although it was rather obvious my use of "you" was not personal, I don't really care that you "don't appreciate it."

You advocated the idea that it was wrong for it to be illegal to have sex with 13-year-olds. Except a little heat for disgusting opinion.

Oh, and I really don't care for the sarcasm. That comment about a professional opinion. Who pissed in your tea this morning? I never said I was a professional. Personally, I think most psychologists and psychiatrists are quacks. They decide what is normal and what isn't by what a majority does. This in itself shows they aren't perfect. Neither am I. I can think what I want, and your exaggerated words won't change my mind.

And I don't really care that you don't like sarcasm.

You stated an uniformed, ignorant opinion like it was a fact. I showed how stupid it was. Hurts don't it?

Demonstrating further ignorance about the fields of psychology and psychiatry doesn't help your case.

You can think and say what you want. And I can think and say what I think about your opinion. Welcome to the forums.

You advocated the idea that it was wrong for it to be legal to have sex with 13-year-olds. Except a little heat for disgusting opinion.

I wouldn't say I advocated it. I said she served her time and that should be enough. I said it would have been legal in a few other countries. So what? Also, I think you meant to say illegal instead of legal, right? I didn't say it was wrong for it to be illegal. Where did you get that from?

and if rape is sexual relations against one's will - this was hardly against his will... unlike in the case of women, a man's sex organ doesn't have to go up if he doesn't want it to.

There's another interesting case, in Norway I believe. This lady boss sat on this drunken guy's face and he charged rape.

Cathenia

I think the case you are talking about was this one:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/28/norway.sex.reut/

The 31-year-old man fell asleep on a sofa at a party in January last year and told the court in the western city of Bergen he woke to find the 23-year-old woman was having oral sex with him.

Under Norwegian law, all sexual acts with someone who is "unconscious or for other reasons unable to oppose the act" are considered rape.

Oh God, why do we have to pay any damn attention to this stuff?

Are you seriously implying that if someone commits a crime, but no one finds out, it's OK with you?

Once again, you need to look at the broad point I'm making, not the exact way it's being said. Crime is crime whether people find out or not; what I'm saying is that the media would never be frenzied over this had it been kept a private matter and was not splashed across the screens by disgruntle students/teachers/parents that introduced the story to the media.

Had nobody ever found out about it, as most cases of statutory rape either go unreported or don't hit the mass media circus, nobody would care whether or not they were getting married. That's because nobody would've known the mitigating circumstances... that's the point I was making, is it really that hard to comprehend?

I would like to have sex with your 6 year old sister. Or maybe she's even 3 years old. you are sick..you need to see a doctor...6...3 years old you really need to be in a mental hospital.

you are sick..you need to see a doctor...6...3 years old you really need to be in a mental hospital.

The poster was being sarcastic. Trying to prove a point.

The poster was being sarcastic. Trying to prove a point.all he proved is that he has some very sick phantasms...he should check with the psy doctors...just in case.

all he proved is that he has some very sick phantasms...he should check with the psy doctors...just in case. Er... no... he was constructing a hypothetical situation, such as "Say I kill your mother... what would you do?" style of thing - if he said that, it wouldn't mean he actually wanted to kill your mother.

4. I repeat my challenge: document significant numbers of "institutionalized atrocities and injustices" due to statutory rape laws in the US. Most complaints I have seen are hypothetical.

It was difficult for me to find anything useful but this link is a prime example of exactly how statutory rape laws are misused.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug03/163688.asp

I didn't go thru the thread, but if the situation were switched, and the man was the older one, he wouldn't even be out of prison by now.

you are sick..you need to see a doctor...6...3 years old you really need to be in a mental hospital.

:headbang:

So, you agree with The Alma Mater that sex with a child is sick.

The poster to whom The Alma Mater was arguing did not.

And weren't you the one arguing that sex with a 12 year old was not rape?

all he proved is that he has some very sick phantasms...he should check with the psy doctors...just in case.

Remove the plank from thine own eye.

And work on your reading comprehension while you are at it.

:headbang:
sex with a child is sick.


its totally sick...its not Rape...its even worse...its pedophilia...
send AlmaMater to the doctors...

...Say I kill your mother....you motherFucker...if you kill my moma...Ill get your ass in Jail...Guantanamo or Abugrail
:D :D :D :D

It was difficult for me to find anything useful but this link is a prime example of exactly how statutory rape laws are misused.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug03/163688.asp

That is a "prime example"?

As your own source indicates, this is a rare case of such prosecution.

Two 14 year olds. Having sex.

Defied the daughter's mother and dared her to call the police. The boy also defied his father on this.

Both kids had long histories of troubles.

The prosecutor said that while many instances of consensual sex among minors get handled informally, she felt compelled to bring charges in this case.

"The reason I charged this case was because of their attitude," Kornblum says. "I believe they had to be brought before an authority."

Prosecutors nonetheless did try to cut the teens some slack.

The cases were handled in juvenile court.

The girl pled guilty to a misdemeanor, was given simply probation, and ordered into Wraparound, a monitoring and treatment program designed to help emotionally disturbed youths at home.

She refused to comply and ran away from home while on probation.

The boy secured a "deferred prosecution agreement" in March. All he had to do was stay out of trouble until Aug. 6 and the charge would have been dismissed.

The boy refused to comply. So charges were reinstated.

He eventually pled guilty to misdemeanor fourth-degree sexual assault, received time served (for the period he was incarcerated after he reoffended), and ordered into Wraparound.

These facts do not speak of an institutionalized atrocity or injustice.

1) He was underage. Whether you agree with it or not, legally, it was rape because he could not consent.

2) She was in a position of authority over him, and therefore, the affair was not only illegal as regards statutory rape laws, the school had the right to fire her.

3) Only an emotionally retarded adult would pursue a relationship with a 13 year old child, girl or boy.

4) I give this marriage a year or two at best -- now that it's legal, the thrill will be gone.

5) I would not be surprised to find out that Fuulaa becomes a child sexual abuser himself, given the example his teacher/wife has set him.

I think the case you are talking about was this one:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/28/norway.sex.reut/

Yup

Cathenia

It was difficult for me to find anything useful but this link is a prime example of exactly how statutory rape laws are misused.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug03/163688.asp

Sounds like that movie KIDS.

Cathenia

1) He was underage. Whether you agree with it or not, legally, it was rape because he could not consent.its not rape

tecnically in the US it is legaly called stupidory rape (wich is not real rape)...and technically OJ simpson is Inocent...

some US laws are retarded...

in the US if i drop McDonalds coffe on my genitals....technically McDonalds owes me a million dollars.

The 'Love at First Sight' rule is INSANE. I said this earlier. It strikes without warning or precedent. If you can find a 12 year old girl who's TRUTHFULLY fallen in love with a 18-? year old bloke, and ask her about it, then she'll say that the law's wrong, should be changed, blah blah blah. Perhaps she was a paedophile, perhaps she had tricked him into it. What matters now is that they both believe they are in love. She's served her time, so the law is happy. They're both happy because they're married. Their children will be happy because their mother is back for good. So fuck it, and let's get on with our meaningless lives.

no such thing as love at first sight. such a thing is called lust at first sight or infatuation. how do you explain all those women who stick by thier men no matter how big a tool they are or how many times they cheat or how criminal they are? love doesn't explain it coz to love someone you have to love yourself first and if u let someone treat you like crap, that's not love, that's just infatuation/obsession or a very low self esteem that u beleive u cannot find someone better. To truly love someone you have to get to know them.
people who talk about love at first sight experienced lust and were lucky enough it happened to someone they were compatible with. for the most part, you don't hear the failure stories as often as the sucess ones

I was having sex at twelve and thirteen. Though I wish, now, that I had waited longer, I was perfectly capable of decided what I wanted and what I did not. I don't believe she should have served any time whatsoever, but, meh, I don't really care, either.

On a related note, I did make out with a foxy teacher while I was in High School. I was sixteen and she was twenty-four or five We had mutual friends and we hit it off at a party. We kissed a few times when we could snag a moment, groped a bit, and made eyes at one another in the halls, but kept it very, very cool and eventually we both just gradually dropped it, knowing that to continue would invite disaster. I still see her occasionally, and she still gives me a pretty smile, every time.

She gave me confidence in future dealings with women, she gave me the chance to -live- a fantasy that millions of schoolboys only lust over, and above all, she gave me a memory I'll forever cherish. And yet, she would be condemned as a rapist, a sex offendor, or whatever. I don't have the words to express how fucked up I think that is.

The only person I've ever told that story to is my girlfriend, soon-to-be wife. So, aside from whoever she told, which is probably noone, you are the only ones who know. Feel special?

its not rape

tecnically in the US it is legaly called stupidory rape (wich is not real rape)...and technically OJ simpson is Inocent...

some US laws are retarded...

in the US if i drop McDonalds coffe on my genitals....technically McDonalds owes me a million dollars.

1. It is rape.

2. Technically, few states have a special offense called statutory rape. Rape is rape. Ms. Letourneau was not convicted of statutory rape. She was convicted of second-degree child rape.

3. I'm not arguing "real rape" with you again. You have a very special definition of "real rape" that excludes the vast majority of rapes in this country. Your twisted views of rape fail to conform to morality, law, or reality.

4. OJ was found not guilty and is therefore technically innocent of murder. He was also found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Not an irrational result. My guess is you know jack-all about the actual evidence in either the criminal or civil case.

5. You clearly have no understanding of the McDonald's coffee case. Once again, when you have a grasp of the actual facts and not the Jay Leno version the outcome of the case made perfect sense. Nonetheless, the plaintiff -- who received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years -- did not recieve a million dollars. She was awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages. McDonald's was also penalized $480,000 in punitive damages -- because of facts showing their egregious conduct (such as having secretly settled hundreds of similar cases involving hospitalized customers including infants and children, but doing nothing to lower the temperature of their coffee -- which they admitted was too hot for consumption and was hot enough to cause third degree burns in two to seven seconds. Regardless, McDonalds did not even pay those amounts. The case was subsequently settled for an unknown lower amount. (McDonald's could have settled for the plaintiff's medical bills -- about $20,000 - before the case, but rather offerred only $800.00)

** the MORE you KNOW ***

It happened about 10 miles from one of my old houses. Where she was arrested the second time was 2 blocks from my then-girlfriends house. The whole thing was rather surreal.

It was, under our laws, rape. And, by law, she rightfully served her time. She is and ex-con, and a convicted sex offender. Also, by law, she can now live with her husband, and raise their children peacfully. I bear them no grudge, harbor no ill-will, and wish them the best of luck.

Its a bit of a creepy situation, to be sure. However, since she did her time, paid her debt to society for misusing her position and raping the child, she's now free to spend the rest of her life however she chooses.

Consent doesn't mean shit in cases of statuatory rape.

The fact that anyone gives this sick woman media coverage is disgusting. Obviously, they don't understand the concept of statuatory rape.

I think it was the boy's fault. His dad must have taught him the 'moves' a bit too early

The only thing I can say to mr. Fualaau is. Play on play on playah. I would have done his teacher if I was in his shoes, fuck yeah!!!

1. It is rape.
It is not rape

Definition

rape
verb

--to force someone to have sex when they are unwilling, using violence or threatening behaviour:
She was pulled from the car and raped.
It's difficult to understand what causes a man to rape.

rape

1 --the crime of forcefully having sex with someone against their wish:
He had committed several rapes.
He was convicted of rape.

2 --destruction of the natural world, often for profit:
The road builders were accused of the rape of the countryside.

rapist

--a person who commits rape:
The police have caught the rapist.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=65455&dict=CALD

2. Technically, few states have a special offense called statutory rape. Rape is rape. Ms. Letourneau was not convicted of statutory rape. She was convicted of second-degree child rape.for christ sake, how many kind of "rape" do you have under your sleeve?

BTW the same act...(a 17 years old havng sex with a 18 years old)
is a crime(rape) in one state/country...and it is not the second you cross a imaginary state line is no longer a crime(rape)...

Aw hell. Not this crap again! Everyone's gotta have the last word. (Just ignore that I just made a post....)

3. I'm not arguing "real rape" with you again...BLAH..BLAH..BLAHDamn...you should have said that at the beginning...

*stops reading*

Two strikes against Latourneau in my book:

1) She was his teacher. She's got an ethical responsibility to her students as an educator. You educate the kids in your care; you don't jump in the sack with them.

2) She was married and had children when it happened. How would she have felt if a male teacher was having sex with one of her daughters, and they were "in love." I wonder how understanding she'd be from a mother's eye view of the situation?

1) She was his teacher. She's got an ethical responsibility to her students as an educator. You educate the kids in your care; you don't jump in the sack with them.

Progressive sex education!!! What's the problem with it? hehehe (That was a joke, btw. I was not serious.)

Progressive sex education!!! What's the problem with it? hehehe (That was a joke, btw. I was not serious.)

I can appreciate the joke. Despite my problems with the woman, there's still a 13 year old kid inside me that wants to high-five the guy. She seems to have started a rather disturbing trend though. I've seen several more reports of female teachers sleeping with their teen students. Is this one of the new perks to offset poor working conditions and pay?

I've seen several more reports of female teachers sleeping with their teen students.
It happens more often than that...they keep it secret.

when i was 14.. I had fantasies for a hot teacher...just like half the class...

but unfortunately I did not get laid...Dylan did.

...lucky SOB

It happens more often than that...they keep it secret.

when i was 14.. I had fantasies for a hot teacher...just like half the class...

but unfortunately I did not get laid...Dylan did.

...lucky SOB

I guess I just went to the wrong school. All the teachers there were teaching when our parents were in school...

I just don't see why they have to abuse a position of authority this way. Want some sex without strings? Go to bar on the weekend.

...

I just don't see why they have to abuse a position of authority this way. Want some sex without strings? Go to bar on the weekend.LOL...you call that abuse ??

then I want Demi moore to abuse me (we used to call her Demi Moore)
:D :D :D